Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rbessenger
Unlike in Somalia, or even Iraq, the Milosevic regime threatened the stability of Europe and our NATO allies, that is why it was correct for the US to take the lead in rallying NATO forces to end the destabilizing atrocites.

This is a fallacy. Other than the appeal to WWI nostalgia, there is no evidence whatsoever that the war in the disintegrating Yugoslavia threatened to spread on its own outside the borders of that territory. If you knew the history, it was not the assassination of the Archduke that caused Europe to spiral into WWI - it was the intervention of the great powers. So if we are using WWI as the guide, it is the intervention and not the existing crisis which was the greater threat to stability. The kind of stability we have now, due to the occupation of the area by NATO forces, will be no more lasting than the stability under Tito. What has changed, that you think the area won't slide immediately back into war the moment we pull out the occupation forces?

You want to bicker over how many corpses fouled the mass graves. Is there a majic number? Do we go to war over 4001 and but not 4000?

Is there a magic number for casualties that justifies intervention? I would say no, there is not. If you challenge the existence of that magic number, then you are also challenging the rationale for the war itself, which was largely based on the grossly inflated magnitude of the official estimates of casualties.

Allowing Milosevic to perform genocide unchecked whould have destabilized Europe and then you would author threads about how Clinton's failure to act in the former Yugoslavia was a traitorous act of cowardice etc.......

Milosevic performed genocide? Where? When? How? There is much evil about Milosevic, but genocide is not a substantiable charge. And we had a very good alternative option, which was to support a strong pro-democracy movement in supplanting him - but we deliberately chose to ignore it!

I think you need to study a few topics: Ustashe, the Handzar division, the Turk conquest of Constantinope and Smyrna, and the involvement of Islamic fascism on the side of the Bosnian and Albanian Muslims. Given the historical background and the facts on the ground, the only way to justify Western intervention would be to argue that we should have intervened on the side of the Serbian people.

34 posted on 01/01/2004 10:51:43 AM PST by thoughtomator ("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: thoughtomator
Every news service from Fox News to the Christian Science Monitor has reported upon the discovery of mass graves and attempted genocide. Physical evidence and witnesses point at Milosevic.

Varied professionals from archaeologists to military forensics experts point to Milosevic. (Many of these professionals are working on the mass graves in Iraq).

All data points to your being wrong.

NATO acted in the interest of its member states and in the interest of humanity.

35 posted on 01/01/2004 1:40:25 PM PST by rbessenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson