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.
Last night in the debate between Gore and Bush (if that was last night - I've been up for a while, and lost track of time), Bush flat-out stated that he "supported the President" in his actions against Yugoslavia.
I am interested to know, among you who support Bush, which of the following is true of you:
(1) You agree with Bush, and also support Clinton and NATO's actions in Kosovo - please try to say why you support it,
(2) You don't know what Bush was even talking about, and perhaps don't know where Kosovo is on the map,
(3) You disagree with Bush, but don't see it as important enough to cause Bush to lose your support, or
(4) Another possibility I have not thought of (other category, in other words).
Any comments about Bush's now stated approval of Clinton's campaign of false propaganda against and murder of the Serbs, NATO's ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo, the demonizing of a whole people on international news media, the purposeful strengthening of the KLA, the attempted strengthening of Milosevic, and the stirring up of ethnic strife throughout the Balkans?
Let me state here that I do not support Pat Buchanan for president, so please don't go there. So you will know, I plan to vote for Howard Phillips for President, because to me he is the only acceptable candidate, with the possible exception of Browne.
I may vote for Bush, however, because I badly want him to win, if it can only be Bush or Gore, and unless there is a major earthquake, or Clinton declares martial law, or the Lord returns, or something else, I guess that is the way it will be.
The reason I want Bush over Gore is because it is the only way that true conservatives will possibly wake up in the next election. If Gore wins, you will all let the media pick another challenger for you in the next election. If Bush wins, the way I see it, there can only be three outcomes: (1)The worst, Bush supporters will become liberals and cultic (in some cases I see that happening, and that truly scares me). (2) Many of you will be disappointed and see the light and rise up against the status quo next election. (3)Bush pleasantly surprises me, and becomes a tolerable president (not likely). Two and 3 are good outcomes, and with Gore there can be no good outcome, other than possibly a full-scale revolt and junta, but I don't know if that would really be that good.
So, now you know where I stand, and we got all that out of the way.
You asked a question, and I will answer.
At the time that the engagement first started, I supported the action. I did not know then what I know now. Had I the wisdom I have now, I would not have supported the action.
I also realize the difficult political position for anyone in government at the time to oppose an action underway. It is political death to be interpreted as undermining the troops.
> Any comments about Bush's now stated approval
Oh...he just now stated his approval, did he.
Interesting choices you offer. Let me see if I can muddle it up for you
I doubt if Bush wants to create more controversy by stating opposition to the Kosovo plan and effort. He took the path of minimum hurt here, as always. None of the national TV/print media have given a minute to opposition voices - only some columnists and talk show guys. Therefore, anything he says against it will be dissected instantly by the media and the dems - "he doesn't support our troops", etc. Recall that McCain said we shouldn't go into Kosovo, but once we were in, he said we have to support the effort. I think that's probably where Bush is. He did say that we need an exit strategy for Kosovo and other missions.
My own view, FWIW, is that the US/NATO made Milosevic such a bad choice in the negotiations that he had to do what he did - he took the only pro-Serb option. While there was quite a bit of harassment of the Muslims in Kosovo by the Serbs, it got real bad after our bombing started, which then justified (to the media, controlled by the US/NATO, with some English exceptions) bombing Yugo back to the early 20th century. I think the US/NATO actions violated the UN Charter (FWIW again!) but the UN apparently doesn't care much, since Milosevic is such a bad guy.
My two cents -- Randy
I plan to vote for Howard Phillips for President... I may vote for Bush...So, now you know where I stand...
No, I don't think anyone much less yourself knows where you stand. That aside, at least you have realized that Bush is as much a NWO globalist as Clinton who will readily interfer in the affairs of sovereign nations. And that is an important step.
Never compromise your beliefs. Since only a publicrat would sacrifice his/her beliefs in order to compromise with the tyrannical elements amongst us.
I meant I support Howard Phillips, and wish he had a chance to win, but if he can't, I want Bush to win for the reasons I stated - because it is the only way conservatives will wake up, I'm afraid.
Thanks for your response. It made sense. The question in my mind, though, is - is it RIGHT to publicly support this action, whether the media kill you for it or not?
There's virtually nothing Clinton touches that he doesn't screw-up. You could support him going to the bathroom, then he comes back with his pants soiled.
The question is unanswerable because it's all part of a screwey Clintonian policy.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I don't think it is necessarily right to "support thre troops" no matter what they are doing, like many like McLame say. If they followed orders from a Clintonesque commander-in-chief to go into the Bahamas and kill every first-born son, I wouldn't support them, just because they're "our troops." At that point they are NOT MY troops anymore. In Kosovo, I'm sure a lot of the pilots didn't know what was really going on with the Top Brass, and were being fed lies as well, but McLame and Bush don't have to go along with the lies. Also, Bush volunteered wioth gusto that he supported Clinton's actions in Kosovo. That disturbed me, because it was worse than just sliding through the question and getting away without confrontation.
Let me put it this way - it cemented my opposition to him when I heard him say that. It was actually a sad moment for me. FWIW :/
Thanks again for your answer. You and I agree on the criminality of the NATO action, I think.
The man IS mind-boggling, ain't he? Thanks for your bit of philosophy - something to ponder, but not on a full stomach.
I won't answer your question. What I shall do is ask you a query. Since you are a PAT cultist, why are you trying to now say that some GOPers are also entering into a cultic state ? Like the Dems, who try to foul Gopers by saying that they have allowed , known about, whatever someone having an abortion, which the Dems push. Pot trying to call a kettle black, dear ?
No, definitely not on a full stomach.
When you mix Willie/Maddie/Strobe with the tar-baby situation in the Balkans, you end up with mixed metaphors for disaster.
I think you get good heads and calm hands in there, with leadership and a clear idea of American interests and do the best you can. If there were easy answers, it wouldn't be the problem that it is.
Thanks for your response and reasoned discussion.
Good night all, and best wishes...
I support GW.
I do not support the type of action that the US took in Kosovo.
I do not believe GW would hastily enter into this type of action outside the UN.
GW is of the stripe that would support our troops in harms way, period.
