One more time; in my opinion, there was considerable popular pressure for NATO to do something about Serbia. What the something turned out to be, in the end, was to mount a bombing campaign, but the popular sentiment that I knew, prior to the NATO action, leaned more towards a peacekeeping operation with ground troops.
For future reference, the word “apparently” denotes an inference, not a direct quote.
Here is a direct quote:
I don’t think I would be out of line to state that it was your clear implication that the answer was “no”. (Although you do a bit of bait-and-switch by later substituting the phrase “religious transformation” for “willing to go to war to protect minority populations”, and pretend that evidence against the first is somehow disproves the second). After presenting this rhetorical question, you go on to a list of incidents which have no rhetorical purpose other than to establish that the answer is indeed “no”. The only way these could logically serve this purpose is if the US is incapable of acting in Kosovo without acting in these other situations, which any reasonable person would agree is not the case. While it is not explicitly stated, your argument makes no sense without the premise “if a country is motivated to intervene out of humanitarian motives in one situation, it will intervene out of humanitarian motives most, if not all, other times”.
The issue is not whether it resulted in more refugee flow, but whether it was expected to result in more refugee flow. Factually, some surgical operation result in death for the patient. The doctors aren’t charged with murder unless they expected death to result. And yes, sometimes doctors “can’t say they are surprised” by the patient death. That doesn’t mean they expected it. The only evidence you have presented is
- A two word quote that, curiously, seemed to be embedded in a different sentence every time I see it.
- A quote that is a full sentence, but has a pronoun whose antecedent can not be determined from what little context you give.
I think that General Wesley Clark would agree that it is “entirely predictable” that you won’t win this debate.
I never said it did. I said that " ‘In the real world, however, there was no popular pressure for NATO to bomb Serbia,‘ [is] a statement clearly at odds with the facts. “
You are exhibiting the same fallacy that you committed before: you think just because something was an insufficient cause in one instance, it is insufficient cause in another. Furthermore, the poll was evidence of pressure, not the pressure itself.
So the destruction of Nazi Germany did not contribute to humanitarian ends? Anyway, as I said before, when discussing motives, it is not relevant what is, but what is believed. If people honestly believed that the destruction of Yugoslavia would contribute to humanitarian ends, then the motivation of wanting to destroy Yugoslavia is derivative of the humanitarian motive, regardless of whether or not such a destruction actually did contribute to humanitarian ends.
I don’t agree or disagree with anything, yet. to make this simple, I’ll destroy your first argument, about the humanitarian motive appears to be “the U.S. didn’t act with humanitarian motives in these other instances; therefore it could not have been acting with humanitarian motives in Kosovo.”
That in no way disproves the assertion that the U.S. acted with humanitarian motives in Kosovo. In fact, were this a courtroom, your “evidence” wouldn’t even have been admissible - prior bad acts are not admissible.
Before you claim that you have proven an assertion to be a lie, it might help to actually prove that the assertion is a lie.
Sua
Sua
No. The argument is that, if the U.S. was motivated by humanitarian motives, it would not actively participate in atrocities. Since the U.S. was actively participating in atrocities around the world at the same time it started bombing Serbia, it is a logical impossibility that the bombing was due to humanitarian motives.
Take, again, the case of East Timor. U.S. support for Indonesia continued throughout the 24 years of brutal occupation, which was finally brought to an end at the end of 1999. After a vote for independence and an ensuing slaughter, popular pressure forced Clinton to make some guestures to the Indonesian generals. Literally within hours the Indonesians withdrew, showing that the U.S. had the power to stop the atrocities the whole time, simply by withdrawing support.
Nobody really seems to want to confront this argument: If the U.S. was so concerned about the humanitarian situation in Kosovo, why did it continue to support Indonesia, Columbia and Turkey? Why did it do nothing when much worse atrocities occured in Rwanda and elsewhere?
Furthermore, if the action really was motivated by humanitarian impulses, why oh why did the U.S. reject the Serb offer at Rambouillet? This is another argument that has been completely ignored.
