Skip to comments.ЗАШТО? WHY? Stories of bombed Yugoslavia (Clinton's Undeclared War)
Posted on 03/25/2014 6:58:11 PM PDT by tcrlaf
Fifteen years after NATOs 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 NATOs strike terror.
RT presents 'Zashto?' (Why?) on the trauma of terror in Serbia.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
RT is obviously sending a message with this. Putin has pointed to the Bombing of Serbia many times in recent weeks. When it happened, Russia was too weak to stop it. "Not anymore" seems to be the message.
The propaganda from both sides is ratcheting up.
Quite Frankly, I never understood why we bombed Serbia either. It took a long while to figure out the players in the region and after all of that, it still never made any sense as to why the United States was involved in something in Europe’s backyard.
Next stop, Oklahoma City.
This was a favor to oil rich Muslim Arabs. Palms got greased. There was no moral righteousness for the NATO assault. Somehow the Oil rich Arabs have gotten themselves into the western European bankers association and have become too important to ignore.
Note how much money Slick Willey has made in retirement mostly by giving useless speeches to Arabs. He does have something to sell, connections in Washington. Those connections get discrete kickbacks for political favors.
What you say makes sense tho I really don’t know for sure.
I do know our attacking the Serbs was one of the worst things this country has ever done.
And, there's no doubt Ukraine is none of our damn business.
Even if the Russians burn it down and kill everyone there.
Nobody is paying us to be the world's cop and we certainly didn't take an oath to protect every poor soul on the planet.
Some things we just cannot control.
The majority of the Ukrainians wanted to associate with the EU, their pres and Putin didnt
that is what this is all about, putin wants to control what the Ukrainians wanted for their own
Michael Savage brings up the bombing of Christian Serbs to help Muslims as the war crimes of Madeline Albright and the Clinton administration.
Russia has been billing itself as the stalwart Christian nation in the region, from revitalizing its church to standing up to the gay mafia. Of COURSE it would like to improve its standing in the region standing up to the atheist secular West.
That's an erroneous and unsubstantiated contention.
Just a couple/few years back Ukraine had a free and open election to choose a president and the candidate that wanted closer ties to Russia...and more distance from the EU, won.
The majority of Ukrainians wanted to be in the Russian sphere.
While a majority in the WESTERN part of the country wanted to be part of Europe.
That said, who ever thought "Ukraine" could be just one country besides the Soviets?
“there’s no doubt the Russians have a legitimate bitch here.”
They have no legit bitch. Inventing BS that Russian speaking minorities need protection is complete propaganda and right out of the Hitler Sudetenland playbook.
“And, there’s no doubt Ukraine is none of our damn business.”
Said Neville Chamberlain.
“Even if the Russians burn it down and kill everyone there.”
Insert graphic boot licking picture here.
Of course they have a legitimate beef. They had voluntarily disbanded the USSR and the Warsaw Pact in 1992. Seven years later in 1999 we bombed Serbia, one of Russia’s strongest allies without getting UN Security Council Authorization. Instead we used NATO which was supposed to be a strictly defensive alliance to fight an offensive war against a Russian ally while Russia was too weak to do anything effective about it.
Non sequitor, ad hominem all the way.
You belittle yourself.
I believe Pres. Clinton was successful in avoiding any U. S. military person being placed in harm’s way, possibly being killed in a mortal combat situation, as a consequence of his direct order. The Kosovo/Serbia dust-up was farmed out to NATO. At least one degree of separation.
Serbia lined people up by the thousands, slaughtered them and buried them in mass graves to hide the evidence of the atrocities.
With satellite imagery, not a good choice.
Ethnic cleansing, even against Muslims is an atrocity and violates several international laws and basic human decency.
The only countries in the Security Council that voted to condemn the action against Serbia were Russia, China and Namibia.
Even if the Russians burn it down and kill everyone there.
If anybody is belittling themselves, your above statement makes it crystal clear who that is.
When 1 million were killed in Rwanda in 1994, should the US have sent troops to stop it?
How about the 2 million in Cambodia in 1970?
Should the USA stop all state sponsored killing everywhere, or just one state taking over another?
Deliver a cogent argument as is the custom on FR.
The fact that the international community didn’t intervene in said atrocities is no argument against the intervention in Serbian atrocities.
You have to make the case that the Serbians were justified in slaughtering tens of thousands of people, in a systematic manner.
Good luck with that. I have relatives who saw the satellite images of the atrocities. The Serbians got what they deserved. And they got off pretty easy, in fact.
My argument is against intervention in any of them.
Cite a single US National interest in any of them.
Would that not stop the killing of tens of thousands?
Hell, that's right next door.
In fact, we could send your son along with them.
No reason to debate from the relevant specific to the general.
At issue is Russia’s illegal annexation of parts of Ukraine.
You are already deflection one level to Serbia. So, let’s at least keep it to the issue and your first deflection.
Serbia violated scores of international accords, protocols and law by slaughtering and ethnic cleansing. The evidence is not in dispute. It is recorded by confession, witness and pictures.
“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?