Bush is our only hope of getting out of there before the new guy decides to unite his country (which will be a bloodbath).
This post is of personal interest to me being one of the 6500 US soldiers deployed to the lovely Kosovo for a six month vacation with all the comforts of home. I have also spent another four months in the other Balkans paradise, Bosnia. And in all my travels throughout the country, I can find no compelling interest for our presence here. When in Bosnia both sides informed me that they could not wait until we (NATO) was gone, so they could get back to unfinished business. (Killing each other for all you liberals out there.) And here, while Kostunica seems to be more willing to talk to the west making the west perhaps more willing to let him rule over his sovereign, this will just cause the KLA to begin targeting the NATO forces if we are seen to be in cooperation with Serbia. So what is the solution. Now that we are here, unfortunately we are stuck. The only way out for such a large mass of troops having such an impact on the economy is a slow methodical one. Bush, I believe has given veiled reference to this in his "careful review" of contingency missions, as well as a not so veiled reference proclaiming the need for an exit strategy. That is why you will find a vast majority of absentee ballots from Kosovo in the Bush category on Nov 7, though I am not sure if I trust the Post Office to accurately or timely deliver those ballots. But I would hope that if anything our administration has learned the consequences of election fraud from the events in the past 24 hours here in the FRY. That is this soldier's opinion, FWIW.
I meant I support Howard Phillips, and wish he had a chance to win, but if he can't, I want Bush to win for the reasons I stated - because it is the only way conservatives will wake up, I'm afraid.
Fair enough. There are many like you who are supporting another, but in the end will sadly sacrifice their principle.
Btw, this non Bush supporter finds the NATO action in Yugoslavia criminal.
Btw, this non Bush supporter finds the NATO action in Yugoslavia criminal.
I'm shocked! I'd have never guessed.
The reason I want Bush over Gore is because it is the only way that true conservatives will possibly wake up in the next election.
My thoughts exactly, but I still can't vote for GWB. And I won't.
The GOP don't seem to realize that GWB wins and they maintain control of Congress, the 2002 is going to be to the GOP what 1994 was to the Dems.
You wrote to me: Since you are a PAT cultist...
Do you meant Pat, as in Patrick J. Buchanan, or is PAT an anacronym for something I've never heard of? IF you mean Buchanan, I refer you to what I posted toward the top of this page:
Let me state here that I do not support Pat Buchanan for president, so please don't go there.
Can that be any clearer? Do you read as poorly as you write? Is English your first language?
Thank you for posting mostly unintelligible gibberish and refusing to answer the question. I'll assume you fall in category number 2, of the categories I listed.
Thank you for a good, reasoned response. I disagree, though, and think Bush should have had the guts to condemn NATO's (led by the criminals Blair and Clinton) illegal actions, if that's the way he sees it, too. It would be doing our troops a favor. To be vocal in your opposition to wrong-headed intervention by politicians with our troops is not the same thing as being a Hanoi Jane, or Bill Clinton. I would never have cheered if the Serbs, wronged as I think they are, had shot and killed an American pilot.
Thank you for an interesting perspective! I'm sorry you are over there - you shouldn't be. Stay safe, take good notes, and represent our nation well.
I think all you soldiers should send in absentee ballots for a man who was a voice crying in the wilderness, telling the Clinton Administration and his supporters in this action, like Bush and McCain, that they were wrong to send you there in the first place. I speak of Howrd Phillips. Someone like him would keep you guys out of immoral, globalist operations like this, and morale in the military would be at an all-time high.
But if you all think Bush might get you out of there, I can understand why you would cast a vote for him. I'm just afraid you are mistaken about that.
I'm not a Bush supporter, so I can't answer these questions. However, this thread deserves a bump.
Honest question, honest answer.
Based on government reports that people were being slaughtered I endorsed our intervention. As time went on, I saw the folly of believing anything coming out of this administration and/or the media and opposed any inseretion of ground troops.
Having said that, I shed no tears for Milosevic and his commie henchmen. In fact, I am glad to see them thrown out on their red behinds.
BUMPING some good questions there!!
the UN apparently doesn't care much, since Milosevic is such a bad guy.
I would correct you to say that 90% of Americans don't care what their government/military/CIA does to other countries.
As for your comments affording some small dose of credibility to propaganda (which you only now recognize as such - how convenient) that Serbs were not nice to Muslims trying to steal land, I think you should look at how it was like for 600 years right up until 1989 when the shoe was on the other foot. As for the civil war which started in 1998, you need to look at the issue of proportionate response. Serb forces' actions can hardly compare to the actions of US client states such as Israel, Turkey, El Salvador and so many others. But that's assuming anybody cares, which I highly doubt.
Half #1, half #4. I am a Bush supporter. I have favored military intervention in Yugoslavia since the early 1990s.
I consider the manner and ability with which our present administration handled the entire affair to be large-scale screw up. They missed opportunities, wasted time, postured, backed wrong parties, choose silly pretend solutions, used the wrong types of force, lied, put our men under the wrong commanders, flattered the wrong allies, and generally showed a level of geopolitical competence that would do the keystone cops proud.
In spite of all of the above, with help from the Serbian people recently, they still apparently managed to bring down Slobo, for which I give them some credit. The reasons for that are two - #1, because NATO has so much more power than Serbia that even collosal idiocy cannot quite manage to blow it and #2, because Slobo is so idiotic, pigheaded, and delusional that he couldn't compromise with Gandi to save his grandmother.
If I had had my way, the place would have been blitzed in all-out fashion years ago and Slobo would already be a moldy pile of bones. Undoubtedly, that means I'm even worse than der Slickmyster and Company from your perspective. But those are my opinions and positions on the subject, since you asked. If it helps understand the sort I am, I'm former U.S. military myself and have voted republican my whole life.
I support Bush, and I understand his statement on the subject. It doesn't mean I like the way Clinton and Company ran this particular fiasco. But if I had run it, you may have liked it even less. On the other hand, it would all have been over years ago.
