Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Protesters Burn U.S. Embassy in Belgrade
Massive protests in Belgrade against Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia have turned violent. According to CNN, in the last hour protestors massed in front of the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade entered the building and set it alight. The Embassy attack followed a day of protests and speeches, attended by an estimated 150,000, denouncing the countries (US, UK, German, and Italy) who recognized Kosovo's independence. The BBC has the details, focusing on the fiery rhetoric of Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica:
Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica addressed the crowds from a large stage, draped in two huge Serbian flags and with a banner reading "Kosovo is Serbia" at the back.
"As long as we live, Kosovo is Serbia," he said to cheers and applause. "Kosovo belongs to the Serbian people."
"We'll never give up Kosovo, never!" the crowd responded.
"Is there any other nation on Earth from whom [the great powers] are demanding that they give up their identity, to give up our brothers in Kosovo?" he added
Those brothers in Kosovo, of course, are the province's 120,000 ethnic Serbian inhabitants. Kosovar Albanians, most of them Muslim, constitute 90 percent of the population.
reason on Kosovo here.
|2.21.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Thank God it wasn't those radical jihadists in Kosovo or Bosnia,
just God* fearing Orthodox Christians.
Hey Dondero, WTF?
* Should an atheist capitalize God? I don't capitalze mermaid or
unicorn.
|2.21.08 @ 2:00PM|#
If the God Damned war monger George Bush hadn't lied us into a war with unsubstantiated claims of genocide against Serbia, which was never authorized by the UN and was for the unlawful neocon purpose of depriving Serbia of its lawful territory, maybe they wouldn't hate us so much.
Serbian|2.21.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Why would the US support the right of a small band of people
living in a small area to live free from the interference of their
larger, adjacent neighbors? Doctor, heal thyself.
See Utah, a history of
Ali|2.21.08 @ 2:06PM|#
I wonder what Michelle Malkin et al. has to say about that... Those crazy Muslims, er, Serbian Orthodox Christians.
|2.21.08 @ 2:08PM|#
J sub D,
I capitalize it, for the same reasons I capitalize Santa Claus and
the Easter Bunny. The word "God" is a proper noun referring to a
particular one of the group "gods," regardless of the existence or
nonexistence of the subject. Just like if you had a particular
mermaid in mind, you'd capitalize the name (i.e. "Ariel" vs.
"ariel").
So don't discriminate! Fictional characters should benefit from
grammatical rules too!
Bingo|2.21.08 @ 2:08PM|#
JsubD:
I just realized that, as an atheist, I've kinda developed a system
for god capitalization.
When arguing about religious matter or philosophical matters with
religious people, and I am specifically referring to the god they
believe in, I will capitalize it out of politeness.
When generally referring to that supreme being that some people
believe in, lower case.
When being sarcastic or making fun of religious people you gotta
capitalize it and also take out the o, G-d d*mn it!
|2.21.08 @ 2:09PM|#
In case anyone was wondering why the Kosovars would want to put some distance between them and Serbia, this should do it.
|2.21.08 @ 2:11PM|#
You make a good point Serbian. Of course the Serbians did this to themselves after their attempted genocide in Bosnia. The truth was, the Serbs were not committing genocide Kosovo. Bill Clinton claimed they were to justify the war but it wasn't true. Of course everyone believed him because of Serbia's appalling behavior in Bosnia. Frankly, the Serbs got screwed on this deal but they only have themselves to blame.
|2.21.08 @ 2:12PM|#
* Should an atheist capitalize God? I don't capitalze mermaid or
unicorn.
I wrote something the other day, and just to push a button my own
habits I did not capitalize god (like now) and waited for a bolt of
lightning.... still waiting.
|2.21.08 @ 2:13PM|#
John,
George Bush is just the biggest douche in a long line of douches.
At least Clinton didn't lie his way into Serbia. The claims of
genocide were substantiated, and of course it was a UN
operation.
At the time, the Republican were all against such ill advised
foreign interventionism. They were right. Too bad their opposition
was all about Team Red, and nothing to do with principles or
conviction.
PC|2.21.08 @ 2:14PM|#
They just want to establish a Serbian empire. First they take
back Kosovo, then Europe, then we will all have to submit to the
Serbian Christ or die.
The best way to handle this is to attack Iran.
|2.21.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Also, to the extent their was mass killing in Kosovo it was done by the Albanian Kosovars in the time between the Serbian pullout and the arrival of NATO forces. The Albanian Kosovars are no better than the Serbs. Don't think for a moment had this gone the other way, they wouldn't be burning down the US Embassy in Albania.
|2.21.08 @ 2:16PM|#
I capitalize it, for the same reasons I capitalize Santa
Claus and the Easter Bunny. The word "God" is a proper noun
referring to a particular one of the group "gods," regardless of
the existence or nonexistence of the subject. Just like if you had
a particular mermaid in mind, you'd capitalize the name (i.e.
"Ariel" vs. "ariel").
Thanks. I should have deduced that myself. My forehead continues to
flatten.
|2.21.08 @ 2:18PM|#
A key moment in the rise of Slobodon was his (and I paraphrase)
"you [ethnic Serbians] will not be beaten anymore" speech in
Kosovo.
John,
While genocide may not have occurred I think it is safe to say that
violence was uses against the ethnic Albanian population and this
lead to some rather bloody outcomes.
|2.21.08 @ 2:19PM|#
"The claims of genocide were substantiated, and of course it was
a UN operation."
It was not a UN operation until it was over. The war was a NATO
operation. It was never authorized by the Security Council and was
technically a much more blatantly illegal war than the invasion of
Iraq, which had the authorization of UNSC 1442 and Saddam's
numerous breaches of it to hang its hat on. The Kosovo war had none
of that and was based on blatant lies about what was actually
happening in Kosovo. It also created a quasi UN run colony the
resolution of which was going to create huge problems and gave the
entire Slavic world a reason to hate us and bought us absolutely no
good will from Muslims. We went to war to keep Europe from the
threat of a refugee crisis. We also intervened in the wrong Balkan
conflict. Clinton was five years too late and should have, if he
was ever going to intervene, intervened in Bosnia before the
genocide took place not after. They completely screwed the pouch on
it.
HKE|2.21.08 @ 2:23PM|#
I'm sure the demonstrations and chaos will subside when they realize that Arch Duke Ferdinand is already dead.
|2.21.08 @ 2:24PM|#
When France recognized U.S. independence, were there any anti French riots in England? I don't know but I'd wager there wasn't
|2.21.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Seems like a proper response from the Serbs --
Notice how other poor European backwaters like Spain and Georgia
aren't recognizing the new country due to their own violent
seperatist movements.
|2.21.08 @ 2:25PM|#
"The claims of genocide were substantiated"
No they weren't. They found about 1000 bodies. Milosevic was an
asshole and is burning in hell right now, but what was going on in
Kosovo was minor league compared to what happened in Bosnia. In
some weird way I can understand why Milosevic had to have been
shocked when NATO bombed him. He had killed 10s of thousands in
Bosnia and no one did anything, in fact they saved his ass with the
Dayton accords after he was losing the war to Croatia, then he
kills a few hundred Kosovars and the US Air Force shows up. Yes,
there were killings and violence in Kosovo, but never genocide,
Milosevic was acquitted of that charge at the Hague, and it was
never what Clinton sold it as.
|2.21.08 @ 2:28PM|#
J sub D,
From what I've read on the subject I'd say that France's
involvement in a war with Britain was at least one of the major
factors leading to the Gordon Riots (1780).
Brandybuck|2.21.08 @ 2:30PM|#
..still waiting.
As near as I can tell, no religion in history has ever condemned
capitalization errors as a deadly sin. Neither can I find any
sacred text reporting a lightning strike as the result of
miscapitalization. Expecting a lightning strike, facetiously or
not, is a complete non-sequitur.
|2.21.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Pointless trivia: when stationed in Hanau (1987-1990) I saw
graffiti all over downtown that read "Kosovo Republic". It was,
however, nicely stenciled and the Germans didn't care to remove any
of it. *shrugs*
Back to the action...
|2.21.08 @ 2:32PM|#
How is Kosovo becoming independent because it happens to be 90% ethnic Albanian not internationally condoned ethnic cleansing? If it isn't then why not partition Bosnia? This by the way is Clinton's policy not Bush's. It was and continues to be a mistake that should be even less debatable than Iraq.
|2.21.08 @ 2:32PM|#
John,
They have found far more than a thousand bodies. The issue is how
many were victims of war crimes.
|2.21.08 @ 2:36PM|#
See, the US can't win no matter what when it takes sides in this
centuries old conflicts.
