Well, I provided a quote showing that the top generals predicted an escalation of atrocities, and an a priori reason why such a prediction would be made, namely that “enemies often react when shot at.”
I disagree that they made it clear that they would do so. Please provide the evidence that they did.
And please justify the shotgun diplomacy of the U.S.
It is against international law to threaten the use of force in order to coerce a party into signing a treaty.
It is against international law to launch an aggressive war without first obtaining security council authorization.
Furthermore, the war in Serbia was against both the NATO charter and the U.S. constitution. The NATO charter explicitely says that the use of force will only be used if one member of the alliance is attacked or threatened. No NATO member was attacked by Serbia. The NATO charter also states that members must abide by the U.N. charter, which necessitates a security council resolution before resorting to force. The U.S. constitution says that treaties are the “supreme law of the land.”
I’m sure the war violated some local statute in the city where I live, also–it was a sweeping violation of every known norm of international law.
This thread is enlightening in many ways. Firstly, it is apparent that the board members here have swallowed the NATO line regarding Kosovo hook, line and sinker.
That is not so surprising, in and of itself. We live wrapped in webs of lies. The doctrinal system surrounds us with layers on layers of various forms of deceptions, that serve to filter reality through an ideological prism that is conducive to elite interests. This system has been developed in the U.S. to its highest form. We are by far the most propagandized population in history for a good reason. The ruling class has a lot to lose, and they are highly invested in controlling the public mind. Trillions and trillions of dollars are invested in controlling this public mind, in order to ensure consent for elite projects. Thus we can see how an act of outright aggression which has disastrous consequences can pass through the ideological filter into a humanitarian effort.
What is somewhat surprising, though, is the reaction of people when they are shown how they have been lied to. I have always thought that the natural reaction is one of relief. It is somewhat liberating to be shown how you had been misled and lied to.
Yet, this is often not the reaction. Indeed, in this thread, we see how some people cling tightly to their lies. I would very much like to learn more about this mindset. Perhaps The Ryan, Daoloth, etc. could explain why they are so desperate to believe the lies their leaders tell them. I think such insights would be very valuable.
On second glance, I think you might have wandered in here from another thread. At least, your comments have no relationship to anything that I have actually written.
You said the US enabled the Croatian Ustashe to kill tens of thousands.
“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?”
I have never seen any historical evidence showing that Ante Pavelic’s regime, a member of the Axis, was “enabled” by the US to do anything. In fact, the Allies conquered it. What dreamland are you in?
Can you explain how you can claim on the one hand that it was obvious that the bombing would escalate atrocities, and on the other that the Serbs did not make it clear that they would escalate atrocitites if bombed?
I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly think that. Was it against international law for the US to use force to convince Nazi Germany to surrender?
Cite?
Cite?
How so?
You are seriously confused. I can’t recall a single opinion in this thread that I ever stated regarding a statement by “my leaders”. My opinions have been on your statements.
Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed or something shows just how conceited you are. The message I get from your last posting is “Look at how intelligent I am for figuring out what the truth is. I can’t possibly be wrong, so anyone who disagrees with me must be victim of this manipulation.”
Go back to my very first post in the thread. Read it. You haven’t answered a single one of my points in that post.
You haven’t explained how the assertion that the US has acted contrary to humanitarian interests in other cases shows that it did not act with humanitarian interests in this case.
You haven’t provided a single cite that the NATO leadership, prior to the bombing, believed that the overall refugee flow, both long term and short term, would increase as a result of the bombing.
You have not presented any evidence at all that there was no popular pressure in Europe to do something about the Balkan situation.
It’s been a week, and you still haven’t supported any of these arguments you made. And you accuse us of ignoring the truth.
Chumpsky=> “I provided a quote showing that the top generals predicted an escalation of atrocities,”
Yes. I did. I provided you the text of an interview with supreme commander of NATO forces, which states, in part,
"Clark, speaking from his headquarters in Brussels, said he had fully expected that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic would step up aggression against ethnic Albanians, whose plight sparked the NATO action this week.
`This was entirely predictable at this stage,’ Clark said."
You have tried to make a completely specious argument about this not showing that the generals expected it, but I don’t see any other way to read it, other than that the generals “fully expected” an escalation of atrocities.
I see that you have backed off of your claim about “Serbian blackmail” (your words). Perhaps you would like to actually be honorable and admit that you had no basis whatsoever for that claim?
In any case, it is “entirely predictable” that a force on the ground will react where they are strong if attacked from the air. The Serbs had no defense against the massive NATO onslaught, wherein the most powerful capitalist states in the world targetted a country of 11 million, because they were so concerned about the human rights situation. The Serbs could not react against the air attack except on the ground. Perhaps you are aware of the phenomenon of transference. You know, the worker is yelled at by his boss, goes home and yells at his wife, who yells at her kid, who then kicks the cat.