You wrote " Do you meant Pat, as......." That isn't English. Is English your second language ? Are you capable to write a clear, cogent sentence, or is your claim to fame writing silly ( re saying that some GOPers are becoming "cult" folowers of Bush ) speculations, and trying to insult others ? My point was that I took umbrage with your unsubstanciated assumptions.
Thank you for your intelligent post. Actually, I think you give the Clinton Administration and NATO too much credit. They were outwardly acting as the airforce for the KLA. Why they have been trying to bolster the strength of the KLA I don't have any idea, but it seems perverse to me, since the KLA seems to be one of the biggest perpetrators of atrocities and instability in the Balkans. Maybe it has something to do with heroine, I don't know.
Also, it appears to me that they deliberately tried to STRENGTHEN Milosevic in Yugoslavia with their actions. Milosevic WAS stronger politically right after the bombings - not surprisingly. I think they are rather disappointed (secretly) in the recent elections, which, BTW, had to be somewhat clean, it seems, or the challenger of the incumbent could not have otherwise won.
After the NATO bombing was over and the dust cleared, it became apparent that there was NO evidence of one-sided ethnic cleansing before the bombings commenced, and absolutely not a shred of evidence of any kind of genocide. The KLA seemed to be the perpetrator of most of the proven crimes, and NATO seemed to always try to cover for them and give them a pass. It also became clear that NATO had drastically overstated the damage they claimed to ahve caused to the Serb military, and understated the number of innocent civilians slaughtered by their forces.
I doubt you would have done any of that. I hope not. I would be against any military ionvolvement in the Balkans, but if your objective was to get rid of the communist regime that was holding power in Yugoslavia, I could tolerate the action, though I would ask what long term good it was supposed to do, and why you chose to send the military to the Balkans and not Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Sierre Leone, or 1000 other civil wars? BTW, why did we bomb the Serbs, and not Indonesia or China or the Tootsies (or whoever that is in Rwanda)?
I agree with Jason sort of, although I would phrase it a bit more gingerly, and would have hoped the troops on Serbia's borders would have persuaded Slobo to cease and desist without the bombing. I believe Kosovo required autonomy from Serbia at a minimum given the situation at the time, and believed the Albanians were in great danger of suffering a human catastrophe if nothing was done. We had Bosnia as an all too recent template. I still believe that, and suspect that without the imposition of military force, Slobo would have one way or another driven out a large segment of the Albanian population, if not immediately than with economic pressure. He had a policy in place for a considerable number of years all pointing towards that endgame. That outcome was totally unacceptable to me based on my moral compass.
My views on most of this are well known. I have a considerable corpus of posts on the Balkans, most of them not well received by those here most interested on the issue.
So I have no problem with Bush's policy positions on Kosovo, to the extent he is engaged on the issue.
Thank you for your 2 cents.
So, as I understand it, you agree with Clinton's actions, basically, though not logistically, and therefore also agree with Bush's stated support of those actions. Of those supporting Bush who have posted to this thread, that seems to be the most common thought.
I have not read your other comments on other threads about Kosovo, that I remember. But I have a problem with your (and Bush's) whole premise.
Setting aside the problem that we had a commander-in-chief leading the troops into war (let's call it what it is)who had just been impeached, and that half the Senate had cast a vote stating that they believed him to be a felon and unfit for office, there were other problems with this whole action.
One is that NATO dramatically strayed from their stated reason for existing. They now are a miltary alliance which invades sovereign nations because they don't like the political or moral events taking place within that nation.
But much worse - as I see it, there WAS no evidence, and still there has been no evidence found, that there WAS anything occuring in Kosovo other than a tragic civil war between two very unreasonable (and Marxist, I will add) sides. We OPENLY took the side of the KLA, which I still cannot even believe we did! I could go on and on about this, but the bottom line is, IMO, NO war should be allowed by congress as long as we have a man at the helm who is a pathological liar, and all of his Cabinet are known liars. We cannot trust Clinton (or Blair, for that matter) to tell us anything but lies. Why should any of us ever again trust a report from ANY intelligence agency, for instance. They have all lied too many times.
Well, I'm not getting to the bottom line very quickly here, am I? :)
AS I see it, we had criminals leading our troops into a region (one of MANY strife and violence-ridden regions in the world) based on THEIR word that there was genocide occuring, and they had no, and still don't have, any evidence of its occurence. Ethnic strife? Yes, on both sides. Atrocities? Yes, on both sides. But no evidence of genocide. And anyway, what about all the culturcide and politicide going on in China the last 50 years, not slowing down a bit this decade? Does our government just not care about those souls being killed? Are Chinese and Tibetan souls not as valuable as Albanian? Is there really any difference in the evil of a government killing off people based on their genes, and killing off people based on their beliefs?
I had to work tonight, so I didn't watch the debates. Did Bush mention his support of Clinton's actions in Kosovo again? On another subject, was Gore wearing as much foundation on his face as he was last time?
Awfully quiet in here...
"I support Bush, and I understand his statement on the subject. It doesn't mean I like the way Clinton and Company ran this particular fiasco. But if I had run it, you may have liked it even less. On the other hand, it would all have been over years ago."
Your a bigger moron than Clinton. With statements like this you show your lack of understanding of the region, your lack of understanding of the issues, your lack of understand of Foreign Policy and your lack of understanding of what war is and when to propel a Country into it.
My quess is you either never wore the uniform or you were a REMF.
Thank you for your comment. I will gladly pay for your one way flight to any country of your choice, so you can express your moronic view there.
250,000 people are dead and our guys are still there.
Some of us saw all of that coming, knew we'd be involved before it ended, knew the number of dead would depend upon how long we waited, knew the isolationist bleatings of folks like you would not be listened to for the distance, saw the knots alternatives were tied in - 8 years ago.
And have been called names for it ever since, by people who didn't see any of it and stuck their heads in the sand or pretended they were king of the world and could make something happen with a wave of their hand - including staying out, which was quite predictably beyond the power of you and others of your opinion.
As soon as we know we are going, we should do it right. Powell doctrine. I knew we were going 8 years ago. You think we haven't or could have not or something, if you'd been made dictator or whatever. Well, we went. I was right. You weren't.
