Log in

View Full Version : NATO Intervention in Bosnia



khlib
2nd November 2011, 14:47
Do you support NATO's intervention in Bosnia on humanitarian grounds?

tir1944
2nd November 2011, 15:21
What exactly are you referring to?
The NATO bombing of R.Srpska in 1995?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NATO_bombing_campaign_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovi na

khlib
2nd November 2011, 15:40
Yes, that, and even earlier in 1994, such as the air strike to protect the safe area in Goražde.

Were these strikes justified on humanitarian grounds or do you think that NATO had ulterior motives?

mrmikhail
4th November 2011, 21:49
I would hardly call the NATO intervention as humanitarian, considering it is known that depleted uranium shells were used in the bombings, which are known to cause cancer and horrific birth defects and many other problems. The truth behind it all is NATO was merely using humanitarian aid to prevent the reformation of a Russia-friendly Yugoslavia.

rundontwalk
6th November 2011, 07:16
At face value, I'm cool with the ''international community'' stepping in and stopping genocide/mass murder/ethnic cleansing. But the problem is the ''international community'' picks and chooses which genocides/war crimes they want to stop based on more selfish reasons. And the ''international community'' never polices itself, so it's all sort of pointless.

kashkin
7th November 2011, 07:23
In no way was NATO's intervention humanitarian. Kosovo has always been a large American air base. They ignored ethnic crimes against Serbians. Kosovar and Croatian war criminals have lived openly for years. Jano Bobetko was elected to parliament.

That said, I don't think I have ever seen any intervention that actually has been humanitarian. It's just imperialism with a nice face.

mrmikhail
8th November 2011, 10:16
In no way was NATO's intervention humanitarian. Kosovo has always been a large American air base. They ignored ethnic crimes against Serbians. Kosovar and Croatian war criminals have lived openly for years. Jano Bobetko was elected to parliament.

That said, I don't think I have ever seen any intervention that actually has been humanitarian. It's just imperialism with a nice face.

This is all very true, NATO/America doesn't care about war crimes as long as it is their side committing them. Like their use of DU shells, by definition the UN considers that a war crime, but it cannot bring charges against any of the 5 permanent members of the UN...effectively meaning China, Russia, USA, France, and the UK are exempt from international law. Nothing has changed since the American Imperialism of the 1890s, the US government will support any government that is willing to make money for them/grant them exclusive economic or military rights regardless of their humanitarian records....

DarkPast
8th November 2011, 10:29
NATO never had anything to do with humanitarianism - ever. Their motives for the Kosovo intervention were about putting Yugoslavia (a "rogue state") in its place, not about trying to save the Kosovars.

mrmikhail
8th November 2011, 10:37
NATO never had anything to do with humanitarianism - ever. Their motives for the Kosovo intervention were about putting Yugoslavia (a "rogue state") in its place, not about trying to save the Kosovars.

Exactly, it was all about keeping Yugoslavia dis-united, because it was better for NATO's interests in the region (especially since Yugoslavia of the time was pro-Russia)

And Kosovo's economy under the NATO/EU "humanitarian protection" is almost non-existent...Kosovo is basically nothing but an air base to check regional power....

Sir Comradical
8th November 2011, 12:23
I don't think you'll find too many people here saying they support NATO, let alone saying they support NATO on humanitarian grounds. Actually some posters did support the rebels in Libya which means they supported NATO by extension.

mrmikhail
8th November 2011, 12:27
I don't think you'll find too many people here saying they support NATO, let alone saying they support NATO on humanitarian grounds. Actually some posters did support the rebels in Libya which means they supported NATO by extension.

Then they would also technically by extension support al queda and ultra right wing Islamism ;)

Nox
8th November 2011, 12:40
Kosovo je Albania

DarkPast
8th November 2011, 13:08
Kosovo je Albania

An anarchist who supports a nation-state?

mykittyhasaboner
9th November 2011, 17:11
Kosovo je Albania

Then why did you write this in Serbian?

khlib
9th November 2011, 17:22
hahahaha, also it's not in Serbian... *Albanija

Ismail
9th November 2011, 18:05
Allow me to fix Nox's words: Kosova ėshtė Shqipėri. :D

Of course being Albanian does not make it automatically destined to be ruled by Albania. The future of Kosova then and now is up to the people of the region.