This is a case where the US took the side of the Muslims, but how
often do you hear about how great that was from Islamic
fundamentalists?
Colin|2.21.08 @ 2:40PM|#
I wonder how we'd react if a heavily Hispanic area in the southwest declared independence.
highnumber|2.21.08 @ 2:41PM|#
History's Champion is also known as Comprehensibility's Big F*cking Loser.
|2.21.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Has Switzerland recognized Kosovo's independence? Being completely neutral always seems like a great idea, but if simple recognition of independence sets people off, how does it get handled? I'm being serious, do they just wait for everyone else to recognize first? If that's the case, complete neutrality can't work for everyone.
|2.21.08 @ 2:43PM|#
At the time, the Republican were all against such ill
advised foreign interventionism. They were right. Too bad their
opposition was all about Team Red, and nothing to do with
principles or conviction.
Nah, there are principles involved on both sides. For one, roughly
speaking Democrats are much more likely to support interventionism
if there's absolutely no way to frame it as being strategically
valuable or important to the US, whereas Republicans are the
reverse. (I'd imagine that some people are blatantly disappointed
that Iraq was not, in fact, a "war for oil.")
Haven't more countries than that recognized Kosovo?
Australia, Turkey, some others.
See here
Unsurprising that the Baltic nations would feel sympathy and
recognize; equally unsurprisingly that Spain would refuse. For
extra fun, note that Taiwan recognized Kosovo really fast, which
upset the PRC of course.
Emil|2.21.08 @ 2:43PM|#
John | February 21, 2008, 2:11pm:
How about starting to blame those states that armed Croatia and
Bosnia after 1990 and started the process of ripping Yugoslavia
apart in pieces that had nothing to do with nationalities ?
groove|2.21.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Thank God I live in the USA and not the tribal hellhole that is the rest of the world.
|2.21.08 @ 2:47PM|#
The whole world isn't a tribal hellhole full of irrational idiots. Only the Balkans and the Middle East are.
|2.21.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Has Switzerland recognized Kosovo's independence?
According to a swissinfo article linked from the Wikipedia article
above, the Swiss foreign minister has claimed "total support" for
Kosovo, but it takes a few weeks for the negotiations to go through
in order to recognize. A fairly positive statement compared to the
neutral position of, say, Brazil.
|2.21.08 @ 2:50PM|#
I wonder how we'd react if a heavily Hispanic area in the
southwest declared independence.
Particularly the odd "paleolibertarian" succession-supporting
particularly when it comes to the South but opposing immigration
particularly of Mexicans types. I wonder what their response would
be.
|2.21.08 @ 2:50PM|#
I don't understand why Western Europe couldn't have taken care of Yugoslavia themselves. Its their backward, for God's sake. We wouldn't come crying to them for if there was a civil war in Mexico.
|2.21.08 @ 2:50PM|#
"How about starting to blame those states that armed Croatia and
Bosnia after 1990 and started the process of ripping Yugoslavia
apart in pieces that had nothing to do with nationalities ?"
The German's perhaps? They had a ton of equipment that used to
belong to the East German Army that ended up arming Croatia. That
said, Croatia and Slovinia deserved independence. They are both
decent prosporous countries now that they have shed the Serbian
yoke. The really evil thing was starting the war and then imposing
an arms embargo on Bosnia leaving the Bosnian Muslims
defensless.
Fluffy|2.21.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Shouldn't all the people who bitched that Lew Rockwell is a
neoconfederate be on the side of the Serbs here?
Fuck those secession-minded Kosovars! They probably want to bring
back slavery or something!
|2.21.08 @ 2:52PM|#
"Shouldn't all the people who bitched that Lew Rockwell is a
neoconfederate be on the side of the Serbs here?"
In some ways. There is something to be said for national
sovereignty. But the Kosovars are not here and they don't have
slavery. Regardless of which side you are on, Lew Rockwell is a
racist, historically illiterate moron.
Episiarch|2.21.08 @ 2:52PM|#
I'm sure Spain is thrilled, as this surely won't encourage the Basque or Catalonians. No way.
|2.21.08 @ 2:54PM|#
John Thacker,
Sixteen currently and sixteen on the way to recognition.
_____________________________
The break-up of Yugoslavia started more or less with the death of
Tito. What pushed it along was efforts by some Serbian leaders to
reassert the dominance of Serbia in Yugoslavian politics.
nomen est omen|2.21.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Brandybuck -
Exodus 20:7 (The Third Commandment): "Thou shalt not take the name
of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him
guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
How much this applies to someone whose god isn't God is not for me
to say.
|2.21.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Anyway, as far as I know the status of Kosovo (and some other regions like it) has been problematic since long before the break-up of Yugoslavia.
|2.21.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Kosovo has been problematic since fucking 1388. Eastern Europeans and their long memories.
lunchstealer|2.21.08 @ 3:00PM|#
* Should an atheist capitalize God? I don't capitalze
mermaid or unicorn.
Surely you capitalize the Invisible Pink Unicorn, don't you? You
don't want her to confuse you for a theist and grind you beneath
her nonexistent hooves.
|2.21.08 @ 3:03PM|#
The whole world isn't a tribal hellhole full of irrational
idiots. Only the Balkans and the Middle East are.
Sub-Saharan Africa? Steeerike one!
|2.21.08 @ 3:04PM|#
The reaction over a LGF is positively hilarious. Apparently, taking the side of a Muslim state brings out their inner Ron Paul.
|2.21.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Its their backward, for God's sake.
I'll award an RC'z Law for that.
And, for criminy sakes, its "secession", not "succession."
Fred C.|2.21.08 @ 3:04PM|#
I wonder how we'd react if a heavily Hispanic area in the
southwest declared independence.
Might be good for some fun hypotheticals, but the bigger question
is - What about the current seccessionist efforts in
Mexico's south, and what kind of gas this'll throw on that
fire?
Bingo|2.21.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Cesar:
The whole world isn't a tribal hellhole full of irrational idiots. Only the Balkans and the Middle East are.
Don't forget the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula, Sri Lanka,
the entire continent of Africa...
I think that Australia is probably the only place devoid of tribal
hellhole status.
|2.21.08 @ 3:09PM|#
I'll give you Sub-Sahara Africa, but come on the Balkans and Middle East take the cake. Those people never forget in the worst sense of the term.
Episiarch|2.21.08 @ 3:10PM|#
The Europeans don't forget either but they're comfortable enough where they let it go. If things got really tough in Europe for some reason, you bet your ass they'd start remembering again.
|2.21.08 @ 3:11PM|#
"Don't forget the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula, Sri
Lanka, the entire continent of Africa..."
Don't forget India. The Muslims and the Hindus really know how to
kill each other. Basically 80 to 90 percent of the world thinks
tribally and that is why most of the countries in the world suck.
You can't have a decent government when the judge faces explusion
from his tribe if he doesn't let his own tribe walk and screw
everyone not in the tribe.
|2.21.08 @ 3:13PM|#
The western Europeans finally decided "Hey, tribal/nationalist war is really fucking stupid!" after enough of them died.
|2.21.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Nope, no genocide here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/473017.stm
Tuesday, October 12, 1999 Published at 20:55 GMT 21:55 UK
World: Europe
Kosovo mass grave uncovered
The latest mass grave is one of more than 150 in Kosovo
German forensic experts have been investigating a mass grave in the
south-western Kosovan town of Orahovac.
By Tuesday they had exhumed 15 sets of human remains out of an
estimated total of up to 90. The site was discovered on
Friday.
Peter Koehler, the head of the German forensic team, indicated that
the grave could date from July 1998, the height of the crackdown on
ethnic Albanian rebels by Yugoslav government forces.
http://www.glypx.com/BalkanWitness/graves.htm
Mass Graves Found All Over Kosovo
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Associated Press Writer
June 22, 1999
IZBICA, Yugoslavia (AP) -- Turn down the wrong road in Kosovo
looking for a mass grave of 35 ethnic Albanians, and the men there
say, no, that's the next village -- but we'll show where we buried
seven of our fathers and uncles together.
Ask someone for directions to a field holding the corpses of 142
people who were executed and he says, after that, if you want, I'll
show you a grave holding six members of a single family.
Mass graves are everywhere in Kosovo: more than outsiders can track
down in their first days back in the province; enough to keep war
crimes prosecutors busy for years, if they choose.
Apparently fearing just such prosecution, Serb soldiers,
paramilitary, police and civilians cremated many of their ethnic
Albanian victims, or returned to exhume corpses for burning or
reburial in single graves, survivors say.
But while the 2 1/2-month war was time enough for killing untold
thousands, it wasn't enough time for cleaning up afterward. The
signs of slaughter abound:
A Kosovo Liberation Army guerrilla with a bandana tied over his
nose pulls on a rope snaking from the ground, lifting out the head
of one of 10 people buried there. The cord that strangled the
victims is still around the neck.
Outside Djakovica, an Italian soldier points his foot at a human
ribcage in a gravel pit that villagers say holds the bodies of 86
people massacred in the southwestern city. "A boy," the soldier
guesses.
A woman's skull rests among the charred bones of 26 people who were
shot and then had their house burned around them in the village of
Cara Luka, 22 miles southwest of the capital, Pristina. Hair
intact, head tilted back, her mouth is wide open. "As if she's
still screaming," people studying the scene tell each
other.
I imagine there's a difference between you and a Holocaust denier,
John, but it isn't occuring to me right now.
Sammy|2.21.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Thank God I live in the USA and not the tribal hellhole that
is the rest of the world.
You speak too soon my friend, you speak too soon
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10697106
|2.21.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Joe, so why couldn't the western Europeans stop it on their own?
Its on their freaking borders. Why do we always have to clean up
everyone else's mess?
Can you imagine France and Britain helping us if we had to
intervene to stop a civil war in Mexico? No, I didn't think so.
.|2.21.08 @ 3:17PM|#
We wouldn't come crying to them for if there was a civil war
in Mexico.
Sorry, I can't resist:
You're right, we would just annex part of their territory.
|2.21.08 @ 3:17PM|#
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Reports/homepage.html
Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting is a new chapter in
our effort to document the extent of human rights and humanitarian
law violations in Kosovo, and to convey the size and scope of the
Kosovo conflict. The information in this report is drawn from
refugee accounts, NGO documentation, press accounts, and
declassified information from government and international
organization sources.
The atrocities against Kosovar Albanians documented in this report
occurred primarily between March and late June, 1999. This document
is a follow-up to the U.S. Department of State's previous human
rights report, Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo, which
was released on May 10, 1999.
A central question is the number of Kosovar Albanian victims of
Serbian forces in Kosovo. Many bodies were found when KFOR and the
ICTY entered Kosovo in June 1999. The evidence is also now clear
that Serbian forces conducted a systematic campaign to burn or
destroy bodies, or to bury the bodies, then rebury them to conceal
evidence of Serbian crimes. On June 4, at the end of the conflict,
the Department of State issued the last of a series of weekly
ethnic cleansing reports, available at
www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/rpt_990604_ksvo_ethnic.html
concluding that at least 6,000 Kosovar Albanians were victims of
mass murder, with an unknown number of victims of individual
killings, and an unknown number of bodies burned or destroyed by
Serbian forces throughout the conflict.
On November 10, 1999, ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte told
the U.N. Security Council that her office had received reports of
more than 11,000 killed in 529 reported mass grave and killing
sites in Kosovo. The Prosecutor said her office had exhumed 2,108
bodies from 195 of the 529 known mass graves. This would imply
about 6,000 bodies in mass graves in Kosovo if the 334 mass graves
not examined thus far contain the same average number of victims.
To this total must be added three important categories of victims:
(1) those buried in mass graves whose locations are unknown, (2)
what the ICTY reports is a significant number of sites where the
precise number of bodies cannot be counted, and (3) victims whose
bodies were burned or destroyed by Serbian forces. Press accounts
and eyewitness accounts provide credible details of a program of
destruction of evidence by Serbian forces throughout Kosovo and
even in Serbia proper. The number of victims whose bodies have been
burned or destroyed may never be known, but enough evidence has
emerged to conclude that probably around 10,000 Kosovar Albanians
were killed by Serbian forces.
|2.21.08 @ 3:18PM|#
I think that Australia is probably the only place devoid of
tribal hellhole status.
Australian aboribinal people live in tribal hellholes.
George|2.21.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Joe, so why couldn't the western Europeans stop it on their
own? Its on their freaking borders. Why do we always have to clean
up everyone else's mess?
Can you imagine France and Britain helping us if we had to
intervene to stop a civil war in Mexico? No, I didn't think
so.
A better analogy would be Americans fighting a civil war in
California against Hispanic seperatists armed by Cuba and Venezuela
and France and Britain bombing Washington.
As Pat Buchanan pointed out, the 1990s "genocide" claimed less than
one percent of the casualties of Lincoln's war.
|2.21.08 @ 3:20PM|#
The whole world isn't a tribal hellhole full of irrational
idiots. Only the Balkans and the Middle East are.
And Africa. And the Indian subcontinent. And Southeast Asia. And
North and South America and Australia avoid being 'tribal
hellholes' due to their current occupants' willingness to commit
genocide. China and Russia keep their minority populations in line
via brutal repression... am I missing anything?
|2.21.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Cesar,
I could see Spain sending forces there perhaps. I think it would
depend on the historical relationship between the European nation
and the nation in conflict.
Bingo|2.21.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Oh jesus christ, is this the thread where joe drags out his
favorite war purely for partisan reasons?
Do you want me to link to the mass graves we found in Iraq and use
that for justification of that whole clusterfuck?
|2.21.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Cesar,
Because they were a bunch of pussy-wimps?
Hopefully, the success of the operation and complete absence of
casualties among both combat and peacekeeping forces will encourage
the Euros to take a little more responsibility for their back yard.
If so, Clark and Albright will have done humanity, Europe, and
America a great service.
Already, our leadership there got the Germans to step up for a
peacekeeping role.
But all that aside, I can respect the idea that we shouldn't
intervene in faraway lands, even if we could save a great many
lives, as in Kosovo and Darfur. I disagree, but I can respect that
as a principled position that comes from honorable impulses.
What I cannot respect, and what no decent human being can respect,
is genocide denial.
PC|2.21.08 @ 3:23PM|#
"Joe, so why couldn't the western Europeans stop it on their
own? Its on their freaking borders. Why do we always have to clean
up everyone else's mess?"
Because we will. Let's say you have a bug infestation. You have a
choice between two exterminators, one has the best quality and is
free, the other is average quality and highly expensive, which one
are you going to pick?
|2.21.08 @ 3:23PM|#
North and South America and Australia avoid being 'tribal hellholes' due to their current occupants' willingness to commit genocide.
Only in the U.S., Canada, and Argentina. In the rest of the
Americas, theres still a big indigenous presence.
Not that there isn't bitterness in South Ameirca. Ask the
Paraguayans about their lost territory when they were gang-raped by
their neighbors. But they don't put Brazilians in gas chambers over
it.
Tacos mmm...|2.21.08 @ 3:23PM|#
I imagine there's a difference between you and a Holocaust denier, John, but it isn't occuring to me right now.
It's not genocide if you have a bunch of little graves. You need
one big one!
|2.21.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Cesar,
In other words, if there was a civil war in some former British
colony in the Americas then I could see the British government
getting involved militarily to end it.
|2.21.08 @ 3:24PM|#
As Pat Buchanan pointed out, the 1990s "genocide" claimed
less than one percent of the casualties of Lincoln's
war.
That's because it was stopped. Over the objections of some.
Bingo,
Since none of those mass graves in Iraq were actually being filled
at the time of our invasion, as opposed to Kosovo, no, you can't
really do that.
But I'll give you this much - I would never deny that Saddam
Hussein carried out a mass slaughter in the Anfal campaign, and
pretend not to see the bodies, just to slam George Bush.
|2.21.08 @ 3:25PM|#
Calidore-
I'm just saying every great power should take care of their
backyard if possible. And its very possible for western Europe--a
wealthy, developed region of the world--to do that.
|2.21.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Here's a good one.
Photographic evidence.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/phot_06.html
|2.21.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Cesar,
I'd say they are generally doing a better job of that now than was
the case in the early 1990s (from what I've read in press reports,
etc.).
|2.21.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Cesar | February 21, 2008, 2:47pm | #
"The whole world isn't a tribal hellhole full of irrational idiots.
Only the Balkans and the Middle East are."
How about those nice civilized folks that sponsored the breakup of
Yugoslavia (you know who they are, right now they are refusing to
do their share in Afghanistan) ? How about the nice civilized folks
that only a few decades before slaughtered their own loyal
minorities ? How about the nice civilized folks that a couple of
decades before that fucking raped the Balkans (there are some 1919
reports of US Red Cross on how those nice and civilized folks
requisitioned not only all the food they could find in the occupied
areas, but also all the metal they could lay their hands on,
including the cooking pots) ?
The borders of the republics of Yugoslavia had less to do with
"ethnic realities" than the borders of US of A states. Then some
civilized and nice fuckups smuggle weapons inside, arm the local
governments, the local governments declare that "who is not with us
is not true [Croatian/Slovenian/etc.] and would better pack up", so
those that have a chance to flee take that chance, those that don't
get recruited in the army and there you go ... "freedom fighters"
liberate the poor republics from the evil federal government.