It did result in greater refugee flow, and it was entirely predictable. Anybody could have predicted it, and many did, including the supreme commander of NATO forces.
It is not a logical impossibility if the intervention for humanitarian motives is not applied evenly (which it is not). It is entirely possible to intervene for humanitarian reasons in Country A while at the same time ignoring or supporting oppresion in Country B. Which happened, no question about it in my mind. I can pet one animal and kill another. That is not a logical impossibility. It is an unequal treatment of like animals, and it may not be RIGHT. But I say you are entire wrong in your statement
How is it logical to actively participate in oppression in one country, while claiming humanitarian motives in another? It just doesn’t make sense! It especially doesn’t make sense when, in one country you could end atrocities simply by withdrawing support for them!
Look, if you really have humanitarian motives, you don’t actively participate in and enable atrocities. Looking again at the case of East Timor, all that had to be done to end Indonesian atrocities was simple withdrawal of support. If the U.S. had humanitarian motives, it would not have supported the Indonesian military. Since it did support the Indonesian military in its invasion and occupation of East Timor, in which over 1/3 of the population was killed, it is a logical impossibility for U.S. foreign policy to be motivated by humanitarian motives. And this is not the only case.
Furthermore, if U.S. motives in Kosovo were really humanitarian, it would have accepted the Serb offer at Rambouillet. This would have granted autonomy to Kosovo, and averted the entire disaster.
Something being logical is not the same as something being a logical impossibility. If US Foriegn Policy was applied universally and without regard for ulterior motives and strategic gains (which it is not) then you may have a point, but the basis for your argument assumes equal treatment, and that is false. I am not aguing your issue, I am arguing your logic. A country can and will help in some cases, and hurt in other cases, at the same time. That does not mean that they do not intervene for humanitarian reasons in the case that they DO take action. It may be double-faced and disingenuous, but that does not preclude ANY humanitarian intervention by this argument.
So let me get this straight…popular pressure forced the US to withdraw support for Indonesia, but must be discounted as a reason for involvement in the Balkans? Riiiiiight. Especially when the Balkans were receiving far more press than the situation in East Timor. Please explain how popular pressure caused the US to withdraw support in ET, but must be discounted as a reason in the Balkans.
Secondly, you still have yet to address the question of the intervention increasing refugee flows in the short-term, to prevent greater problems in the long-term. Since I’m not sure you grasp the concept, let me illustrate it for you using a hypothetical scenario:
For instance, say there were 100 refugees a month. This had been going on at this rate for 10 months with no sign of letting up. Nato intervenes, but causes an intial two-fold increase in the refugee flows for that month, to 200. Yet after that month, the refugee flows then ended. So we can see, in this hypothetical situation, the long-term benefits of the intervention outweight the short-term worsening of the situation. Please prove that this was not the case in the Balkans, using historical refugee data, projected future flows, etc. from reliable sources such as the UN, the State Department, Human Rights Watch, etc.
If you cannot prove this was not the case, you must then accept that you have failed to prove that the NATO intervention could not have been in response to concerns about the refugee problem.
You just aren’t listening. It’s irrelevant whether it was “entirely predictable”. What matters is whether it was the expected outcome. Even if you proved that one of the generals predicted it, which you haven’t, that still wouldn’t prove that he expected it, let alone that NATO in general expected it.
Regarding your argument that the US policy doesn’t make sense, I refer you to my previous statement that “Your pointing out that there are inconsistencies in US foreign policy is neither more probative nor more surprising than pointing out the sky is blue.”
As for Rambouillet, you haven’t provided any cites at all except a broken link.
You will have to enlighten me on the difference between “entirely predictable” and “expected.” And, it wasn’t just one odd general who predicted it, it was the supreme commander of NATO forces, General Wesley Clark, who described the escalation of atrocities on the ground as “entirely predictable,” shortly after the bombing began. In a later interview he nonchalantly continued: “I can’t say I’m surprised by any of this. The military authorities fully anticipated the vicious approach that Milosevic would adopt, as well as the terrible efficiency with which he would carry it out.”
Source: Newsweek, 4-12-99
It is quite easy to see why the result was “entirely predictable.” The natural reaction of a force under attack is to react where they are strongest. In this case, the Serbs were strongest on the ground, and it was entirely predictable that their rage would be taken out on the ground.
I disagree that U.S. foreign policy is inconsistent. In fact, it is remarkably consistent. The U.S. seeks to create around the world the “single sustainable model for national success,” capitalism. cite As long as a state is working within the economic framework dominated by the U.S., it is free to commit atrocities at will, often with the help of the U.S. But, if a state pursues an alternative path, it must be destroyed.
The question is one of motives. Is it at all plausible to assert that a state is pursuing humanitarian motives in country A, while in country B they are actively participating in atrocities? OK, I suppose it is possible, in the sense of anything being possible. Realistically, though, if a state is truly concerned about humanitarianism, why would it actively participate in atrocities around the world? Again, all the U.S. had to do to stop a huge slaughter in East Timor was to withdraw support from the Indonesian military. Do you really think that a state which refuses even this passive step in order to avert a human catastrophe is concerned at all about human rights?
No, my link is working just fine, thank you. Rambouillet Accords The Rambouillet Accords were designed to be unacceptable to the Serbs, in order to justify a war. (This is quite similar, in fact, to the U.S. resolutions to the U.N. on Iraq.) What really happened at Rambouillet?
Again, if the motive of the U.S. really was humanitarian, why did they not accept the Serb offer at Rambouillet?
I’m not saying that there wasn’t popular pressure to do something. What I argue is that the bombing of Serbia by NATO could not have been due to popular pressure.
Yes I have. The Serb offer at Rambouillet would have granted autonomy to Kosovo and averted the entire disaster.
Impossible, due to the facts that (1) the refugee exodus began AFTER the bombing started, and (2) the entire catastrophe could have been averted if the U.S. had accepted the Serb offer at Rambouillet.
Haven’t you guys learned by now? Chumpsky wants it both ways.
[ul]
[li]If the U.S. intervenes, they’re evil imperialists.[/li][li]AND if the U.S. doesn’t intervene, they’re showing depraved indifference.[/li][/ul]
You see the same dualism in Chumpsky’s economic arguments:
[ul][li]If Americans invest in foreign companies or buy foreign products, it’s to force illiterate children to make sneakers for 25 cents a day. Also, if Americans give foreign aid, it’s to prop up dictatorships and surpress local civil rights.[/li][li]AND if Americans set up embargos to prevent investment in or purchase from certain countries (Iraq, Cuba), then the Americans are responsible for all the resultant poverty and misery, which suppresses civil rights.[/li][/ul]
Chumpsky: you’re not practicing logic, you’re preacticing rationalization. You’ve vaguely defined a American “ruling class”, decided it was evil, and are looking for evidence to back you up while ignoring anything to the contrary. Were you expecting us to fall for it?
Here is an excellent site giving a chronology for the conflict in Kosovo. cite
Of particular note, he writes,
"So what did 33,000 bombing missions accomplish? Exactly what NATO intended all along. They destroyed the viability of Yugoslavia as an independent country, destroyed what had been one of the world’s most successful communist economies, and solidified US, British, and German domination in the Balkans. Both militarily and economically, what used to be Yugoslavia is now a collection of small colonies.
It also changed our relationships with Russia and China, and set back disarmament by 20 years. It increased the Pentagon budget and caused defense stocks to go through the roof. Boeing, GM, Honeywell, Motorola, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon, TRW, United Technologies each donated up to $250,000 for NATO’s 50th anniversary celebration. But they could well afford it. The war had used up a huge inventory of Tomahawk cruise missiles (at $1.2 Million apiece) and created orders for replacements.
