The Truth is not Politically Correct (Yugoslavia spinoff)

[IndieC]

Ok, i think i will agree with you that there is not use in continuing this debate, as we both have strong views on the subject, and neither of us is going to give in.

Some of your sources, like zmag.com, are, in my opinion, strongly biased, and to be quite honest, blind in some ways, as to the truth of the matter, while others are very credible indeed, like the original website you directed me to, through a google search. In the end, it all depends on what one reads first, in my opinion, and what one's political or ideological stance is. Whether one is a fervent communist, a moderate liberal, or a devoted capitalist or nationalist, we all have our views, and there is nothing anyone can really do to change them. It has been a pleasure trying to convince you that my view is the right one, even if it got out of hand occasionally, and i still disagree with you on almost all of the subjects in relation to Yugoslavia and the war of 1998/9.

[bishop]

you know indie... i once was convinced that we had to go into the balkans to stop, what the powers that be called ethnic cleansing.. until recently, i stuck to that position.

the thing is, that when you dig deeper into the actual evidence of their claims, you find that there were gross exaggerations made. (i think we may have touched on them towards the beginning of this thread)

there were atrocities committed by the serbs, no doubt about that.. what was muted when clinton sent the bombs, were atrocities committed by the albanians.. they certainly killed loads of innocents themselves.

now, i'm not sure that we did the wrong thing either, and i definitely don't see how it can be argued that it was illegal - all i'm saying is that when you dig into the details, you easily find that the overwhelming majority of the claims against the serbs have never been proven - most have been debunked in fact.

[IndieC]

Yes, if you look back on my posts you will see that i indeed said that the Serbs were not responisble for everthing, and that claims of ethnic cleansing were exagerrated. I also agree that the Albanians commited some atrocities too, indeed, killed off entire villages from what my mum, who went to work for the OSCE over there for about 5 months, told me. Other atrocities committed by the Albanians included, from stories i have heard, Albanians going around villages, and taking away the eldest sons by force, in order, then, to murder them, and put them in mass graves, making the Serbs look guilty.

So yes, a lot of the claims against Serbs have been false, but the fact remains that they did it, even if they did not do it in the quantities many claim they did.

For that matter, i never said that the Albanians were clean either, and i am against the fact that all of the Serbs were disarmed, while the Albanians were left alone, which has led, now, to the Albanians starting small scale conflicts again, and forcing the Sebs in Kosovo into small NATO secure areas, like Mitroviza (not sure about the spelling there) or Pristina.

[Gorgo]

It was at least a violation of the War Powers Act, and a violation of NATO's own charter, and again, the UN Charter says that it is illegal to attack other countries. Even if 2,000 people were "ethnically cleansed," that is hardly justification to kill 3,000 people.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Gorgo It was at least a violation of the War Powers Act, and a violation of NATO's own charter, and again, the UN Charter says that it is illegal to attack other countries. Even if 2,000 people were "ethnically cleansed," that is hardly justification to kill 3,000 people.

I believe that you will find, with a little reading of information posted in this thread alone the figures of some sources range to up to 10,000. Of course it depends on the source, however taking the lowest possible source does not give an accurate example of the information available.

[Gorgo]

The number of 10,000 refers to what? The number killed by NATO? Otherwise, the numbers just don't agree with the facts available, and again, if it's the number killed by Yugoslavian forces, that still doesn't justify bombing for weeks, destroying the infrastructure, and killing Albanians, Roma, Croats as well as innocent Serbs.

[IndieC]

Gorgo, can you send me link to the war powers act please, i'm afraid i haven't actually heard of that document yet.

And the UN says it is illegal to declare war unless it is in accordance with the purposes of the UN. Please read articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter. I quote the necessary here:

Article one: The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. 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, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2: The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act
in accordance with the following Principles.

4: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5: All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: IndieC Some of your sources, like zmag.com, are, in my opinion, strongly biased

Again, biased does not equal wrong. The New York Times is a major corporation, therefore biased, but not necessarily wrong. You cannot refute the facts. Read Diana Johnstone's article, read Parenti's article. Again, read the stuff that was posted by others here that agreed with you. The best they can do is talk about rumors which were created by a PR company. That's all. Yes, as you said, all committed crimes, but somehow we forgot about the "ethnic cleansing" of the Serbs.

[IndieC]

No, biased does not equal wrong, but your conclusion equals wrong, if you dont read sources from both sides of the spectrum, as i have done.

If the best people who agree with me have come up with is rumours created by a PR company tough for them, i have actually talked to a former member of the Serbian military who was actually ordered to carry out the atrocities, and my mum went to work ther for the OSCE for 5 months. Now, have you got those kind of sources? No, you haven't.