How about US taking some responsibility for giving Kosovo to Serbia
in the first place in 1912 ?
It is true that the Serbians are quite dumb and can't see that they
have already lost. It is also true that the Serbians were "good
people" only when they died in your wars: WWI did not start with
the assassination of Ferdinand; WWI started when the same nice and
civilized people I mentioned above started to move troops towards
the French border.
.|2.21.08 @ 3:28PM|#
I'm just saying every great power should take care of their
backyard if possible. And its very possible for western Europe--a
wealthy, developed region of the world--to do that.
They don't do it because our government seemingly WANTS to do it.
Its like welfare: They are just being free riders.
Once we run out of money and nobody is willing to lend to us
anymore either, it will be China's turn.
|2.21.08 @ 3:28PM|#
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/03/22/details_of_kosovo_war_crimes_emerge/
Details of Kosovo war crimes emerge
By Dusan Stojanovic, Associated Press Writer | March 22, 2007
BELGRADE, Serbia --Decomposing corpses were dumped into a
trash-filled ditch. Blindfolded and hands bound, three
Albanian-Americans were led to its edge and shot in the head, their
bodies joining the others.
The details, emerging for the first time at the trial of two former
Serbian commandos, shed light on how the regime of late Serbian
President Slobodan Milosevic tried to conceal atrocities against
ethnic Albanians in the 1998-99 Kosovo war.
PC|2.21.08 @ 3:29PM|#
"Shouldn't all the people who bitched that Lew Rockwell is a
neoconfederate be on the side of the Serbs here?"
No, my history books say Lincoln was the greatest thing since
sliced bread. The Serbians are just aggressively trying to crush
self determination.
|2.21.08 @ 3:29PM|#
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1294213.php/New_mass_grave_of_Kosovo_war_victims_found_in_Serbia
New mass grave of Kosovo war victims found in Serbia
Apr 20, 2007, 14:55 GMT
Pristina - A new mass grave which reportedly holds the remains of
Kosovo conflict victims, has been uncovered in Serbia, officials
from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on
Friday.
Herardo Patrandolfi, the head of the ICRC office in the breakaway
Serbian province of Kosovo, said that both the ICRC and the United
Nations administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) have been notified of the
new grave site.
But you should probably take this one with a grain of salt. I mean,
the Red Cross? They're one of those commie-symp, America-hating
groups, right? Talk about your BDS.
|2.21.08 @ 3:30PM|#
I wonder how we'd react if a heavily Hispanic area in the southwest declared independence.
I guess that would depend on if the U.S. launched a genocide
campaign against Hispanic Americans in those areas first, wouldn't
it?
If the U.S. government did the same thing as Serbia, then I might
very well side with those successionist movements. However, given
that the U.S. is clearly on the opposite side of the coin (actually
subsidizing mass immigration of Hispanics into the United States),
I would probably be skeptical of any succession movement.
|2.21.08 @ 3:31PM|#
It should be noted that the vast majority of KFOR personnel have not and still do not come from the U.S.
|2.21.08 @ 3:31PM|#
I agree with Calidore: in the aftermath of the Kosovo operation, the powers of Western Europe have become more, not less, willing to keep their house in order.
|2.21.08 @ 3:32PM|#
How about US taking some responsibility for giving Kosovo to Serbia in the first place in 1912 ?
Uh, I'm pretty sure the US had nothing to do at all with European
politics prior to World War I.
|2.21.08 @ 3:34PM|#
If the western Europeans play such a central role now I'd really like to know why the British, French, German, and Italian embassies aren't being burned.
|2.21.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Because the Serbian government hasn't been whipping up mobs against the French, Germans, and Italians; and because the French, Germans, and Italians didn't play a "central role," but a secondary one - in 1999.
|2.21.08 @ 3:38PM|#
"Cesar | February 21, 2008, 3:32pm | #
Uh, I'm pretty sure the US had nothing to do at all with European
politics prior to World War I."
They were at the conference that decided who should take Kosovo
when Turkey lost it. France, Germany, Austria, Italy, UK were there
too.
|2.21.08 @ 3:38PM|#
So western Europe gets the benefit of a stabilized Balkans, while we pay the price of being hated by yet another country. What a great deal!
|2.21.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Cesar,
FWIW, I've read that the U.S. did send a representative over to
Europe in 1914 in an effort to forestall a conflagration. I just
mention it because your comment brought that to mind.
|2.21.08 @ 3:40PM|#
They were at the conference that decided who should take Kosovo when Turkey lost it. France, Germany, Austria, Italy, UK were there too.
And I wonder how much influence the US carried at that time in
Europe? I'm guessing close to nil.
|2.21.08 @ 3:45PM|#
"Cesar | February 21, 2008, 3:40pm | #
And I wonder how much influence the US carried at that time in
Europe? I'm guessing close to nil."
Well, if you read Italian or French, I might recommend you some
1913 titles containing details on the proceedings of the 1912
conference, and details on the negotiations. You could probably
find them in a "good library nearby"
|2.21.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Emil, theres a huge difference between a US delegation being
present at a peace treaty and saying "The US gave Kosovo to Serbia
in 1912".
It would be like saying "Portugal gave Alsace-Lorraine back to
France" because they had a delegation present at Versailles.
|2.21.08 @ 3:49PM|#
It is an interesting amalgam that denies the Serbs' warcrimes,
though. Serbain front groups, paleo-libertarians, various
revolutionary communist groups (who were able to defend Milosevic
while denouncing the U.S.) as well as your typical anti-war
lefties.
If you google search on "Kosovo mass graves," it's interested to
find the documentary evidence interspersed with evidence-lite bits
from "Common Dreams," "lewrockwell," and "the International
Socialist Society."
|2.21.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Yes Joe I am a holocaust denier but you have kittens when I
mention your defense of Saddam. Can we say projection? From the NYT
today,
"An estimated 10,000 civilians were killed in the 1998-99 conflict,
many of them Albanians, while 1,500 Serbs died in revenge killings
that followed."
As many as 10,000. That is not genocide. Further, some of those
people were killed by US bombs and as bystanders to the fighting
between the KLA and Serbians. Meanwhile in the last ten years the
UN has been aiding and abetting the cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo.
hardly any Serbs live outside a small NW enclave anymore. The
Kosovar Alabamians have engaged in systematic terrorizing of the
Serbian population to ensure that all of them got the message. It
is pretty nasty stuff.
One other thing, Holocaust denier? You can do better than that Joe.
Please don't confirm my suspicions about what a horrible bitter
person you are.
And why you are doing all that research, why don't research a
little bit about Saddam Huisain's reign of terror? None of that
seems to matter when we are talking about the war in Iraq but all
of this matters now that we are talking about Clinton's war. You
are such pathetic hypocrite. Truthfully, Clinton was right to bomb
Serbia, despite the fact that it was not genocide. Milosevic needed
to go and it should have been done in the mid 90s. I supported the
war at the time and support it now, although it was done under
dubious pretenses. I just love to point out the hypocrisy of people
like you that love any war a Democrat dreams up but then discover
pacifism when the wrong team starts one. Why do Kosovar bodies mean
so much to you Joe but Arab ones so little? Is it because they look
like you?
economist|2.21.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Dammit, I'm sick and tired of hearing about the Balkans. Why the hell did our State Department have to say anything about Kosovo? It has no tangible effect, except for pissing off Serbs, and brings up the threat of us getting drawn into that whole bloody mess again. Last thing we need at a time like this. I say screw this crap, and let the Serbs and Kosovars fight it out between themselves.
Taktix®|2.21.08 @ 3:51PM|#
So western Europe gets the benefit of a stabilized Balkans,
while we pay the price of being hated by yet another country. What
a great deal!
Act NOW! And we'll throw in a free Wes Clark.
Operators are standing by.
|2.21.08 @ 3:52PM|#
This is one area that I agree with joe. While it always sounds
like it is best to leave everyone alone, allowing genocides to
happen isn't one of those times. Part of our problem here is that
we don't just stop genocides. We contribute to all sorts of
fucking-with-people around the world. If we just minded our own
business EXCEPT when we are trying to intervene in genocides, I
don't think even most libertarians would object to such
actions.
Of course, people are so damned proud, they refuse to ever say we
screwed up here or there. They will justify everything until they
take their last breath. A little humility and respect would make
our occasional interferences accepted, as we'd have the moral high
ground in the eyes of almost everyone around the world.