Would have been nice if in addition to going, our going might have stopped some of those 250,000 people from being killed, wouldn't it? Geez, how sanctimonious people get over policy. As though there were no such thing as foresight about it, only criminality or something.
As for your ad hominim guess, it is ad hominim, and therefore irrelevant. It is a mere guess, and therefore not evidence at all. It also happens to be false.
"250,000 people are dead. "
Where in Kosovo? Your an idot!
In Bosnia. I'm the one who is talking about the whole thing since 1992, remember? That is how many people have died over the whole period - from Croatia on. Not Kosovo. We could have stopped it at 1/10th that figure. But your view prevailed for a few years but not all the way - just as I forsaw. So deaths were 10 times and high, and our guys are still there. And you still call the people who saw it all ahead of time names, just to feel righteous about yourself.
P.S. a lot of them were Serbs.
Yes your an idiot. 250,000 people over the ten year period is high, number one. Number two our earlier intervention would have done nothing, nothing at all. It hasn't in Bosnia, Kosovo and any where else in the Balkans.
You asumption of placing combat troops in regions like these for the purpose of peacemaking is silly. War is a very necessary evil only to be used in the most extreme cases. Kicking someone out of office or re-establishing a political agenda are not good reasons for putting US Foreces in harms way.
Were there crimes committed, yes. Was genocide committed, NO! Should we have gone balls out in the diplomatic front, yes. Did we, NO!
So, understand what you are looking at, the issues at hand, the region, and when to and when not to use US COMBAT TROOPS! Otherwise your an idiot!
Again, you think you are king of the world or something. In 1992, the question was, would we get involved or would we be able to stay out - the whole distance? And the answer was we would not be able to stay out. That includes all the politics of it, not just your king-of-the-world preferences in the matter.
And you bet we could have ended it then - by defeating the Serbs and imposing a settlement. And it doesn't matter how many exclaimation points you use, that is still the fact and that is still what it took - Slobo out, after defeat, by us. Which some of us saw ~225,000 lives ago.
Sleep easy in your sanctimony. In the muddy real world you are not king of, your attitude materially contributed to that death toll by delaying our inevitable intervention. Your response is to villify anyone who had an ounce of foresight in the matter.
You are a moron. If you think removing Slobo the way we did was a victory for us you are one sorry ass. If you believe that defeating the Serbs would have been easy, I would have wanted YOU on the front lines. Brave talk from someone who has no balls to wear the uniform.
Either you are the biggest jerk on this web site or you are albainian! Get your facts straight before you babble.
Your ad hominims were false when you first stated them, and they are false when you repeat them. If my policy preferences had been followed, we would have gone while I was still in uniform (and in combat arms, I might add). And we'd be done by now, so the guys over there today wouldn't have needed to go.
And it doesn't matter how many times you make yourself look silly by resorting to mere name calling. Some of us saw it, and you and people like you didn't - and pressured and swore the whole time - so we dithered, while a quarter million people died, then got involved anyway - sending the guys there now instead of me and my friends. Naturally, I'm the one that gets called names for it. (Oh, no one would ever even *dream* of blaming Slobo; after all he was a good commie...)
JasonC in post #34 : 250,000 people are dead and ...
JasonC in post #39 : some of us saw ~225,000 lives ago.
It will take a few more posts to get that number down to a more accurate 70,000. Let's put this in perspective: during the time of the WAR in the Balkans, more people were killed in Algeria. But all the reporters were in the Balkans. There were ZERO reporters in Algeria? Why? Because the Balkans were safer; the few reporters that did venture to Algeria were killed (they were not Anglo-American). Actually, there is another reason why reporters never go to: Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Algeria, etc: they can't get a drink in those places.
Son, you are a tree short of a hammock. By the way, your also full of it.
De Oppresso Liber.....
The number isn't dropping. 25,000 were already down from the Croatia war, and that many would have been lost pretty much no matter what we did.
Jason my man, I don't know where you body count numbers come from either. But then I don't know the figures from Bosnia. That book is in the mail.
~25k Croatia (1+ year) - according to "Our Times" - a perfectly believable number for the intensity of the fighting over that period of time. But there is less info on this one.
~150-250 Bosnia (4-5 years), with more belligerents and wider fronts, a lose rate from a bit above to twice that of the Croatia war is perfectly believable - 30-50k per year. Many sources for this one, by far the biggest portion of the total -
U.S. State Dept.: 250,000 (Bosnia and Herzegovina Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996 [http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1996_hrp_report/bosniahe.html])
29 April 1999 AP: 250,000
Compton's Encyclopedia: 200,000
International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights: more than 160,000 (Annual Report 1997 [http://www.ihf-hr.org/ar97bos.htm])
Dan Smith (The State of War and Peace Atlas 1997) uses the Bosnian War as the example of how difficult it is to estimate accurate death tolls, but in the end, he settles for 150,000.
+ ~10-20k Kosovo (a few months) - each side gives lower figures for the other sides casualties. Serbs estimate 5k+ civilians of their own, and 1k military. Others estimate 2-5k Serb military. Call that 6-10k. Serbs estimate ~5k Albanians. Other estimate up to 10k Albanians. Call that 5-10k. The highest estimates are probably off, but 10-20k is the right range for both sides combined.
Total 185 - 295k, with either extreme unlikely. So 250k is the right ballpark. By the State Department's reckoning, published in 1996 well before the later outright war with Serbia (and its possible added info distortions), that was the total of the Bosnia war alone.
I don't make these things up...
As I said, I didn't know the Bosnia numbers, and am surprised they are that high. The Kosovo numbers are within the margins I've seen, but of course are relatively small. Thanks for the info.
I don't make these things up...
Maybe not, but others do. As I mentioned above, there have been 100,000+ documented killings in Algeria 1986 -- 1998, while on the order of 60,000 in Bosnia. As a former military man, you should recognize the red flag in the figures of the "international community" of NGOs: there are more dead than wounded. That's efficient killing! The UN probably has the best figures available (although they aren't releasing them) and the reason for that is that they are the ones who know how many they expatriated during the war and after.