REASONS:
But why? Surely there’s more to it than that. There is. First and foremost, the war had nothing whatsoever to do with compassion for the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. If we were concerned with stopping or punishing human rights violations, we would be launching cruise missiles at China and Saudi Arabia and Guatemala and Turkey. If we were concerned about self-determination for ethnic peoples, we would be bombing London for not freeing the Catholics in Northern Ireland. As Gorbachev pointed out recently, we would be bombing Russia to free the Chechens, bombing Turkey to free the Kurds, and bombing Israel to free the Palestinians. If we were concerned for victims of ethnic cleansing, we would be at war in the Sudan and several other places where the number of displaced and massacred dwarfs what happened in the Balkans. And we would have been on the side of the Serbs against Franjo Tudjman in Croatia instead of the other way around. (Dare we mention what happened to the Native Americans?) No, the war against Yugoslavia had nothing to do with humanitarian goals or compassion for the Albanians.
But there were reasons. These are among the objectives behind the policy which made this war inevitable:
(1) Get rid of the largest remaining post-Soviet socialist nation refusing to cooperate with the Multinational Corporations who rule the New World Order.
(2) Destabilize and divide Yugoslavia, opening the pieces to monopoly capital, military occupation, and US domination.
(3) Set an example for increasingly radicalized workers in Eastern Europe, who are disillusioned and disappointed with capitalism.
(4) Get access to Bosnia’s and Kosovo’s rich natural resources (oil, chrome, copper, gold, nickel, platinum, coal, lead, zinc, and lignite). See Viviano & Howe in the San Francisco Chronicle 8/28/95.
(5) Gain control of the oil and gas pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan.
(6) Force the privatization of major industries and resources. Entire industrial complexes can now be bought for next to nothing by the multinational corporations."
FWIW, I agree that high altitude bombing and cruise missiles are not the way to intercede in a Civil War, but the Administrations were deathly afraid to put boots in the mud until too late in this case. This is a statement about strategic effectiveness, not about black helicopters and Foreign Policy.
It’s your rhetoric that gets old.
Why are you arguing that? No one asserted such.
Considering the fact that you absultely refuse to provide the context, I don’t know what “entirely predictable” means. It could mean the same thing as “expected”. Or it could simply mean that a person predicting it would not have been completely off base. I really don’t know, and I have no interest in playing guessing games with you.
Stating it was “entirely predictable” is not the same as predicting it. I can proclaim to my hearts content that terrorists flying planes into a large building was “entirely predicatable”, but that doesn’t mean that I predicted it. The first three letters of “predict” are “pre”. As in BEFORE. So unless you can find something from him BEFORE the bombing, you need to stop saying that he predicted this.
Why do keep repeating these quotes, rather than dealing with my criticism? You’ve already posted this quote several times, without ever answering such questions as “what does ‘this’ refer to?” “Even if it wasn’t surprising, how does it show that it was expected?”. What is posting it again supposed to accomplish?
So let me get this straight. Since the US did not give into Serbian blackmail, it didn’t care about the refugee problem?
Geez, not only do you not understand the logic of your opponents’ arguments, you don’t even understand your own! This is how your argument would look if someone were to try to put it in logical form (a daunting task, I assure you):
- If the US were motivated by humanitarianism, it would have a consistent humanitarian policy.
- The US does not have a consistent humanitarian policy.
- Therefore, the US is not motivated by humanitarianism.
I realize that you don’t think that the US is inconsistent in your conception of US policy, but you are claiming that the US is inconsistent in our conception of US policy. That it is, you are claiming that if our view of the US is correct, then the US is inconsistent. And on top of that, you are claiming that that inconsistency proves that our view is incorrect.
Of course it is. For one thing, not taking an action which would end an atrocity is the opposite of actively participating in atrocities. For another, even active participation in atrocities can be motivated by humanitarianism. Misguided humanitarianism, but humanitarianism nonetheless.
You still haven’t shown that the US rejected a legitimate offer.
Goddamit. I spent an hour typing a response, only to have it eaten by the internet gnomes. Let’s try again…
Chumpsky => You will have to enlighten me on the difference between “entirely predictable” and “expected.”