When you kick somebody who can’t kick back, they will often react by lashing out at a proxy for their rage. Thus, it was entirely predictable that the Serbs would lash out at the Kosovars when attacked from the air. You will note that almost all of the atrocities attributed to the Serb army took place after the bombing started. Look, for example, at the Tribunal Indictment of Milosevic. Exactly one of the massacres Milosevic is on trial for, Racak, occured before the bombings started. The Racak “massacre” is in itself highly dubious. (Why would the Serbs go into a KLA stronghold that was crawling with international observers chomping at the bit to find some evidence of Serb iniquity and commit a massacre?)
And, of course, the whole travesty could have been avoided if NATO had accepted the Serb offer at Rabouillet, a point, I notice, that nobody seems willing to take up any longer.
The U.S. was at war with Germany. At least, ostensibly, it was not negotiating terms of surrender with Serbia. In actuality, this is exactly what it was doing. But, the point remains that the U.S. was not at war with Serbia, and that Serbia was more than willing to negotiate a settlement agreeable to all sides of the conflict. This was not, however, what the U.S. was after. The U.S. intent was to provoke a war, not negotiate a settlement.
You have got to be kidding me. I am sorry, but if you are unaware of the prohibition against the initiation of aggressive wars, then you need some serious research time. Probably best if I don’t hold your hand. I’ll give you some hints, though. Why not try a search for “united nations charter war”?
A bit slow with NATO history also, I see. Well, since I am such a nice guy, I did some research for you on this basic information that everybody should know who wishes to discuss these matters intelligently. Here is the NATO charter: http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
Note, in particular:
“Article 1: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
"Article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
“Article 7: This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
NATO violated every one of these articles in its aggression against Serbia.
Having concern for human rights implies that one does not carry out atrocities.
Not really. You simply echo what has been filtered down to you through the doctrinal system. When shown where you have clearly been misled, you do not admit such, but instead take up a new tack on the same point. For example, when I point out that it was not the U.S., but Serbia that was being blackmailed, you back off your claim, but stick to the default position of the U.S. acting as the beleagured party, trying to aid in a humanitarian enterprise. You do not re-evaluate your position, but instead try to muddy the waters with the ultimate inanity: cite? Even on matters that are common knowledge.
Not at all. In fact, the last post was the first time I raised the point. This was after a thread in which I have painstakingly gone through every argument presented (what there were of them), and encouraged people to offer their own arguments and counter my own.
In fact I have addressed them all at length. Here is the interesting thing that happens, though. You are completely unable to comprehend what is being written. It’s not that you can’t read–you obviously can. It is simply that the indoctrination process has produced in you an inability to see things in a light that differs from the doctrinally approved manner.
Yes I did–at length. I explained why this was impossible for several reasons, even admitting the highly unlikely possibility that a state which acts around the world in the way the U.S. does could act with humanitarian interests in a specific case. In this case, though, it is clear that the U.S. did not act with humanitarian interest because (1) the top military planners predicted that their actions would escalate atrocities, and (2) the entire catastrophe could have been avoided if the U.S. had accepted the Serb offer at Rambouillet.
Of course, I have already written several paragraphs about this, but, when it passes through the doctrinal filter, you do not percieve it as a counter to your specious argument.
I did–the quote from Wesley Clark.
This is yet another interesting example of how arguments go through the ideological filter and come out bearing no resemblance to the original statement.
Never have I said that there was no pressure to do something about the Balkan situation. Never. What I did say, and I stand by it, is that the bombing of Serbia could not have been due to popular pressure.
I should say that the point here is not to show that I am better than anybody because I am less brainwashed. I am just as prone to brainwashing and indoctrination as the next person. Indeed, being somewhat politically naive, I supported the bombing when it occured. I followed the media coverage very closely, and everything I read just proved to me that those bastard Serbs needed to be bombed. However, through much prodding from more politically aware friends, I delved into the situation more deeply and found a sea of lies the likes of which I couldn’t have concieved of. It truly astounded me. I suggest that people do the same.
No, I have addressed every argument made in this thread. The same cannot be said, though, of my opponents. As for the week delay, I apologize for that, I was on holiday without access to a computer. It was a bit of a surprise, though, that nobody had bothered to address any of the points I have made in any substantive way.
**This very sentence contains my only reference to the Ustashe in this thread.
I am not sure exactly what you think I am talking about.