Some might argue that stopping genocides will only piss off those
that started the conflict. Well, someone's always gonna get pissed
off. That doesn't mean allowing 800,000 Rwandans to die is
justifiable.
|2.21.08 @ 3:57PM|#
"Some might argue that stopping genocides will only piss off
those that started the conflict. Well, someone's always gonna get
pissed off. That doesn't mean allowing 800,000 Rwandans to die is
justifiable."
You are right. We should have never let that happen. We also should
not have let Saddam gas the Kurds and slaughter the marsh Arabs.
The problem is that to stop most of these genocides is not just a
question of bombing for a few weeks and going home. It also can
mean staying and killing a few people. It means sending in troops
and staying there for a long time. We have been in Kosovo for
almost ten years now. We would have had to do the same in Rwanda or
the Sudan today. What makes me angry is the very same people who
scream that we should do something about Darfur, would be the first
ones to be marching on the capital so "stop the illegal war against
Sudan" if we ever actually did anything about it. I am all for
stopping genocide but everyone needs to understand that in doing so
we are going to have to spend some blood, treasure and get our
hands dirty.
|2.21.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Yes Joe I am a holocaust denier but you have kittens when I
mention your defense of Saddam.
The difference being, I have never defended Saddam, nor denied his
crimes, while you actually have, repeatedly, denied the war crimes
commited by Milosevic.
As many as 10,000. That is not genocide.
No, it's an interrupted genocide. One that barely got off the
ground. Some of us consider it a good thing that it did not.
Please don't confirm my suspicions about what a horrible bitter
person you are.
You're repeating genocide-denial propaganda because you can't stand
to admit that Bill Clinton did something good, and I'm the bitter
one? Whatever.
And why you are doing all that research, why don't research a
little bit about Saddam Huisain's reign of terror?
Because I've never denied Saddam Husseins' reign of terror, while
you consistently deny Milosevic's ethnic cleansing.
You are such pathetic hypocrite. And you are, as usual, on
the wrong side of the facts.
Why do Kosovar bodies mean so much to you Joe but Arab ones so
little? Arab bodies mean a great deal to me. That's why I
supported keeping Saddam Hussein a box, and tried to keep dimwits
like yourself from creating so many thousands of them with your
ill-advised war - because you've both shown a remarkable eagerness
to turn live Arabs into dead ones, and need to be restrained.
economist|2.21.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Actually, Nick, I think the question is whether our soldiers should have to fight and die and our citizens (or future citizens) pay taxes to intervene where there is no direct threat to the nation's security.
|2.21.08 @ 3:59PM|#
What makes me angry is the very same people who scream that
we should do something about Darfur, would be the first ones to be
marching on the capital so "stop the illegal war against Sudan" if
we ever actually did anything about it.
John can't read Red Cross reports, but he sure can read minds!
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:00PM|#
"You can't stand to admit that Bill Clinton did a good
thing"
Well, while I'm not agreeing with John (one of our resident war
hawks), I don't consider continuing military adventurism for
"humanitarian" purposes a good thing. I just wish Bush had kept to
his promise about a "humble" foreign policy. We could have avoided
a lot of trouble.
Nathan Bedford Forrest|2.21.08 @ 4:00PM|#
I suppose you cosmotarian balkan secessionists will now agree the Confederacy had a right to secede.
|2.21.08 @ 4:03PM|#
economist,
I respectfully disagree on your proposed course of action, but I
commend you for at least acknowledging the facts as they have been
shown to exist.
|2.21.08 @ 4:04PM|#
economist,
What if those actions are not for "humanitarian" reasons, but for
honest-to-goodness, no scare quotes humanitarian reasons?
Are you against faking humanitarian motives, or against acting on
them?
|2.21.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Don't get me wrong, economist, I hold the same objections as you
for the same reasons. I'm trying to think of a legitimate
way.
I was thinking that groups like Blackwater, being private could be
contracted by the UN, but of course it was the UN that has pussied
out with regard to Rwanda and Darfur. And, I know, the UN is paid
for in taxes, blah, blah, blah. But someone has to stop this
killing. And, it has to be paid for somehow unless we'd rather just
drag people off the street, hand them an old used gun, and say
"good luck."
I don't know the answer, but WE, the world collective WE, need to
do something.
Any ideas?
.|2.21.08 @ 4:07PM|#
I suppose you cosmotarian balkan secessionists will now
agree the Confederacy had a right to secede.
Yes -- And the Union had the DUTY to invade and occupy
(indefinately) a land where the people were abusing fundamental
human rights in an institutional and systematic manner.
|2.21.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Do I have to turn in my libertarian card now? I got ripped a new one on another post today for suggesting one form of government interference was not as objectionable as a different form.
|2.21.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Joe,
Bill Clinton did do a good thing. He got rid of Milosovic. Further,
I don't deny Milosovic's ethnic cleansing, such as it was, but
whatever it was it was a lot worse in Bosnia. Bill Clinton never
went to war when Milosovic was killing 10s of thousands of
Bosnians. If he was right to go in to Kosovo, he was downright
immoral to stand and watch as the real Bosnian genocide unfolded.
Clinton went to war against Serbia on very dubious pretenses and
with no UN authorization. I was and am willing to give him the
benefit of the doubt and be glad that Milosovic is gone. You would
never do the same had Clinton been a Republican.
Lastly, if keeping Saddam in a box, while he killed millions of his
own, why wasn't keeping Milosovic in a box good enough? Kosovo was
a purely internal matter. Milosovic wasn't anymore of a threat to
his neighbors than Saddam. Why do love containment so much in Iraq
but not in Serbia? Oh, Iraq was started by a Republican. Now I
understand.
|2.21.08 @ 4:10PM|#
joe
I'll ask you, since you seem to have the websites closer to hand:
What is the generally accepted number for Kosovar Alabanians killed
during that mess? I ask because, in some slight defense of John, I
too had gotten the impression over the years that the tales of
genocide had been overblown, and the Serbs, while definitely
engaged in some pretty awful stuff which created a refugee crisis,
were not engaged in rapine and plunder to the degree we were told
at the time.
I say this as a person did and still does support the war to stop
said actions by the Serbs, and not some sort of Paleo, Chomskyite,
Serb partisan, or Lew Rockwell-type.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Yes, it's very sad that the Sudanese are murdering people in
Darfur, and it shows just how well these former colonies govern
themselves. However, why should we allow more soldiers to be
killed, spend more, and get even more people pissed off at us? I
think I have a timeline of US intervention, and much of it is to
remedy the effects of past intervention (except for the first
one).
1. WWI: We have no compelling interest in the war and good ol'
Woody gets us into the thick of it. We contribute just enough to
make sure Germany is thoroughly trounced and has to accept any crap
thrown its way in the Treaty of Versailles. A few years later,
Hitler uses the treaty as a target to get Germans riled up in favor
of his party. Here comes our next event.
2. WWII: US, under the benevolent guidance of FDR, enters the war
uncritically on the side of the Soviet Union. Much pro-Soviet
rhetoric ,and some massive concessions to the Soviets at Yalta,
later, they emerge as an enemy in all but name. Then they get
nukes.
3. Cold War conflicts: Pretty much trying to contain the Soviet
mess from the Cold War. While Korea and Vietnam are the best-known
interventions, there are also interventions in the Middle
East.
4. So here we are now.
|2.21.08 @ 4:15PM|#
The Balkans have been a mess for a long long time. The instability there is not an issue of right and wrong but of power. Any foreign policy in that region that aims to help the weak at the expense of the powerful is misguided, no matter how well meaning it may be. Stability and not morality should be first aim. The conditions in which people can be expected to treat each other well will only arise out of a stability that comes from working with rather than against local powers. Our policies in that region have been far less then helpful because we allowed it to be guided by some sense of who the bad guys were and who were their victims. The truth in that region is that today's villain was yesterday's victim and these roles will just keep switching around until enough stabilizing power is consolidated to make breaking the vicious cycle possible. That means working with the Coates and Serbs, not undermining them and bombing them.
|2.21.08 @ 4:16PM|#
"WWII: US, under the benevolent guidance of FDR, enters the war
uncritically on the side of the Soviet Union."