It wouldn’t take much research to find out for yourself. Here is a good site: www.google.com
Here is a copy of the original article, written 2 days after the commencement of the bombing campaign. You can see for yourself the context, where Clark remarks, in response to the escalation of violence, “This was entirely predictable at this stage.” And, as noted before, he reiterated this in a later interview that he was not surprised, and that the military authorities “fully anticipated” such an escalation.
As taken from this site:
“As observed by Carnes Lord of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, formerly a Bush Administration National Security adviser, ‘enemies often react when shot at,’ and ‘though Western officials continue to deny it, there can be little doubt that the bombing campaign has provided both motive and opportunity for a wider and more savage Serbian operation than what was first envisioned.’ In the preceding months, the threat of NATO bombing – again, predictably – was followed by an increase in atrocities. The withdrawal of international observers, sharply condemned by the Serb Parliament, predictably had the same consequence. The bombing was then undertaken under the rational expectation that killing and refugee generation would escalate as a result, as indeed happened, even if the scale may have come as a surprise to some, though apparently not the commanding general.”
It would take wilfull ignorance to deny that the bombing would escalate atrocities, entirely predictably. Luckily for western ideologues, there is plenty of wilfull ignorance to go around.
That’s an interesting way to reverse history. In fact, it was Serbia that was blackmailed by the U.S. The U.S. held a gun to Serbia’s head, saying “sign the agreement or be bombed,” a direct violation of the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In a speech 1 day before the bombing, the Great Liar outlined his reasons for the bombing, saying, “President Milosevic refused even to discuss key elements of the agreement.” This was a flat-out lie. In fact, Milosevic was quite willing to discuss key elements of the agreement, and accepted every part of the accord, except for Appendix B mandating NATO occupation of Yugoslavia. He was even willing to deal on that point! He was willing to allow a U.N. peacekeeping force into Serbia, but this was rejected with contempt by Madeline Albright who insisted that it be NATO occupation. Albright said, on March 13, “The Serbs have been acting as if there are two documents but they can’t pick and choose.” This not only shows that Clinton was lying about Milosevic’s alleged unwillingness to deal, but it shows you just what kind of contempt the U.S. leadership has for the lesser powers. The “two documents” she refers to are the documents that mandate (i) NATO occupation and (ii) U.N. occupation, a point the U.S. was not willing to deal on.
It wasn’t the first time, nor will it be the last, that the U.S. has gone to war for a lie.
Clinton: Lie upon lie
No, the argument is simply this: If the U.S. was motivated by humanitarianism it would not actively participate in atrocities around the world.
I think you may be confused on a subtle point. It sometimes happens that an action carried out for completely cynical reasons has a good result in humanitarian terms. Two examples that come to mind are U.S. entry into WWII and the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978. You may have inferred that since I believe that the U.S. is not motivated by humanitarianism that it is impossible for any good to ever come from U.S. intervention. This is not the case. U.S. entry in WWII is a good counter-example. It’s the last one, actually, but it does show that a state that is run for cynical ends can sometimes have a good result, as a side-effect. The Kosovo intervention was not one of these vanishingly small irregularities, though.
Am I? No, the only way that you can maintain that the U.S. was acting through humanitarian motives in Kosovo is by holding that U.S. foreign policy is completely inconsistent: the U.S. supports the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor, the U.S. supports the Guatemalan government as it slaughters 200,000 people in the 1980’s, the U.S. supports the Turkish government as it wipes out thousands of Kurdish villages in the 1990’s, the U.S. supports the Columbian government in its ongoing massacres, yet–it intervenes in a civil war in Kosovo in which 2,000 people have been killed on all sides in the previous year, and this is “humanitarian”!?
That kind of inconsistency, even granting NATO lies, could only be the result of an extreme idiocy. You would have to think that the people who run the U.S. are a bunch of sub-moronic dolts who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. But, then, you would have to wonder how this bunch of idiots was able to become the most powerful and dominant empire that has ever existed on Earth. Quite an achievement for a bunch of idiots!
