frogwoman
Let them eat newts
so "winning sympathy" for people who were caught up in wars is "base" now is it?
jesus christ
Bombing of Yugoslavia -10th Anniversary
- Thread starter madshadow
- Start date
so "winning sympathy" for people who were caught up in wars is "base" now is it?
jesus christ
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Yep!!!
and if it was all about protecting human rights etc why did they not bomb croatia?? why dont they bomb israel, or egypt, or sudan, or indonesia, or... oh wait, maybe becasue it wasn't about human rights at all was it.
does "camp bondsteel" mean anything to you fp?
there is all sorts of shit spouted about the serbs, not so much now, but some of it was/is full on nazi style hate ... as the "kill them they started the first world war" shit there's stuff like how the kosovo albanians are light skinned and they're "swarthy and dark" - its fucking sickening
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Quite honestly, like Ireland and the UK, this is one of those issues when NATO et al should've just stayed well out of and allowed it to become a humanitarian disaster the same way we tend to with Africa.
Altho then of course, everyone on this thread would be beating their breasts with 'No one did anything to prevent it!!!'
Altho then of course, everyone on this thread would be beating their breasts with 'No one did anything to prevent it!!!'
To be fair the Serbs had done some shitty stuff and even tried their best to kill me (its a long story) but the bombing in 1999 was all about Blair getting himself a war to put on his CV (his only priority was getting reelected. He would have seen both Lady Thatcher and then John Major going on to get re-elected with 'victorious wars' on thier watches) and Clinton looking to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
heh -
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
And election that was at least 2 years away, when his popularity ratings were still high, and the UK was experiencing tremendous growth.
Yes, of course he needed to bomb someone to get re-elected.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
yeh nobody is saying the serbs didnt do anything bad - the "anti-imperialist" line that leads to people saying srebrenica didn't happen and that milosevic was a misunderstood socialist is inane, childish bollocks (and really fucking damaging)
Blair never left anything to chance. He was obsessed with getting relected because it was the whole justification for the New Labour project (if I remember correctly no Labour Government had ever gone on to win a second term).
He would have seen the chance to get himself projected as a war time leader against an enemy for whom there was very little public sympathy (and with some good reasons as well). It was a win-win for him. Just a shame about the poor bastards killed in that TV studio.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Not everyone. I'm well aware that respecting national sovereignty is a lesser evil. I support the position because, like the men who signed the Treaty of Westphalia, I believe that invading other countries because you don't like their internal policies is a recipe for endless insecurity, and rarely solves anything.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Blair was ideologically committed to the concept of liberal interventionism/liberal hawkism over this issue before the electoral angle was factored in; his argument being that you can't sit back and do nothing if you claim to represent peace, freedom and the rest of it, so no I still disagree that it was done as an electoral gambit.
More to the point it took ages before NATO started doing anything, which Blair, Clinton and the rest were roundly and almost universally criticised for at the time for taking 'too long' to do anything.
I'd suggest reviewing 'popular' and op-ed column opinion at the time WRT the relative merits (or not) of the NATO intervention in something that should've been left to burn itself out, regardless of the human cost.
Well quite, and I agree...but you know what I mean.
More to the point it took ages before NATO started doing anything, which Blair, Clinton and the rest were roundly and almost universally criticised for at the time for taking 'too long' to do anything.
I'd suggest reviewing 'popular' and op-ed column opinion at the time WRT the relative merits (or not) of the NATO intervention in something that should've been left to burn itself out, regardless of the human cost.
Well quite, and I agree...but you know what I mean.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, it's binary opposition bollocks ie if you reject the view that the Serbs are bloodthirsty anuimals then you also don't think thousands were slaughetred at Srebrenica or that there were no camps. It's borderline racism given some thin veneer of humanitarianism. Milosevic was a scumbag, but Tudjman and Izetbegovic were hardly paragons of racial tolerance and liberal humanity.
And why were NATO planes taking off from Turkey (a country which had been murdering and ethnically cleansing Kurds) to drop bombs in their "humanitarian" intervention in Kosovo? The whole idea was a sham.