This site, that I previously cited, gives a succinct description of the events of early August, 1995, just one of many instances of U.S. support for Croatian fascists:
“1995 (Aug 4): “Operation Storm.” US/NATO aircraft destroy Serb radar and air defenses, clearing the way for right-wing offensive against the Serb Krajina region of Croatia. US EA6B electronic warfare aircraft jam Serb communications and monitor Serb movements. Hundreds of thousands of Serbs are expelled into Serbia and 14,000 are killed. The attack is led by Brig Gen Agim Ceku, with massive US support. (See NY Times News Service 8/11/95, AP 8/7/95, AP 8/8/95, Manchester Guardian 9/30/95, Boston Globe 10/8/95.) Military Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI), a Pentagon contractor made up of retired US generals and combat experts, trained the Croats. According to the NY Times 3/21/99, the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague called “Operation Storm” the most brutal event in the Balkans since World War II. According to Jane’s Defense Weekly 5/10/99, General Ceku and several other high-ranking Croats took leave from the Croation Army in Feb 99. He is now (according to Jane’s) Commander of the KLA.”
Oh, and by the way, just because the U.S. was a member of the Allied Powers, this doesn’t mean that it does not deal with fascists, even outright Nazis. In fact, the U.S./Nazi alliance that was formed after WWII has a long and disgusting history. The U.S. worked intimately with such Nazi notables as Rheinhard Gehlen and others. The U.S. is quite at home with actual Nazis, much less Croatian fascists and neo-nazis.
The only part that is actually in quote marks is “This was entirely predictable at this stage”. Everything else is, unless proven otherwise, simply the author’s interpretation of Clark’s statement.
You haven’t provided a single cite that the NATO leadership, prior to the bombing, believed that the overall refugee flow, both long term and short term, would increase as a result of the bombing.
How many times do I have to say it until it sinks in?
My claim about Serbian blackmail? Tell me, just what was my claim about Serbian blackmail?
[repeat of what you’ve already said]
That still doesn’t explain the discrepancy between your two positions.
You said “It is against international law to threaten the use of force in order to coerce a party into signing a treaty.” You did not say “It is against international law to threaten the use of force in order to coerce a party into signing a treaty, unless you are already at war with them.”
What I am unaware of is what, exactly, you think the wording of this prohibition is. How am I supposed to discuss whether the US has violated this prohibition, if I don’t know which one you’re talking about?
Can you highlight where the phrase “the use of force will only be used if one member of the alliance is attacked or threatened.” appears?
It is not a logical necessity. The US is not a monolithic entity. There are some people in the government who care about human rights, and there are some who don’t. Sometimes the former get their way, sometimes the latter. I don’t see anything odd about that.
What do you mean “not really”?
Asking you to back up your claims is inane?
You explained why you found it impossible to believe.
A claim you have failed to back up.
A claim you have failed to back up.
No resemblance? The issue is whether popular pressure caused the Serbian bombing. If there was a generalized feeling that NATO should be doing more in the Balkans, it is quite reasonable to believe that the Serbian bombing was a response to it.
And yet you don’t have a shred of evidence for that.
You have yet to explain why the interview with Clarke is insufficient, nor why the a priori argument for expecting an escalation of atrocities is invalid. You seem to want to deny that there was any evidence unless there was a planning document coming out of the Pentagon showing exactly how many refugees they expected. The problem is that it takes several years for these documents to be released to the public.
You stated: “Since the US did not give into Serbian blackmail, it didn’t care about the refugee problem?”
Exactly what “Serbian blackmail” are you talking about?
Negotiating terms of surrender is different from negotiating a treaty. But, we don’t have to argue about this–simply read the Vienna Convention I linked to above.
It is common knowledge (or should be) that the U.N. Charter explicitely forbids wars of aggression. Article 1 states, in part, that the purpose of the United Nations is “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace…” The charter makes an aggressive war illegal, and requires that all uses of force must be approved by the security council (article 39), unless a state is under direct armed attack and is acting in self-defense (article 51).
Since no security council resolution authorized the bombing of Serbia, the NATO action was a clear violation of international law.
The NATO charter explicetly says that the principles in the U.N. charter will be abided by. The only thing the NATO charter allows the use of force for is in collective self-defense.
There are two things wrong here. First of all, I dispute that there was ever any pressure on NATO to do anything whatsoever in Yugoslavia. Certainly there was pressure on the U.N., and the international community to do something, but not NATO. Secondly, we are talking about the NATO bombing of Serbia. Pressure to do something in no way implies pressure on NATO to bomb Serbia.
And, by the way, thanks for completely ingoring most of my points, in particular the point about NATO’s rejection of the Serb offer at Rambouillet, which in itself proves my point.