No, I don’t think the U.S. is run by idiots. The “best and the brightest” are recruited to run the state, which enjoys virtually unlimited resources. They think very carefully about what they are doing, and work with an amazingly consistent zeal toward their ends.
Exactly what humanitarian motive was behind U.S. support for the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor? The U.S. supplied about 90% of the arms used in the invasion, and provided crucial diplomatic support. Although the invasion was immediately condemned by the U.N., the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Daniel Patrick Moynihan, made sure that nothing would happen. He bragged in his memoirs, “The [US] Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.” From the invasion in 1975 through 1999, over 200,000 Timorese were killed, mainly with U.S. supplied weaponry, 1/3 of the population. The U.S. was very much an active participant and enabler of these atrocities, continuing support until the end of 1999. Indeed, when Clinton informed the Indonesian generals at the end of 1999 that he might withdraw support, Indonesia withdrew within hours. It was not necessary to bomb Jakarta, or for NATO to occupy Indonesia; all that was necessary was for the U.S. to withdraw support, and even this guesture was not forthcoming until (mostly Australian) public pressure reached a boiling point.
The U.S. has been an active participant in atrocities in Columbia, Turkey, Palestine, Guatemala, and elsewhere, where all it would have taken to significantly reduce or even end atrocities would be a withdrawal or support. Indeed, through Plan Columbia, a Clinton initiative, the U.S. is at this very moment an active participant in massive atrocities, atrocities that are billed to the U.S. taxpayer to the tune of some $1.9 billion per year. Yet, there are no plans to bomb Bogota.
Furthermore, the U.S. was an active participant in atrocities within Yugoslavia, through its support of Croatian fascists who killed tens of thousands and expelled hundreds of thousands. cite If the U.S. was willing to intervene in Yugoslavia when 2,000 people had been killed on all sides in Kosovo, why did it enable Croatian fascists to kill tens of thousands?
It depends on what you mean by “legitimate.” For the U.S. the only legitimate offer was a total surrender of Yugoslavia to NATO. This was the key point on which Albright, Clinton and the rest of the NATO bloodsuckers would not negotiate. If we accept their claims, though, that they were concerned with humanitarian motives, then yes, there was a legitimate offer, namely a peaceful settlement monitored by UN forces and far-reaching autonomy for Kosovo (which had been the main Albanian demand until Madeleine Albright hinted at Rambouillet that KLA leaders could hold out for full succession). cite
Lastly, we should not forget the results of this “humanitarian intervention.” Even if Serbian atrocities had been committed, and no doubt some were, as happens in every war, where is the sense of proportionality? Paramilitary killings in Kosovo (which occurred mostly after the bombings began) are no justification for bombing fifteen cities in hundreds of around-the-clock raids for over two months, killing thousands of Serbs, Albanians, Roma, Turks, and others, and destroying bridges, residential areas, and over two hundred hospitals, clinics, schools, and churches, along with the productive capital of an entire nation.
Serbia was one of the greatest sources of underground waters in Europe and one of the thirteen richest areas in bio-diversity. Contamination from U.S. depleted uranium and other explosives was felt in the whole surrounding area all the way to the Black Sea. Oil refineries, fertilizer factories, and petrochemical plants were bombed, spewing hundreds of thousands of tons of highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals into the water, air, and soil, As conservative congressman Ron Paul puts it, “Because of repeated bombings targeted against chemical factories, NATO has turned Serbia into a sort of toxic soup.”
All of this, mind you, could have been avoided if the U.S. had not insisted on NATO occupation of Yugoslavia.
With “humanitarians” like these, who needs devils?
Just a question, was there even a time you had any respect for a US Administration?
I didn’t know that the US supported the Ustashe. :rolleyes:
Let you remind you what I’m looking for:
Your cite does not satisfy me.
How is it reversing history? Do you disagree that the Serbs killed innocent people in retaliation for the bombing? Do you disagree that they made it clear that they would do so? Do you disagree that threatening to kill innocent people if attacked is blackmail?
Are you referring to this?
If so, you’d have to show it violated international law.
Why not?