[bishop]

the interesting thing about nato is that it derives its power from the u.n...

the legality of nato's decision to wage war is suspect, but i tend to share this perspective:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/ar...5_wheeler.html


a good point made at the end.. we, nor nato, nor anyone else made any illegal moves when we let the genocide in rwanda/uganda go on. but, should we have? (i would admit, though, that that question is somewhat moot since the allegations of genocide in the balkans were greatly exaggerated.)

[Gorgo]

Haven't finished reading your link, Bishop, but no one is arguing that if it was a good idea to bomb and kill thousands of people in order to stop "genocide" that it was legal, or that if it isn't legal, that it should be.

However, you cannot say it was a good idea to bomb innocent people for weeks, including the people they were supposed to be defending, with the pretense that someone was saving those people. They bombed civilians and civilian infrastructure. They did not help, and there was nothing to help. If they wanted to help, what they needed to do was stop trying to tear Yugoslavia apart out of greed.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Gorgo The number of 10,000 refers to what? The number killed by NATO? Otherwise, the numbers just don't agree with the facts available, and again, if it's the number killed by Yugoslavian forces, that still doesn't justify bombing for weeks, destroying the infrastructure, and killing Albanians, Roma, Croats as well as innocent Serbs.

You claim to have a better understanding of the facts than highly informed well respected journalists from sources such as the Washington Times and the Associated Press? How very novel of you.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: IndieC Gorgo, can you send me link to the war powers act please, i'm afraid i haven't actually heard of that document yet.

Go to a nearby library. They probably have computers with connection to the internet. Go to a site called Google. Then call me for more instructions on how to find information.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Chris the Chees You claim to have a better understanding of the facts than highly informed well respected journalists from sources such as the Washington Times and the Associated Press? How very novel of you.

Again, read the links that were provided here earlier from people who disagreed with me. The best they can do is talk about rumors. The best they can say is "the Pentagon says." They did not know.

Indie, I'm sure some people were given orders on all sides to commit crimes. That is not in question. That does not mean that millions were killed, nor does it mean that those orders came from milosevic. People on all sides committed crimes, including lots of Serbians killed.

[bishop]

Quote by: Gorgo Haven't finished reading your link, Bishop, but no one is arguing that if it was a good idea to bomb and kill thousands of people in order to stop "genocide" that it was legal, or that if it isn't legal, that it should be. However, you cannot say it was a good idea to bomb innocent people for weeks, including the people they were supposed to be defending, with the pretense that someone was saving those people. They bombed civilians and civilian infrastructure. They did not help, and there was nothing to help. If they wanted to help, what they needed to do was stop trying to tear Yugoslavia apart out of greed.

i was troubled by the fact that we destroyed the countries' infrastructure. that was the main reason why i donated as much money to the intl red cross as i did. looking back, though, i believed the allegations, so i was willing to accept our tactics. i view genocide as being one of the most legitimate reasons to go to war. it's something that should never be accepted or ignored imo.

my problem is that we were lied to in order to attack the serbs - not simply that we went to war. there is a distinction there, because i tend to believe that you are generally always anti-war. you were against invading afghanistan too, right?

this would be the second war in my lifetime where the public was lied to - kosovo and iraq 2. i think i've learned my lesson finally - i hope so at least.

[Chris the Chees]

“The best they can do is talk about rumours?” I suppose the numerous mass graves discovered are mere rumours, created by conspiracy theorists to promote their own dark ends, whatever they maybe…

I am still awaiting your explanation as to quite how your understanding of the subject rivals that of the experts who have estimated shockingly high numbers?

You realise that very little evidence has been discovered in the USSR, for the alleged atrocities? Yet historians are convinced that millions were killed? You see historians work on considerable more than simple physical evidence to come up with their ideals regarding history. Eye witnesses, confessions, documentation, in conjunction with even a little physical evidence promotes a very strong case. What sources can you site which prove that the witnesses are mistaken and those who have confessed are delusional or lying.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Chris the Chees What sources can you site which prove that the witnesses are mistaken and those who have confessed are delusional or lying.

If you're not going to read what I post, there is little point in attempting to discuss this with you at all.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: bishop because i tend to believe that you are generally always anti-war. you were against invading afghanistan too, right?

I can't say that I would be against war if I thought it might be an effective means to a constructive end. I've never seen that happen, yet. War seems to be always about lies.

There was no reason to risk the lives of millions of people in Afghanistan and kill we'll never know how many innocent people No. It was a crime, it was murder, and there was no good reason for it.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I suppose the numerous mass graves discovered are mere rumours, created by conspiracy theorists to promote their own dark ends, whatever they maybe

Recent sources?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Gorgo If you're not going to read what I post, there is little point in attempting to discuss this with you at all.

I have read what you have posted, which is not an answer to the question I have already posted to you. I am still waiting to here how you are in a better position to contradict the views of the experts in this field.

Are you going to answer, or are you going to continue evading?