Your figures for Kosovo exceed those of any reliable source by an order of magnitude. That war took place a couple of years ago. Where is your proof of so many dead? These figures you did make up.
bump
At the time that the engagement first started, I supported the action. I did not know then what I know now. Had I the wisdom I have now, I would not have supported the action.
I think a lot of us fell into that trap, I felt that way about Bosnia and Croatia, but was on to the Kosovo deal before the bombing... I wish Bush hadn't suported the war, we didn't know any better, but Bush should have, he was in possition of having more information.
The question is legitimate, even if you are a strong Bush supporter.
Appriciate your opinion, but I am glad you're not running for president.
My views on most of this are well known. I have a considerable corpus of posts on the Balkans, most of them not well received by those here most interested on the issue.
You can say that again.
On the subject of repatriations, the Red Cross lists 17,500 still missing from Bosnia alone. As for the believability of the figures, the Bosnia totals I cite - 150-250k for that portion alone - works out to around 50-75 killed per day of the conflict, on each side. That is 2-3 per hour or perhaps twice that in day-time, over the entire battle area. The forces were corps size and up, making efficient use of sniper rifles and mortars, extensive use of machineguns and lighter small-arms, some tube artillery (though ammo-limited for all but the Serbs), and a few tanks (especially Serbs, and some late in the war for the Croats). The casualty estimates are not in the least surprising.
As for the wounded totals, the war produced well over 1 million refugees at a time, and up to twice that overall. Numerous areas were overrun or had no access to medical facilities. Even the best-served areas in that respect were overtaxed andundersupplied. Whole areas were regularly under blockade and only supplied by intermittent international convoys. To expect an exhaustive accounting of WIA in such circumstances is silly (especially ambulatory / walking-wounded cases). These were not U.S. military evacutated to aid stations within 30 minutes of being hit, here.
As for the Kosovo numbers, I don't see why you don't believe the Serb figures for either. The NATO estimates are higher for all categories but Serb civilians, but are within a factor of two. My ending range is also a factor of two. You say 10-20k is "an order of magnitude" above published reports. I take it you therefore mean that it is your contention that total casualties on both sides combined were under 2000. You'll have a tough time selling that number to either Serb civilians or the Albanians.
And anyway, the last is such a small part of the overall total that it would not appreciably change the picture of the whole series of wars. You have my sources, too. If you wish to hang all of your policy prescriptions and hindisght assessments on the State Department, the Helsinki human rights groups, the wire services and published encyclopedias and scholarly monogrpahs being entirely wrong about the subject - by factors of 4 - then you are quite welcome. In my eyes,you are the one that will lose credibility thereby, not those combined sources.
From what I can tell, the 250,000 figure for Bosnia was asserted by the Izetbegovic "government" without any support whatever, and was accepted uncritically by "official" commenters, such as State Dep't and various NGOs, who were itching to intervene against the Serbs. The war lasted (with long periods of sitzkrieg) from April '92 through October '95, let's say 1277.5 days. (In fact, the Bosnian gov't claimed 200,000 dead after the first two years, which makes its claims even less credible and skews the figures even more.) This would mean that approx. 196 people were killed each and every day for two and a half years. That's a lot of bodies to dispose of, a lot of mass graves, and in the 5 plus years since the fighting ended, with the UN and NATO scouring the place looking for "war crimes", one would expect most of them to be found. Yet the Bosnian gov't has uncovered fewer than 10,000 corpses in mass graves. I'm not saying that the death toll was that low, but the physical evidence simply doesn't support the numbers you cite. BTW, former State Dep't staffer George Kenney gave an estimate of 60,000-70,000, which sounds a lot more realistic.
As for your previous comment that the US should have had earlier military involvement, you overlook the fact that the US was involved at the outset -- it was instrumental in orchestrating Bosnia's secession from Yugoslavia, and caused Izetbegovic to renege on the Lisbon peace accords that all sides had accepted and which are remarkably similar to the Dayton Accords that ended the thing. The Serbs were willing to negotiate an agreement all along; it was the Muslim gov't that insisted on prosecuting the war and spurned any solution dshort of Serb surrender.
You're positing a pretty neat trick -- foment a war, and then intervene on one side under the pretext of stopping it. I have a better trick -- avoid fomenting a war in the first place.
I did not support our involvement in Kosovo.
If we had a dog in that fight, which we didn't- it should have been in support of Serbia against the "Ethnic Albanians" that were spoiling for a fight in Serbia's Kosovo.
Our forces were sent there under extremely questionable circumstances. We have accomplished nothing - longterm. In our good intention effort - we have simply set up a scenario where the Islamic "Ethnic Albanians" have killed or driven the Christian Serbs out of Kosovo. This is temporary.
As soon as we leave....and we must leave....the killing will resume and the number of killed will come much closer to the numbers that the liars used to justify the illegal use of NATO and the criminal bombing of Yugoslavia.
There has still not been enough killing/bleeding to resolve the hate between these two religions - or there has been too much killing to resolve the issues.... Take you pick..they both apply.
Just as in the middle east -- you have wars between followers of different religions - a holy war. If you refuse to be killed or driven off - you must fight. The perfumed diplomats have NEVER resolved conflicts of this type, permanetly..
Semper Fi
Right. And if not for a strongly worded editorial in a foreign language in a newsmagazine 500 miles away, Slobo - actually, the underappreciated reincarnation of St. Francis - would have left off politics to have more time for knitting. And the Serb and Croat paramilitaries - actually Girl Scouts led by misunderstood minor lyric poets - would have settled all of their differences via competing bake sales, instead of going after each other for years with mortars, machineguns, land mines, and scoped rifles.
Amusing, but beside the point. The violence broke out in Croatia during the western-sponsored ramp up to secession, and intensified after Croatia's premature recognition. The violence in Bosnia erupted big time after the Lisbon agreement was rejected by the Izetbegovic gov't at the urging of the US. Things got nasty after violence started; I suppose that's true of all wars (duh). My point is that the violent denouement was fostered by foreign, specifically American, involvement in the political crises that preceded the war.