Stew312856
17th November 2011, 04:53
Whole mess was a gigantic case of racism and imperialism going back to First Balkan War when Serbia annexed Ottoman Kosovo, IMO.

This is what Trotsky said in 1913:


Do not the facts, undeniable and irrefutable, force you to come to the conclusion that the Bulgars in Macedonia, the Serbs in old Serbia, in their national endeavor to correct data in the ethnological statistics that are not quite favorable to them, are engaged quite simply in systematic extermination of the Muslim population in the villages, towns and districts?

Catholic Croatians, grand sons of the ultra-fascist Ustaše soldiers, and Serbian Orthodox Christians nominally allied to massacre Albanian Muslims so to re-consolidate Yugoslavia in a fascist structure under Milosevic.

West was only using the situation when it was advantageous and, just like Rwanda, millions needlessly died. American lack of intervention was due to strategic air base placement that NATO was angling for in post-USSR Europe.

Stew312856
17th November 2011, 06:32
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL75CF5FCFB6795C2E

This is the moment we see Hitchens begin to slide into what is called by many his hawkishness.

Now, please give me a minute to explain: Hitchens here is speaking in 1994, prior to ANY intervention, advocating for intervention. His reading of the situation is based on a priori experience of going as a journalist to investigate. He reads this as a pro-capitalist empire building initiative, the West was angling to invigorate it's NATO base locations.

Food for thought

Stew312856
17th November 2011, 06:52
Exactly, it was all about keeping Yugoslavia dis-united, because it was better for NATO's interests in the region (especially since Yugoslavia of the time was pro-Russia)

Not sure where you get your information there, Milosevic took over the remnants of the Communist party and converted it into an ultra-nationalist party. The war was intentionally meant to create Muslim minority refugees and revive former Fascist culture, memorials to Ustasha Party members, the WWII Nazi ally, were put up around the nation. Everyone remained neutral for YEARS before they were forced by public opinion to get involved because NATO countries like Germany and Austria subsidized involved nations and their economies and NATO as a whole was angling for strategic hegemony.

Sheepy
18th November 2011, 02:32
Kosovo is nothing more than a U.N Puppet State.

tir1944
18th November 2011, 20:09
Catholic Croatians, grand sons of the ultra-fascist Ustaše soldiers, and Serbian Orthodox Christians nominally allied to massacre Albanian Muslims so to re-consolidate Yugoslavia in a fascist structure under Milosevic.
Seriously dude,you gotta re-check your information.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
Where the hell are you getting this from?

Nox
19th November 2011, 00:54
The NATO action in Kosovo is the only NATO action I have ever supported, simply because it's probably the only time where they have genuinely freed an oppressed people and given them self-determination.

Yugo45
19th November 2011, 01:09
The NATO action in Kosovo is the only NATO action I have ever supported, simply because it's probably the only time where they have genuinely freed an oppressed people and given them self-determination.

Hmm.. Bombing civilians (Serbian AND Albanian) with bombs containing uranium is genuinely freeing opressed people?

Interesting..

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/images/nato-bombs-convoy.GIF

Nox
19th November 2011, 01:15
Hmm.. Bombing civilians (Serbian AND Albanian) with bombs containing uranium is genuinely freeing opressed people?

Interesting..

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/images/nato-bombs-convoy.GIF

Ignoring the civilian casualties, it's the only action of NATO that I've ever supported.

Sir Comradical
19th November 2011, 02:45
Ignoring the civilian casualties, it's the only action of NATO that I've ever supported.

You should be restricted for this.

The Young Pioneer
21st November 2011, 19:45
Ignoring the civilian casualties, it's the only action of NATO that I've ever supported.

Wha...?!

Workers of the world unite...Except the ones NATO kills, we'll over look that.

:thumbdown:

AntifaZG
24th November 2011, 01:02
No... Besides, they did a lousy job protecting the Muslims from the Srebrenica massacre