Kosovo to delcare independance tomorrow

[DaShi]

Crying?

[Krill]

Rearming Serbia?

[Datajack Franit]

Giving independence to every single muslim region in the world

[Heresson]

Independant London and Amsterdam

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Colon�
Nice to see a leftist is just as prone to calling an irregular army "terrorist" as Bush is when it fits the agenda.

It is. I don't support fake socialist liberation armies that are just a front for ethnic chauvinism. "We" are only supporting them because it suits our geopolitical objectives. When they didn't, our governments used to refer to them as "heroin trafficking terrorists".

Mind you, I can see why people believe different, given that our media has spent 15 years demonizing Serbians as sociopathic mass murderers. A clue: all of them have blood on their hands.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
You're missing my point. Yes, there was a civil war with casualties and refugees, only a fool would deny this. This alone would warrant humanitary help from abroad, but not yet a military intervention. To justify an intervention, a claim of crimes against humanity had to be made. Since there wasn't enough to call it genocide, the term "humanitary disaster" was made up. This claim was blown out of proportion, it was equally false as the WMD claim for Iraq. If there were such clear crimes against humanity as it was stated before, they would have convicted Milosevic much faster instead of having him die in prison from illness after years of fruitless trial.

Well, "crimes against humanity" aren't just genocide. They include a number of actions like murder, rape, torture etc. if they are done in a widespread, systematic way.

Also, even according to the UN, crimes against humanity are *not* the only justifiction for outside intervention. One usual formula is IIRC that outside action may be ok for example if a regional crisis is a danger to the stability of the region. That's a rather weak wording, yes, and therefore it allows for a lot of interpretation, but I don't see how could anyone come up here with an exact definition that would cover all possible scenarios.

Problem is of course that the UN did not back up NATO action. But that is a legal problem resulting from special interests in the area (esp. Russia's) and the subsequent division in the UNSC. It doesn't prove per se that Kosovo didn't fit into the UN's own description, it rather shows what we knew anyway, that the UNSC is often a show room for national interests of the veto powers.

The question is, what alternatives do you have in a given situation. Doing nothing or at best making embargos was already done over years during the other Balkan wars, and we know how that worked out. And what was the perpective for Kosovo without action, permanent civil war. Why would we want to see that one more time in Europe? And I don't think such a regional conflict just limits itself nicely to the country it happens in, just look into various other regional conflicts.

[Dinner]

The intervention mainly happened because Slobo had already started wars in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia anf the last one especially gave the international community a black eye for not bothering to do anything about war crimes. Then it became clear that Slobo was again up to the same war crimes so Clinton & all were determined not to just let the Bosnian war repeat itself.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


IIRC to Serbians that means any boy with one or more pubic hairs. To the rest of the world they're known as "children".

Or Gitmo inmates.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by BeBro
Well, "crimes against humanity" aren't just genocide. They include a number of actions like murder, rape, torture etc. if they are done in a widespread, systematic way.

Also, even according to the UN, crimes against humanity are *not* the only justifiction for outside intervention. One usual formula is IIRC that outside action may be ok for example if a regional crisis is a danger to the stability of the region. That's a rather weak wording, yes, and therefore it allows for a lot of interpretation, but I don't see how could anyone come up here with an exact definition that would cover all possible scenarios.

The authority to decide this is the UNSC.

Problem is of course that the UN did not back up NATO action. But that is a legal problem resulting from special interests in the area (esp. Russia's) and the subsequent division in the UNSC. It doesn't prove per se that Kosovo didn't fit into the UN's own description, it rather shows what we knew anyway, that the UNSC is often a show room for national interests of the veto powers.

Too bad, the UNSC did not approve it, that makes it illegal. We can't accept UNSC decisions only if they fit our agenda. Even though it may be reasonable (I grant you that), illegal is illegal.

As I stated above, what buggers me most is that the Nato enforced the end of the slaughtering and ethnic cleansing only to one side, the other continued happily while the Nato did nothing. The KLA was not even properly disarmed, even though this was part of the deal. "Pretty please" didn't work, other methods were never tried.

Oh well, after we recently obtained a country where drugs are grown under our protection, chances are good that we get now one that imports and deals them, likewise under our protection.

[Wezil]

Some of us don't give two ***** what the UN says Ralph.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Wezil
Some of us don't give two ***** what the UN says Ralph.

That is well known and probably a reason that it should be disbanded.

[Wezil]

Particularly regarding issues of ethnic cleansing/genocide. The UN record on this front is abysmal.

The UN (actually their associated NGO's) are top notch for innoculating babies.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Independent Krajina (with returned refugees )

Independent Scotland, Wales, North Ireland and Yorkshire

[OneFootInTheGrave]

oops...

[Dinner]

Yorkshire? Why Yorkshire?