I'm glad you asked this question of us on the Free Republic forum, as it's one I have wondered about, but didn't think of posing here. Cheers to you for doing so.
I can't be called a "Bush supporter" by any means, although I will vote for him. I cannot vote my conscience in this election, as I strongly disagree with ALL of the candidates on key issues. Therefore, I will cast my vote against Gore, rather than for anyone. I will cast my vote where it will be most effective against Gore, which means for Bush, although I'm not particularly for Bush. Gore scares me to death. He's, well, a few sandwiches shy of a picnic, a few bottles shy of a six-pack, a few bricks shy of a load...you get my drift. I'm from Tennessee, and I know who/what he is.
I was disappointed in (actually horrified by) "Dubya" when, from the very beginning, he was more hawkish than even Clinton regarding NATO action in Kosovo, advocating a ground invasion, etc. But, when I can look back, more dispassionately, I see his position in March/April 1999 as a continuation of his daddy's policy re what is now "former" Yugoslavia. Remember that it was on Papa Bush's watch that US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman flew to Sarajevo a few days after the Carrington-Cutileiro Proposal, now known as the "Lisbon Agreement," was signed by the leaders all three sides in BiH, and "helped" Izetbegovic to decide to renege on the Lisbon Agreement he had just signed, thereby igniting the war in BiH. (Had the Lisbon Agreement stood, it is quite possible the war in BiH might have been averted altogether, and many lives saved.) Lord Owen postulates that, had Papa Bush been re-elected in 1992, the VOPP would have been agreed to by Izetbegovic in the spring of 1993, and the war in BiH halted at that time (remember, it was Izetbegovic, not the Serbs, who refused to sign off on the various versions of the VOPP over and over again).
In the end, Izetbegovic realised he'd been led down the primrose path by the US. Do any of you recall the look in his eyes when he spoke during the press conference following Dayton, when he wound up with slightly less territory than he could have had under the Lisbon Agreement? He clearly realised he'd been had by the US and bitterly regretted his trust in Zimmerman/Bush and, later, Clinton’s false promises. So many lives lost for naught. While I recognise Izetbegovic to be an indecisive, opportunistic, and sometimes callous, leader, he is a religious man (perhaps, some would say, a selectively religious man) who had a “moment of conscience” at this juncture. I’ll give him that. I believe his sense of outrage at being betrayed, at that moment, overrode his calculated overall plan for BiH (of course he quickly recovered from this sense of outrage over needless deaths, at the urging on Clintonite apologists and reversed his position).
Owen doesn't say why he thinks the VOPP, in its second incarnation, would have been accepted in spring of 1993 by Izetbegovic, had Bush been re-elected. But I think it has to do with why Bush sent Zimmerman to Sarajevo in March, 1992, in the first place. Having established that the US would side with Muslims at the first available opportunity (to counterbalance residual ill-will in the oil-rich "Arab World" following the Gulf War), it would have been only prudent to go ahead with the VOPP in its incarnation of Spring 1993. Nothing more to be gained: US alignment with, and sympathy for, the "Muslim cause" in BiH having already been widely proclaimed through the media -- done. The checkmark was in the right column. Much to be lost: US troops eventually stationed in the quagmire of BiH (with no end in sight), an eventuality to which Papa Bush was opposed for a variety of reasons (ranging from political expediency to personal conviction, the personal conviction being bolstered by his advisors). But Clinton was elected instead, and his dark agenda (discrediting the UN and establishing US-led NATO superiority) implented in place of what Bush had planned (much to the happy reception of the arms manufacturers in the US and Germany.)
Also, FWIW, IMHO, US posturing "on the side of Muslims" could have absolutely no meaningful impact in the Middle East, or in any Muslim-led country anywhere, such as strategically-important Indonesia (think shipping lanes). So, to my mind, the gesture was wasted on a lost cause. The astute among the world's Muslim leadership would recognise the US position for what it was: an opportunistic and false attempt at appeasement. While the propagandised masses would continue to see the US as "The Great Satan" regardless. (Based on virile propaganda, plus, lending credence to the propaganda, what they can see with their own eyes regarding the export of US "culture" such as "Santa Barbara" (carried on the South Asia Sat for all to see for the last 12 years, Malaysia, Indonesia, included -- also, the most popular TV programme in the Ukraine since 1992 and additionally available in the Muslim-dominated republics of the former USSR) and "Jerry Springer" (a more recent, but also more troubling addition to the smorgasbord of "American Culture" polluting the rest of the world, as the Muslims see it. ((Sorry, I have to agree with them there)).)
So, after all, I think (when wearing my “US interests hat”) that Bush was a dummy to play that soiled card supposedly in the "furtherance of US interests" simply because it was ineffective, and predictably so. As much as I deplore (when wearing my “humanitarian hat”) the moral implications of his sacrificing the lives of BiH residents on the altar of this ill-conceived (actually, idiotic) policy.
I guess I don’t fit any of your neat categories, as I’ve decided to vote for the witch rather than the devil. But at least I tried to answer your honest question honestly.
Best regards, wonders
In 1994, the western concerns (Sarajevo, press, NGOs, officials, etc) were reporting 300,000 deaths in the Bosnian civil war. By Dayton, the number being bandied about was 250,000. A year later, it was 200,000. I see that you've settled on 150,000. The only reason that the innumerate "concerns" still cite such a large number is the emotional pull of even larger numbers, but there is no more evidence for 150,000 than for 300,000.
... + ~10-20k Kosovo (a few months) - each side gives lower figures for the other sides casualties. Serbs estimate 5k+ civilians of their own, and 1k military....
That's quite a range you have there. And I have never seen official Serbian announcements of the numbers you mention. (In fact, since this was a conventional engagement, and the civilians were killed in their homes, an account was quite easy).
Here is the count, as far as I see for Kosovo:
Pre-Bombing: There were ~900 documented KLA attacks: about 1/3 were Serb civilians, 1/3 were Albanian officials or "collaborators", 1/3 police. In addition, another 1000 Albanians were killed in [engagements with terrorists -- Serbs] or [ethnic cleansing -- State Dept].