Japan bombed us and the Germans declared war on us. What were we
supposed to do? We bear no responsibility for that war. And don't
give me that "we cut off oil to the Japanese" bullshit. Nothing
says one country has to trade with another. If Iran or Venezula
stopped selling oil to the US, would you support a suprise attack
against them over it? If not, then how can you justify Japan's
attack on the US. The Germans did not have to declare war on the
US. Roosevelt did not have the public support to go to war in
Europe even after Pearl Harbor. People wanted war with the Japanese
not the Germans. Had Hitler not gone whacko and declared war on the
US, there is serious doubt whether Congress would have declared war
on Germany.
|2.21.08 @ 4:18PM|#
A Europe half-controlled by the Soviet Union was infinitely preferable to a Europe fully controlled by the Third Reich.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:22PM|#
I noticed joe's quote about my use of quotation marks. The reason is that, while it may help some people to interfere in affairs that do not directly concern us, it does harm the soldiers sent to fight and die, the taxpayers forced to give up their wealth to fight the war, unintended civilian casualties on the side of the people we're fighting against, and, in the case of the Balkans and Iraq, civilian victims of reprisals by the formerly oppressed side. I don't see how this is "humanitarian".
|2.21.08 @ 4:22PM|#
John,
Bill Clinton never went to war when Milosovic was killing 10s
of thousands of Bosnians.
Uh, Bill Clinton launched airstrikes against Serbian forces in
Bosnia, and a few days later, their operations ended at they were
at the peace table. It took too long, but he most certainly did
take action in Bosnia.
Sure, the death toll was higher. That's the difference between
stopping that business ASAP and letting it go on for years.
Lastly, if keeping Saddam in a box, while he killed millions of
his own, why wasn't keeping Milosovic in a box good enough? It
was. That's why we drove him out of Bosnia and Kosovo, but didn't
invade Serbia to depose him. Like the smart George Bush did with
Saddam.
Kosovo was a purely internal matter. Crimes against
humanity = loss of soveriegn rights in my book.
But hey, keep yammering about political parties. It might help
camouflage how badly you have mangled the facts.
|2.21.08 @ 4:22PM|#
History's Campion,
There is some truth in what you are saying. Honestly, the best
policy in some of these places is to make sure both sides are
equally armed. One of the reasons why there were so many deaths in
Bosnia was the UN arms embargo that left the Bosnian Muslims
defenseless. In Dafur we would be better off sending the people who
are being killed guns and let them defend themselves. Rather than
send the 82 airborne in, we would be better off sending them arms
and Special Forces people to train them. When one side can shoot
back, it takes all of the fun out of ethnic cleansing. But, good
luck in selling that fact to your typical international do
gooder.
|2.21.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Jammer,
8-10,000 is probably a good ballpark figure - it's probably the
right order of magnitude.
And yes, the initial reports were exaggerated. There weren't
100,000 military-aged Kosovars dead when we began the airstrikes -
though as Bosnia shows us, there would have been at least had many
had we done nothing.
|2.21.08 @ 4:24PM|#
joe refers to:
the success of the operation
Defined how? Isn't the UN/NATO still there? Didn't someone just
secede? Isn't the UN/NATO having to crank up security to prevent
violence?
Doesn't that all that mean that there isn't yet a widely accepted
and legitimate government that can assure peace and security within
its borders?
Just askin'.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:25PM|#
John,
I am arguing we could have taken an approach that did not give the
Soviets so much opportunity to dominate a postwar vacuum. Like
dealing with Japan, the immediate threat to our country, before
Europe. Nazis versus Commies fight to the death would probably have
made the European operation significantly easier, and weakened the
Soviet Union further, making it less of a postwar threat. And we
should have chucked all the "uncle Joe" crap.
|2.21.08 @ 4:26PM|#
I know, economist, all good points. One could argue we'd have
been better off to get into WWI on the side of our choosing early
and end it quick, saving countless lives. After that, the butterfly
effect tells us the entire world would be different and WWII
probably never happens, etc.
Hindsight tells me personally that we should have stayed out of WWI
and let it stalemate naturally. WWII probably never happens and 7
million people aren't exterminated because Hitler doesn't come to
power.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:26PM|#
John,
Remember when we sent weapons to Saddam to help fight the
Iranians?
|2.21.08 @ 4:27PM|#
"Kosovo was a purely internal matter. Crimes against humanity =
loss of soveriegn rights in my book."
So Joe, Saddam lost his sovereign rights when he committed any
number of crimes against humanity. I can agree with that. I am glad
to see you have come around to supporting the war.
Also, Milosevic was losing the Bosnian war and on the verge of
losing power and Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright saved him
through the Dayton accords. Had they done nothing, the Croats would
have taken care of him. Further, they stood by idly wile 100s of
thousands were killed. They only intervened at the very end of the
war, after it had been settled and the Serbs were losing. He was a
day late and dollar short. If you were not such a partisan moron,
you might understand history a little bit. But you are incapable of
admitting that anyone with a D after their name ever made a
mistake. It is just pathetic sometimes Joe.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Nick
Actually, I'm not that optimistic. But I think we could have
avoided the Cold War by taking a more prudent stance in our WWII
relationship with the USSR.
|2.21.08 @ 4:29PM|#
'Cesar | February 21, 2008, 3:48pm | #
Emil, theres a huge difference between a US delegation being
present at a peace treaty and saying "The US gave Kosovo to Serbia
in 1912".
It would be like saying "Portugal gave Alsace-Lorraine back to
France" because they had a delegation present at Versailles.'
My fault, it was 1913.
USA + UK + France + Germany + Austria + Italy decided who gets
what.
I don't think Portugal had a vote at Versailles. US had a vote at
the London Conference in 1913. Of course, then the Serbians were
the "freedom fighters" and the evil empire was Turkey.
History of the Balkan Wars, in a nutshell:
- Russia arms a rebellion in the Western Balkans, so those guys
press-gang their neighbours into a army, fight off the Ottomans,
get some degree of independence and call their state Serbia.
- Austria squishes the life out Serbia and the Serbs by trade
embargoes (Serbia was landlocked and could trade with the rest of
the world only by crossing territories controlled by Turkey or
Austria), so the Serbs surrender and start playing nice.
- Russia gets pissed off and starts sponsoring rebels in the
Eastern Balkans, who press-gang their neighbors into an army, but
get squished by the Turks so Russia has to get to war. At the end
you have two rival states (Bulgaria and Serbia), each controlled by
elites that could not have resisted at the top one week without the
support of their Russian or Austrian patrons.
- Russia and Austria decide it's time to get rid of Turkey, so they
finance Bulgaria and Serbia to take on Turkey. When Turkey is
beaten with help from the Greeks, Kosovo is given to Serbia,
Albania is virtually given to Italy and the rest of the Turkish
possesions in the Balkans are split between the victors.
- Austria and Russia are not at ease with the new power balance, so
Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece start renegotiating the London Treaty,
and with the help of Rumania, another Austrian satellite, Bulgaria
is squished.
- Franz Ferdinand is assassinated; Serbia, which had nothing to do
with G.Princip, the assassin, is served an ultimatum, which it
accepts almost completely, but Austria had to play it safe and make
sure the "Illirian" idea (the freedom fighters of the 1914, which
hoped to unite all the southerns Slavs) is done with so they
declare war to Serbia, Russia declares war to Austria. Germany
declares war to Russia and because it had no war plans in which it
was supposed to fight only with Russia, it used the plan designed
for fighting France and Russia in the same time and begins sending
troops to the French border, too. The French and the British get
spooked etc.
- the Bulgarians do not want to enter the war so their elites get a
better deal from the Germans and attack Serbia and help squishing
it.
- the Rumanians do not want to enter the war, but by 1916 the
Russians and the Austrians are already fighting each other on
Rumanian territory, so they choose the side they think has the best
chances to win in the long term.
- the Greeks do not want to enter the war so France and England
take over, confiscate the fleet and sponsor an insurrection against
the legitimate government, recruit an army and set their own
government in charge of Greece.
- Serbia, Montenegro and the 2/3 of Rumania that were occupied get
so savagely plundered that by 1919, when the Red Cross gets there,
there was no moneyed economy: in Southern Rumania sugar was the
main currency, and in Montenegro overcoats were used instead of
money.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:30PM|#
joe,
I just want to ask you a purely hypothetical question. If you had
the choice to either enter the original Balkan conflict or not,
would you have followed Clinton's path, or stayed out?
|2.21.08 @ 4:32PM|#
"John,
Remember when we sent weapons to Saddam to help fight the
Iranians?"
Yes. Of course that was when he was an ordinary Arab thug and
before he gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait. What is amazing is
that Saddam was so dumb. He could have been our thug and still be
in power but he never really understood the US and his behavior was
so appalling even the US couldn't have supported him after
1988.
Kosovo is Serbia|2.21.08 @ 4:32PM|#
So why did Clinton need to pretend there were 100,000 people
murdered if the case for intervention was so airtight?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War#Criticism_of_the_case_for_war
And this business about respecting the "territorial integrity" of
Bosnia is bullshit, too. The borders of Yugoslavia were
deliberately drawn to prevent Serbia from having overwhelming
influence. This was accomplished by arbitrarily placing a large
section of their territory in Bosnia.
When Croatia declared independence, ratified a constitution that
did not recognize minority rights, and began decorating Ustasi war
criminals it was entirely predictable that Serbs in eastern
Slavonia as well as Bosnia would be worried. And make an attempt to
regain the territory full of its people that was severed for
entirely political reasons.
Bingo|2.21.08 @ 4:32PM|#
Wow, WWI was really a world changing event. Even the Bolshevik Revolution might not have occurred if things played out differently
|2.21.08 @ 4:32PM|#
economist,
Our casualties in the Balkans add up to zero (0).
The number of deaths from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was a tiny
fraction of that in Bosnia.
If you don't think the salvation of tens of thousands of lives is
worth the life of a single American soldier or a few million
dollars, that's one thing. But don't go into denial mode, and
pretend that such operations cannot accomplish genuine humanitarian
ends.
|2.21.08 @ 4:33PM|#
As I have been asking for over a decade, where is Bismarck when
you need him? We might have to update the "Pomeranian grenadier"
for "redneck reservist from Alabama" but otherwise....
(By the way, I'll just preempt the "North Dakota" answer to my
rhetorical question myself.)
WTF we have been doing in the Balkans since The Slick Willy Days is
beyond me. If this isn't another example of deserving blowback from
meddling, I don't know what is.
|2.21.08 @ 4:35PM|#
RC Dean,
The success of the operation was the end of the ethnic cleansing
campaign Operation Horseshoe.
You are correct, however, that the situation has not yet stablized
to the point that the few battallions of troops in the security
mission can leave.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:39PM|#
I like your argument here joe. Basically, it's okay to lead the US into a war against an entity that poses no direct threat to us and risk American lives while spending heavily, as long as there's a "humanitarian" end. And it looks like you falsified some of your statistics. And you didn't answer my hypothetical question.
|2.21.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Jesus, you are stupid, John.
So Joe, Saddam lost his sovereign rights when he committed any
number of crimes against humanity. I can agree with that. I am glad
to see you have come around to supporting the war.
No, dimwit, this is why I supported kicking him out of Kuwait, the
sanctions (though they could have been run better), and the
no-fly/no-drive zones. This is what's called "opposing the
war."
I've spent the entire thread laying out substantive, factual
distinctions in policy and in the events on the ground, and all you
can talk about is political parties.
It's blindingly obvious who the blind partisan here is.
P.S. did anyone ever tell you you're sexy when you get angry
because I pwned you?
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:40PM|#
You know, I think it's amusing to here joe and the other leftists here hearken back to their Wilsonian interventionist days. Or sickening. I can't tell what the funny feeling in my stomach is.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Well, I guess "original Balkan conflict" is too general. Fine, would you repeat Clinton's intervention?
Kolohe|2.21.08 @ 4:44PM|#
joe-
It's historically low, and maybe a record low, but not zero. There
have been some casualties in the occupation, and while there were
no deaths during combat operations, some died in accidental
aircraft crashes.
I'm just saying this because some reports (not by you personally
necessarilly) of 'nearly 4000 deaths in Iraq' conflate the 3100 KIA
by hostile fire with the 800 or so in non hostile event (e.g.
traffic accidents)
|2.21.08 @ 4:44PM|#
economist,
I like your argument here joe. Basically, it's okay to lead the
US into a war against an entity that poses no direct threat to us
and risk American lives while spending heavily, as long as there's
a "humanitarian" end.
Yes, depending on the likely costs and benefits.
|2.21.08 @ 4:47PM|#
economist,
If you can arise from your fainting couch and face the horror that
there are actually people who would stop genocides if given the
chance, I'll answer your question:
I would have had Clinton stop the Serbs earlier in the Bosnian War.
The Serbs' intention was to push until they were stopped. We could
have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:48PM|#
joe,
Great. Let those people stop genocide. I might even join them.
However, dragging half the country along with you is in no way
"humanitarian".
|2.21.08 @ 4:49PM|#
"John,
Remember when we sent weapons to Saddam to help fight the
Iranians?"
Yes. Of course that was when he was an ordinary Arab thug and
before he gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait.
It was, however, after he had begun using chemical weapons against
Iranian troops.
When Donald Rumsfeld shook hands will Saddam Hussein, and gave him
intelligence on Iranian troops movements, the world already knew
that Saddam was launching gas attacks on those troops.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Wait a minute. You said "stopped the Serbs earlier...we could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives". I saw earlier in the thread that the figure killed by the Serbs was 10,000 at most. Where did you get your figure?
|2.21.08 @ 4:50PM|#
economist,
There are 300,000,000 people in America.
Our operations in the Balkans involved, IIRC, about 30,000,
including the crews of ships and airfields.
That is 1/10,000th.
economist|2.21.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Actually, I don't care that much that Saddam gas attacked Iranian troops. Mostly I just wanted to point out to John what "keeping both sides equally armed" gets us.
|2.21.08 @ 4:51PM|#
I saw earlier in the thread that the figure killed by the
Serbs was 10,000 at most. Where did you get your figure?
in bosnia
BaBar|2.21.08 @ 4:52PM|#
"When Donald Rumsfeld shook hands will Saddam Hussein, and gave
him intelligence on Iranian troops movements, the world already
knew that Saddam was launching gas attacks on those troops."
Yeah, what an asshole. I'm sure those Iranian soldiers would much
rather have been killed by bullets or schrapnel.
|2.21.08 @ 4:52PM|#
economist,
Hundreds of thousands were killed by the Serbs in
Bosnia.
They probably managed under 10,000 in Kosovo.
We interrupted the Serbs' Operation Horseshoe in Kosovo, so that
the death toll never approached that in Bosnia.
Clear?
BaBar|2.21.08 @ 4:53PM|#
"There are 300,000,000 people in America.
Our operations in the Balkans involved, IIRC, about 30,000,
including the crews of ships and airfields.
That is 1/10,000th."
I have a feeling it was a much higher percentage than that footing
the bill.
|2.21.08 @ 4:59PM|#
BaBar, how much money is acceptable to you to spend stopping a
genocide? On an per-victim basis, I mean?
Would a buck be ok? 100,000 people who get to live a life, for
$100,000?
|2.21.08 @ 4:59PM|#
I have a feeling it was a much higher percentage than that
footing the bill.
So what. There are billion things that taxes are spent on. Why do
you feel that spending them on stoping a genocidal power, with what
actually turned out to be a very effective operation, but which
came way too late, is so objectionable?
|2.21.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Yeah, what an asshole. I'm sure those Iranian soldiers would much rather have been killed by bullets or schrapnel.
"Would it make you any happier little lady if they were all pushed
out of windows?"-Archie Bunker
BaBar|2.21.08 @ 5:11PM|#
"So what. There are billion things that taxes are spent on. Why
do you feel that spending them on stoping a genocidal power, with
what actually turned out to be a very effective operation, but
which came way too late, is so objectionable?"
Yes, I do object to it and most of the other billions of things.
What if all ethnic Serbs in the US refused to pay their taxes when
this happened. How would the US govt. have treated them? Locking
all of them up maybe? Then maybe Russia would have
intervened.
"Would a buck be ok? 100,000 people who get to live a life, for
$100,000?"
I might fork over that dollar, but then nobody ever asked me. The
money was taken from me with an implicit threat of violence.
|2.21.08 @ 5:17PM|#
joe,
The problem is in that you're in a no-win situation. You can't ever
prove that the NATO intervention prevented anything. And that's the
whole crux of the problem with deciding to intervene in a supposed
genocide situation, since one doesn't really know it's genocide for
sure until the body count really starts to pile up.
There was certainly a reasonable chance in the Kosovo case that the
body count would have continued to pile up, and pile up big. It was
this reasonable chance, and not a clearly defined case of genocide
in and of itself, that was the basis for the intervention.
And if John disagrees with the reasonableness of this chance, then
that does not make him a genocide denier.
|2.21.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Hundreds of thousands were killed by the Serbs in
Bosnia.
They probably managed under 10,000 in Kosovo.
We interrupted the Serbs' Operation Horseshoe in Kosovo, so that
the death toll never approached that in Bosnia.
Clear?
I think I am pretty clear that the democrats attempt at
intervention for a goal other then the spread of democracy is
falling apart.
|2.21.08 @ 5:28PM|#
I wonder how we'd react if a heavily Hispanic area in the
southwest declared independence.
It would depend on why they are doing it and what they plan to
create once they did that.
If they were say leftists I would be upset...if they wanted to get
out of the Endangered species act and work on a more efficiant
property rights based conservation program then I would probably
send them money.
First Little Pig|2.21.08 @ 5:37PM|#
J sub D and all the god capitalizer questioners:
Is "god" a proper name like Zeus or Thor? I was under the
impression that the people of the book use "god" or "allah" because
you are not supposed to know or say the deity's name. Yahweh or
Jehovah comes closer bcse those are name given to the one who
cannot be named based on the Tetragrammaton. Which is an even
cooler name for this mythical person since it sounds like a
Godzilla movie monster.
Of course we should probably use Adonai... but then, just to be
safe, use HaShem, instead. Blah Blah Blah.
|2.21.08 @ 5:42PM|#
BaBar,
Your problem, then, is with taxation, not foreign policy. You could
as well complain about the money spent on those same soldiers and
sailors if we hadn't bombed the Serbs.
MP,
That's a a fair point, but in this particular case, we had Bosnia -
which the Serbs didn't even consider their "homeland" from which to
draw a conclusion. They were doing the same things in Kosovo they
were doing in Bosnia.
It is not "a reasonable chance" that genocide would happen.
Genocide and ethnic cleansing, were happening. We knew that then,
and we know it now. Except John, apparently, who's good at not
knowing things when it suits him. That makes him a denier. A
genocide denier is a genocide denier regardless of whether his
denial is in real time or post-facto.
|2.21.08 @ 5:47PM|#
If you have a problem with people being tribalistic, take it up
with Darwin. There will be wars and genocides and misery as long as
humans walk the earth. Our nature is directed towards reproduction
and domination of resources, not happiness.
We can't save the world. It doesn't want to be saved. The best we
can hope for is to save our own small part of it.
|2.21.08 @ 5:58PM|#
but in this particular case, we had Bosnia - which the Serbs
didn't even consider their "homeland" from which to draw a
conclusion.
Which is why I used the phrase "reasonable chance". I'm unsure if
an "intent to commit" genocide is actually genocide. But of course,
it's that type of waffling on defining the issue which typically
paralyzes actors and prevents them from addressing the issue.
Considering our overall costs incurred while imposing ourselves in
the Kosovo situation, I don't have a major disagreement with the
issue beyond my standard non-interventionist position.
economist|2.21.08 @ 6:00PM|#
joe,
Okay, point taken. Minor forgetfulness there. All these Balkan
conflicts run together. Which is why I think we would have been
better off avoiding it altogether. And I still think it's funny how
you go into Wilsonian mode when Clinton's military exploits are
mentioned.
GILMORE|2.21.08 @ 6:29PM|#
cant we just bomb them again? they should be more sensitive to
the fact that we like to test out our new JDAM models on irascible
balkans before deploying them to dustier regions, browner
people
seriously. Come on John, cut the whiney "it wasnt legal!" malarkey.
sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to bomb people who vote for
leaders with names like Slobodon, Saddam, Khadaffi, or Mahmoud or
whatever. sooner or later they get the message and elect someone
named "smith" or something
|2.21.08 @ 6:33PM|#
MP,
My point is, it wasn't "Intention to commit genocide." They were
actively engaged in a genocide. They were doing the same thing in
towns throughout Kosovo that they did in Sbrenka. Often, it was the
same people, such as the Maniacs.
economist,
I think I've explained the principles that lead me to support the
Kosovo War and oppose the Iraq War well enough. Up thread, I
explicitly endorse "the smart George Bush's" action irt the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait and the No Drive/No Fly zones.
If all you are capable of seeing is the party of the president who
started each of those wars, that's your problem, not mine.
economist|2.21.08 @ 7:45PM|#
No, I'm simply pointing out that, given my particular reasons for opposing military adventurism, I see little reason to treat needless wars launched for humanitarian reasons any more favorably than wars launched for no reason at all.
|2.21.08 @ 7:56PM|#
OK, we have different principles, economist. And I really
respect yours, honestly. There is a great deal of wisdom in what
you say about not sticking our nose into other people's
business.
But I have principles of my own, as well, and I'd thank you not to
take cheap shots accusing me of partisanship when I have, in fact,
stuck to those principles regardless of the president's party.
|2.21.08 @ 9:50PM|#
All these Balkan conflicts run together. Which is why I
think we would have been better off avoiding it
altogether.
I fail to see the 'why' in your argument. Balkans was not a
politcal outcome, it was a 'humanitarain' outcome, ethnic cleansing
was stopped, lives saved.
You speak as if the only way to justify foreign involvement is if
the problem is completely solved once and for all the first
time.
So in that case I suppose you're right. If NATO did not bomb the
Serbs they would have cut out most Kosovar males old enough to hold
a gun, and maybe a couple thousand others. So I suppose there would
not be anyone left to stomach this latest attempt at
independence.
If you goal is 'stabilization' by any means necessary, then the
Serbs should not have been bombed, and there would be way less
unhappy Kosovars now. An ethincaly cleansed area is more stable
then an area with two feuding peoples.
|2.22.08 @ 11:26AM|#
joe's repeated claims that the NATO bombing campaign against
Serbia stopped the genocide from becoming worse rest on rather
shaky ground. The worst of the atrocities occurred AFTER the
bombing campaign had commenced.
The KLA played Milosevic, western media, NATO, and apparently joe
to perfection, all to the detriment of many thousands of dead and
displaced Kosovars. The KLA knew they could never achieve what they
wanted on their own. Their attacks on Serbs were meant to encourage
severe reprisals from Milosevic which they believed would in turn
draw the West to joining them in their fight for independence owing
in large part to Western guilt for not having acted before to stop
what the Serbs did in Bosnia.
The actions of the U.S. during the Rambouillet negotiations --
demanding that NATO be allowed to occupy all of Yugoslavia -- are
not those of a power whose main concern is in ending genocide. It
was clear that NATO wanted to use the crisis in Kosovo as an excuse
to oust Milosevic and the demands of the U.S. at Rambouillet all
but assured that the Serbs would walk away from the negotiating
table, providing the pretext for removal of Milosevic by
force.
Until the bombing campaign commenced, the crisis in Kosovo was
mostly a refugee crisis with isolated instances of atrocities.
After the bombing campaign started, the Serbs saw the writing on
the wall and stepped up their slaughter on the way out, trying as
best they could to cover their tracks.
|2.22.08 @ 1:40PM|#
The worst of the atrocities occurred AFTER the bombing
campaign had commenced.
The Serbs attempted to speed up Operation Horseshoe once they
realized their time was limited.
There are still Kosovars in Kosovo. The genocide was ended.
was clear that NATO wanted to use the crisis in Kosovo as an
excuse to oust Milosevic Funny, then, that they never ousted
him.
BaBar|2.22.08 @ 3:56PM|#
"BaBar,
Your problem, then, is with taxation, not foreign policy. You could
as well complain about the money spent on those same soldiers and
sailors if we hadn't bombed the Serbs."
Actually I've got a major problem with foreign policy as well, and
I think the US was severely misguided involving itself in the
breakup of Yugoslavia. And much of Bosnia was considered Serbian
"homeland" that was partitioned away by earlier European treaties
(hence Republika Srpska).
The fact that Kosovo was ever even identified as an autonomous
region within Serbia never really made sense when Serbian enclaves
within the other republics didn't receive similar autonomy (or UN
protection when the Serbs where cleansed from eastern Slavonia in
the 90's).
Basically, it wasn't our business to get involved and the history
there is much more complicated than pointing out that Kosovo is 90%
Albanian (ie poorer people breed faster and Serbians generously let
any of them stay after the Albanian atrocities of WWII).
economist|2.23.08 @ 7:38PM|#
Screw your principles, joe. They all seem to involve income redistribution, paternalism, and general douchiness.
B|2.24.08 @ 4:48PM|#
"I wonder what Michelle Malkin et al. has to say about that...
Those crazy Muslims, er, Serbian Orthodox Christians"
She would say the same thing I would, mainly that you are a total
fucking idiot. Perhaps if someone had drawn an unflattering picture
of Jesus, she may have just excused their barbarity, you know, kind
of like you do with Muslims whenever some "insults" that piece of
shit pedophile, Muhammad. Unlike you, Michelle Malkin does not
apologize for the barbarity of others simply because they have the
same religion.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to wipe my ass with the Koran and
then burn it.
|2.28.08 @ 8:10AM|#
Re: Has Switzerland recognized Kosovo's independence?
Yes, Switzerland officially recognised Kosovo's independence on
27.2.2008.
Source:
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/Serbia_recalls_envoy_as_Bern_recognises_Kosovo.html?siteSect=108&sid=8790228&cKey=1204183540000&ty=st
Title of article: Serbia recalls envoy as Bern recognises
Kosovo
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245