A Clinton aide, John Norris, admitted explicitly in his book that the war against Serbia was not about humanitarian intervention, but was about pushing Serbia to make the required economic reforms. The book was endorsed in the foreword by another senior Clinton aide Strobe Talbott.
It's a brilliant tactic. Fund the KLA, cause a war with brutal murders of innocent people. Then go in on the basis of humanitarian intervention, and the world applauds your imperialsm. Unless you are funding Israel and their torture and murder. Don't want to invade there for humanitarian reasons do we?
Also we shouldn't forget about the US helping Iran and Turkey to fly moujahidin fighters and weapons into Croatia who would go on to rape and murder women and children. No tears shed for them though because Serbs are the baddies, and no war crimes trials for the Agim Çekus of the world either.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
jesus christ that cunt
Nice genial uncle him, lovely fella. Simply a misunderstood Croatian patriot.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Nice genial uncle him, lovely fella. Simply a misunderstood Croatian patriot.
unless you're a serb, but the serbs are evil, maaaan
or jewish of course, but why let a bit of anti-semetism get in the way of freedom
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
yeah, but you see, unlike serbia who are an evil little country in the middle of nowhere, turkey is big and has lots of resources and is a partner for the west, they also have an interest in preserving peace, and active involvement in the middle east peace process, they do lots of trade with israel as well as other middle eastern countries, they're a member of nato and therefore are progressive and have western values, unlike the serbs with their daft religion and that impossible to pronounce language. it's therefore important to involve them in stuff like this, you know, for stability.
besides, who cares about the kurds, they are annoying little people who disrupt everything and embarrass us, and always get themselves into stupid situations, like getting killed by our allies just when we are developing closer ties with them and signs and prospects for growth begin to look encouraging. know what i mean?
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Now that would be a sight to see.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Prof Gallagher makes the case in his article that Alex Salmond was not sincere in his sympathy for Serb victims of NATO bombing of civilian targets, and that he used it for his own base political ends to advance his separatist project.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
And it would be the fault of the US and UK and NATO, as was the genocide in Rwanda and as is the genocide in Darfur.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
a bit like tony blair and the albanians then
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Is there any evidence that if this was his motive, it had a positive impact? I have to say that in the subsequent election I never came across anyone saying "Well I'm voting Labour because we bombed the Chinese Embassy and that TV station. That Tony Blair's a great war leader and no mistake". It might have been different in other parts of the country, of course.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
How unlike our own dear...
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
That's what actually happened. This was a matter of conviction for the leaders, burned by the failure to do anything about Rwanda, and there was no calculation that they'd get any thanks for it. Many of you might think they should have been convicted, of course, but if it wasn't a popular position - nobody went on a demo screaming "Bomb Belgrade Now", it was well understood and accepted.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Even if this were so (and I think it overlooks quite a lot of things) I'm not sure that save-the-world complexes in certain people turned out to be quite the thing, did they?
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
This is why I believe the Kosovo bombing was waged for idealistic reasons. For the record I don't think Baroness Thatcher went into the Falklands in a calculated attempt to boost her popularity either: that war could have been a disaster, and was gamble Baroness Thatcher won.
The purity of Mr Blair's motives don't make his actions any more justifiable.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
except it wasn't actually a failure on bill clinton's part was it? im prepared to accept that TB actually believed in what he was doing, with a heavy mix of egotistical posturing and desire to eave a "legacy" of course added into it, but Clinton actually refused to authorise US action to do anything (anything at all - not only military means) to stop the slaughter in rwanda when it was well known what was happening there.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
There's an even simpler explanation. It was the only other thing I'd read about the 10th anniversary, the paragraphs I quoted summarised my own perspective on what happened, and the fact that it was primarily a well written rant getting stuck into the nationalist leader in Scotland and his murky motives was an added bonus.
I really don't think being a university professor amounts to impeccable credentials!
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
I don't think meaning well is ever a good justification for an action.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Indeed, no.
Similar threads
- Poll