Bombing: Serb Civilians: 600 (Nato) -- 1200 (Serbs) [I don't know how Nato came by their number, but the Serbs have published the names of the dead]. In addition about 400 Serb military were killed. [NATO had originally claimed 10,000, but that number has steadily dropped]. At this time, there were on the order of 200 Albanian civilians killed by the bombing and about 1000 Albanians killed in fighting [were they KLA or innocent civilians?]. [A couple of dozen NATO personnel died during this time in "training accidents"]
Post-Bombing: About 200 - 300 Non-Albanians have been killed and about 1000 are missing. [The exact numbers are somewhere, people know how many, I only recall the order]
St. Francis & Co ..
HaHa, Now: Set your wit to answering this question: What about Algeria? Should we have intervened there?
Gael,
I wish I written this months ago, as I ought to have.
I want to thank you for you for your posts, which I have been following for some time now. You are one of the most knowledgeable posters on this forum, as well as among the most concise (wish I could live up to your standard!).
Anyway, my sincere thanks, and keep up the good work!
Best regards, wonders
There's one other explanation for Bush's stand on Kosovo: He's simply ignorant of the facts -- too obtuse to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that our actions were unconstitutional. But, of course, most of the programs Bush supports -- ranging from "character education" to federal heating-oil subsidies -- are unconstitutional, so his support of the Serbian bombing campaign is entirely consistent.
Bush is an unapologetic statist -- a sort of half-way socialist -- who has no intention of dismantling the welfare state. He and his coterie of Republican Party elites will solidify their power in Washington by negotiating a bipartisan version of the worker's paradise, with perhaps a watered-down conservative initiative here or there to keep rank-and-file conservatives from revolting.
Those who vote for Bush should at least do so knowing that they are supporting the Republican version of the welfare state, replete with scaled-back replicas of redistribution schemes borrowed from the Democrats.
But if I had run it, you may have liked it even less. On the other hand, it would all have been over years ago.
And, pray tell, precisely how would you have run it? Inquiring minds want to know.
To be fair, I'll tell you how I would have handled the mess, had I been in charge. First, in March, 1992 I would have sent Zimmerman to Sarajevo, just as Bush did, but with an entirely different message. The message I would have delivered is: "So you're having some second thoughts. Well, don't. If you renege, you're on your own. If you stick to the Agreement, you have our full support." "Oh, yeah, and we also know that all your yammering about a "multi-ethnic state" is just that -- yammering for the benefit of our bought-and-paid-for maudlin media. Hey, we ain't worried about them. We know every true-blue American votes pocketbook these days. Ha, they don't give a fig about some some barefoot guys wearing a funny hats thousands of miles away as long as the gasoline and the Bud and the cheeseburgers (and the resulting gas, har har) are cheap. As that jack-ass Arkansas redneck says, ""It's the economy, stupid."" Guess he's already got us beat on that one... er, we didn't say that.
Now, as for multi-ethnic, that's a worthy enough goal. Just give everybody a few years to cool down, which they will, once they feel secure in their own cantons, and first thing you know, they'll all be keen to trade with each other for stuff (especially spare parts) that's only produced in the other cantons. Stuff's what it's always been about. Always has been, always will be. History is all about stuff, and let's face it, you don't have all the stuff. And we Americans [puff] sure know our stuff. (That Tito really knew how to make these folks interdependent, huh? The sly devil. He understood stuff. And his legacy lives on the form of half a factory here, half a factory there. Gotta hand it to him.) Anyway, that's how it will all be worked out in the end, by technocrats and businessmen, with the support of ordinary farmers who just want to fix their tractors and ordinary townspeople who just want to keep the power plant going, not by the ideologically-driven hotheads now prevailing. Take heed! It's the stuff, stupid! You'll see. Either now or thousands of lives and forty years from now. Take your pick."
No, I 'm not taking advantage of hindsight, here. Sighs of relief were heard in all the capitals of Europe following the signing of the Lisbon Agreement. Too bad the Agreement was undone by Zimmerman, and the sighs of relief turned to gasps of horror.
I would, further, have dispatched Zimmerman (or, rather, Baker) to deliver a similar message to Tudjman and Milosovic. On the order of, "Doctor-President-President-Doctor Tudjman, we are well aware that in your heart of hearts you do not accept the present borders of Croatia, but yearn for a return to the only time in living memory when Croatia was a state in its (not-so-) own right, and that you consider a certain portion of BiH to be part of your (delusional) patrimony. Well, lose that thought for now. Leave it alone for the time being. That time may well come, but we're not backing you on it right now. You've already rather bit off more than we care to help you chew as it is. Oh, by the way, those jowls of yours a drooping a bit. Not so George Washingon-like as you'd prefer (times do change) for the busts of you, already being commissioned as we speak, which will immortalise you as the "Father of your Country," the "George Washington of Croatia." Like the ring of that, do you? We know this plastic surgeon who does great work...not to mention this really terrific costume designer..."
To Milosevic: "We know you and your buddy Franjo would like to divvy up BiH between yourselves. Yes, we know. But leave it alone for now. Alone, we say. Maybe your time will come, but that time isn't now. Or next year... or the next. You got enough problems without taking on this, anyway. Think about it.
"Ol' Alia was scr*wed from the get-go, anyway. You and Franjo will outlive him one way or another. Get over it.
"Hey, if you don't believe us, then pick up the phone and call your pal Franjo and ask him what we just said to him. Cheers, bye. Don't call us, we'll call you. Oh, yeah, and by the way. That gut of yours doesn't go so well with your cute baby face. Ask Mira, she'll tell you. We happen to know this really good liposuctionist... come to think of it, you and Franjo might be on the same recovery ward.... you know, he's getting his jowls ""done""... can't let Jofran get purtier than you, can you? Heh heh heh. Fat chance, heh heh heh. Hey, you and Jofran could have a great party there together...slivovica, rakija, a grand old time. We don't have meseno meso (sp?) or cevapcici (good stuff), but, hey, ol' Boris really dug our cheeseburgers, washed down with Bud of course... you oughtta try one sometime. Well, here's my card, let me know about the, er, medical services we can help out with... Um, while we're here in Belgrade, there's this great place down by the train station...okay, it's kinda noisy... you like chicken wings? Apatinsko Pivo?"
