Posted on 03/25/2014 6:58:11 PM PDT by tcrlaf
Fifteen years after NATO’s 78-day bombardment of Yugoslavia, memories of the bombing still haunt present-day Serbia. NATO killed over 2,000 people, hundreds were civilians, 88 were children. Serbs ask ‘why?’ above all. Why did NATO smash their cities, kill their children, bomb hospitals and schools?
When the NATO bomb campaign began (on March 24th 1999) Jelena Milincic was a student at the University of Belgrade, and just 18 years old.
When the first bombs shook Belgrade she cowered under a table with her mother, sister, and best friend. Remembering this 15 years later, they laugh nervously.
Jelena takes Anissa Naouai on a road trip, to remember the victims, and hear the survivors of NATO’s strike terror.
RT presents 'Zashto?' (Why?) on the trauma of terror in Serbia.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
“The other “Illegal Undeclared Democrat war you are supposed to forget ever happened, because it is too politically incorrect.”
The United States participation in the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Bosnian War was a lawful fulfillment of its obligations under international law to militarily oppose the war crimes, genocide, and ethnic cleansing being perpetrated as Crimes Against Humanity by the Bosnian Serbs with the military support of Serbia. So your allegation it was an illegal undeclared war is utterly false and a totally repugnant use of false propaganda in support of the Serb mass murderers. Anyone who tries to defend what the Bosnian Serbs and Serbians did in the Bosnian War must share the guilt of their Crimes Against Humanity, no matter who the victims were.
I don't dispute that and neither does any rational person. The Serbians were killing with abandon and having their way with the Muslim minority.
The question on the table is: Was it in the US national interest to intervene?
Of course that same question could logically be extended to any number of locales.
Actually this thread IS about Serbia.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly December 1948, is one of many rationales for intervention in Serbia.
“Was it in the US national interest to intervene?”
It is in the national interests of the US to stop, when possible crimes against humanity.
I would also add that it is in our national interests to weaken nations that set out as a direct foreign policy, to contradict our national security interests. Clearly, Russia does this. So, if “national interest” is your critical rationale it is about as simple as it gets.
Have your seriously thought this through? Russia, by its adversarial, illegal, and coercive actions is proving it is again, a national security threat.
National security interests? I think you say it but you don’t mean it. The interest is clear. Do you believe that allowing the Russians to rebuild the former Soviet Union Warsaw Pact back into a unified force is in our interests?
I don't agree.
"Do you believe that allowing the Russians to rebuild the former Soviet Union Warsaw Pact back into a unified force is in our interests?"
If I saw real evidence of this, rather than sentiment, I would agree. Crimea is not Poland or Germany. At this point it looks to me like NATO is expanding into traditional Russian spheres and writing a check we cannot cash.
However, there are ways to prevent Russia from achieving such a goal without ever speaking a single word.
Energy independence, and even SURPLUS in the US is the only strategic alternative we have.
Anything else is but blather.
(It is in the national interests of the US to stop, when possible crimes against humanity.)
“I don’t agree.”
I’m sure you don’t, if you look at security interests from a narrow perspective. I would suggest looking at it from a broader approach, because, it is in our interest not to have holocausts and ethnic cleansing happening around the world. Helping to stop it, also builds good will and credibility for American interests around the world, which furthers our security interests in multiple areas.
“Crimea is not Poland or Germany.”
Geo-strategiclly, it is in our interest to deny the Russians full naval basing access in the Crimea, and to deny them logistics routes trough Eastern Ukraine.
“At this point it looks to me like NATO is expanding into traditional Russian spheres and writing a check we cannot cash.”
I don’t think you are understanding the concept of “national interest”. Of course we want to enter into former Soviet/Russian spheres LMAO. A contained and restricted Russia is a good thing.
“Energy independence, and even SURPLUS in the US is the only strategic alternative we have.”
We have agreement. Not to it’s sole utility, but to it’s strategic importance.
Named after the first US Secretary of State to sport two X chromosomes?
Of course, it was really Billy Jeff's war. But he couldn't be bothered to rub out Osama, could he? Might have pissed off the Saudis, dontcha know ...
The reason we bombed Serbia is twofold
1. Clinton wanted to be a war time president
2. He needed a distraction from his scandals at home
Bismarck: “The entire Balkans are not worth the bones of one good Pomeranian grenadier”
I know people who just fled there
So, I got it first hand
Who did you get your information from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.