Okay, now, all jokes aside. Sorry, had to have a bit of fun. As for Kosovo, Clinton was right in one, and only one, thing he said in his condescending address to the American people on "how to find '"Kosova"' on the map'. Yes, Kosovo is the fuse of the powder keg, with the fault line running from BiH to Turkey (through Macedonia and Greece). But he was wrong about what would ignite the powder keg. The one thing that would do it was precisely what Clinton did. It was NATO siding with the KLA for a "Greater Albania" which lit the fuse, not the other alternatives. Mark my words here. Macedonia will be next, and Greece is already p*ssed.
I would have held the line: Okay, Rugova, you want autonomy, you've got our full support. Let us know when you're ready for that. You insist on independence, you go it alone. (And never, never, even think about meeting with the Che Guavera-styled Thaci -- continue to treat him as he is, an outlaw mafia thug in fatigues and too many rounds of ammo draped round his shoulders. Really!)
And, to back it up, turn our backs on the KLA separatists and mean it. Let them see we mean business, no matter how copious the Amanpour tears. Let Slobo's forces overreact, whatever. Anything but support an independence movement which would eventually destabilise the region. Plenty of back-up ammo was available at the time, most especially INTERPOL reports regarding the KLA's illegal activities througout Europe. That's all it would take.
It's only so simple, might eventually have worked, and most certainly would have save thousands of lives.
Anxious to hear what your soloution would have been.
Oh, I left out Croatia. Well, given that Milosevic, Tudjman and Clinton all considered the Croatian Serbs pawns to be sacrificed in a larger game (Martic and Babic, too, for a price)... had the larger game already been decided... their fate might, just might, have been better.
Er, typo correction: It's only so simple, might eventually have worked, and most certainly would have saved thousands of lives.
May I also take this opportuntiy to add to this? Might have saved lives, past, present, and future. Macedonia WILL blow now. Just wait and see. The news doesn't get out very well, but things have been very dicey there since November 1998, really nasty since March 1999. Expatriate community fled in February, 1999. Watch, wait, and see.
Thank you so much, amigo -- you absolutely made my day! I'm pleased not as much by the compliment (though it does tickle me) as I am by hearing that someone actually reads my little rants on FR.
Actually, I've been meaning to get in touch with you re your experiences in eastern Slavonia, if I recall correctly from a discussion several weeks ago. I'll send you a FReepmail after I get the go-ahead from someone else re a potential forum to set forth your experiences, if you'd be interested in such a project. Best regards.
Everybody notice how the slightest ironic hint of realism about the real human motivations of the real actors brings the commies (and or useful idiots) out of the woodwork, all in legalistic propaganda overdrive and trying to change the subject a dozen different ways?
I rest my case. The faithful may continue their labors...
You should rest your case, 'cause it's pretty damned tired.
You should rest your case, 'cause it's pretty damned tired.
Like I said, you're concise and right to the point. Bravo, and thanks for a good chuckle :)
Ok, I see you're reluctant to defend your position now, but I'd really like an answer to my question. I'm quite serious -- maybe there was a military solution no one but you could see, and I'd like to know about it. Do please respond.
Whenever JasonC loses an argument, he cries "Commie" and runs home to his Mommy. (Or is that: cries "Mommy" and runs home to his Commie)
Your figures seem high, and the current US State Department has proven itself to no longer be a credible source concerning anything. But let's say your numbers are right on the money.
These were casualties in a civil war, upon the breakup of an historically volatile region held together since WWII only by a brutal communist regime. These are not figures of a genocide. NATO made up claims of genocide, and later ethnic cleansing, and have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, making up the propaganda out of whole cloth.
Now, please stay with me, even if you don't agree so far.
Milosevic's successor, whose name it is too late for me to try to spell right now, recently stated on an interview I saw on TV (I don't recall which show, as I don't watch much TV) that NATO was responsible for war crimes. Now, you say that WE defeated Milosevic, yet the man that succeeded him declares that NATO has committed war crimes? The fact is, we strengthened Milosevic's hand during our bombing and invasion of Yugoslavia, just when he had been faltering politically. Yugoslavia is lucky to be rid of him. NATO, at the same time they were bolstering the brutal, criminal KLA, were bolstering the failing popularity of Milosevic amongst the Serbs.
Finally, do you have the figures for the number dead in the following other civil wars during the same period for the figures you quote in the Balkan wars:
East Timor
Sri Lanka
Rwanda
Sierre Leonne
Algeria
Afghanistan
Sudan
Burma
Angola
And do you have any figures for the ethnic cleansing occuring in Tibet during this time?
When are we going to get involved in these civil wars? Is that just a smart elecky "isolationist" question?
Well, will wonders never cease!
Good response to my question! Thank you!
Regarding the matter of voting for Bush - several fellow Constitutionalists who were going to vote for Phillips have been urging me to vote for Bush, too - to get Gore out of office. I agree, BTW, that Gore is obviously off his rocker! I can't believe more people (even brain-dead liberals) can't see that fact!
But I refuse to vote out of fear anymore. I think there has to be a time when we all stop voting out of fear of the other guy. However, there is one emotion that may yet motivate me to cast a vote for Bush, as much as I dislike him. That motivator is hatred, or malice.
I hate the Hollywood crowd, and if Bush sends them into a tizzy, then I may just vote for him in the hopes of having been a part of giving several Hollywood freaks a cardiac arrest. I remember how they were all foaming at the mouth and convulsing with anger when Buchanan won NH in 1996. I enjoyed watching that.
Thanks again for your well-thought-out answer.
Really. That was a serious question. Do you think we should also be involved in any of these other ongoing civil wars around the globe? Why or why not? Should we have gotten involved in Somalia in the early nineties?
Some of these wars have been more bloody than the wars in the Balkans. Also, some, as in the cases of Rwanda and Sudan, have included out-and-out, systematic genocide.
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |