Bitch about other governments here- I'm sick of reading Anti-Bush Threads

[POPmetal]

Yes, especially in the former Yugoslavia. Very peaceful place

As late as the late 90s of the 20th century, Europe couldn't even get rid of a small time dictator like Miloscevic. Europe had to call on the US, yet again, to bomb his genocidal ass out of power.

Yeah right ...? Not only Europe fault for this mess ... France and other European countries were the ones sending UN soldiers there for years before USA bombed anything !?

Duh! That's the point? ? Your UN soldiers didn't get the job done (in fact they stood on the side while massacres occurred) and in the end you had to call on that damn evil US to finish the job.

Of course the UN didn't grant them with the right to fire ...?

But why should they do that?? I thought they had the magical ability to bring about peace through reasoning and negotiations

[SLCPUNK]

how come you always forget the context in which things are said 

That is all you can do, when you don't have an argument. It's: Change the context, lie, leave things out, attack and insult the poster, and Strawman.


But you have to hand it to them, they take orders and follow Karl Rove very well. The strategy with Rove has always been: repeat it until it hurts, and eventually it will become the truth. Half our country was stupid enough to fall for that line of reason. Why shouldn't these guys on the board try it as well?

[Rain]

Yes, especially in the former Yugoslavia. Very peaceful place

As late as the late 90s of the 20th century, Europe couldn't even get rid of a small time dictator like Miloscevic. Europe had to call on the US, yet again, to bomb his genocidal ass out of power.

Yeah right ...? Not only Europe fault for this mess ... France and other European countries were the ones sending UN soldiers there for years before USA bombed anything !?

Duh! That's the point? ? Your UN soldiers didn't get the job done (in fact they stood on the side while massacres occurred) and in the end you had to call on that damn evil US to finish the job.

Of course the UN didn't grant them with the right to fire ...?

But why should they do that?? I thought they had the magical ability to bring about peace through reasoning and negotiations

I've never done that before but you are a moron !
Ask the USA about not giving any power when it comes down to UN intervention ... of course it doesn't apply when the USA is involved ! 
And we have learned since then ... not to send troops before the UN defines what they are to do there ... Dafour is just waiting for it right now ... if someone cares.

[POPmetal]

Yes, especially in the former Yugoslavia. Very peaceful place

As late as the late 90s of the 20th century, Europe couldn't even get rid of a small time dictator like Miloscevic. Europe had to call on the US, yet again, to bomb his genocidal ass out of power.

Yeah right ...? Not only Europe fault for this mess ... France and other European countries were the ones sending UN soldiers there for years before USA bombed anything !?

Duh! That's the point? ? Your UN soldiers didn't get the job done (in fact they stood on the side while massacres occurred) and in the end you had to call on that damn evil US to finish the job.

Of course the UN didn't grant them with the right to fire ...?

But why should they do that?? I thought they had the magical ability to bring about peace through reasoning and negotiations

I've never done that before but you are a moron !
Ask the USA about not giving any power when it comes down to UN intervention ... of course it doesn't apply when the USA is involved !?
And we have learned since then ... not to send troops before the UN defines what they are to do there ... Dafour is just waiting for it right now ... if someone cares.

You just brought up more evidence as to why the UN is ineffective. Looks like we're on the same page about that.

[jarmo]

Ever thought of why the UN is ineffective?

Because some countries just don't wanna be part of it and rather start wars on their own?




/jarmo

[SLCPUNK]

Yes, especially in the former Yugoslavia. Very peaceful place

As late as the late 90s of the 20th century, Europe couldn't even get rid of a small time dictator like Miloscevic. Europe had to call on the US, yet again, to bomb his genocidal ass out of power.

Yeah right ...  Not only Europe fault for this mess ... France and other European countries were the ones sending UN soldiers there for years before USA bombed anything ! 

Duh! That's the point    Your UN soldiers didn't get the job done (in fact they stood on the side while massacres occurred) and in the end you had to call on that damn evil US to finish the job.

Of course the UN didn't grant them with the right to fire ... 

But why should they do that?  I thought they had the magical ability to bring about peace through reasoning and negotiations

... Dafour is just waiting for it right now ... if someone cares.

(raising hand) I do!

But first...is there oil there?

[POPmetal]

Ever thought of why the UN is ineffective?

Because some countries just don't wanna be part of it and rather start wars on their own?




/jarmo

The refusal of which country to be a part of the UN rendered it ineffective in stopping the Srebrenica massacre?

[jarmo]

You said the UN is ineffective, I thought you meant it still is.


I wasn't talking about that case.





/jarmo

[POPmetal]

You said the UN is ineffective, I thought you meant it still is.


I wasn't talking about that case.





/jarmo

And now it becomes just another chicken or egg problem. Is the UN ineffective because the US supposedly does not want to be a part of it, or does the US occasionally ignore it because it has proven itself to be ineffective time and again ...

[Axls Locomotive]

Ever thought of why the UN is ineffective?

Because some countries just don't wanna be part of it and rather start wars on their own?




/jarmo

The refusal of which country to be a part of the UN rendered it ineffective in stopping the Srebrenica massacre?

"The received version [of events] ... is that Bill Clinton and Al Gore vowed to "bomb the Serbs" and end the war when they were shocked to learn that thousands of Muslims had been massacred at Srebrenica. But, the reader cannot help asking, was news of this impending massacre -- the worst in Europe since 1945 -- really not available to America's two most powerful figures beforehand?

At earlier stages in Bosnia's war, when Muslim strongholds like Gorazde or Bihac had been on the verge of falling, America had worked (without the promise of ground troops) to galvanise its allies -- insisting that battle-plans be drawn up, and threats of bombing be issued, so as to warn off the Serbs. Yet in the final days and hours of the advance on Srebrenica, which American intelligence could monitor closely, Washington fell strangely silent. Srebrenica duly fell, with consequences which were unspeakable in human terms, but not inconvenient diplomatically.

Perhaps it is conspiratorial to assume that America's tardy reaction to Srebrenica reflected calculation rather than negligence. But the question needs asking "

From the Economist 2001

you mean the USA?

[pilferk]

You said the UN is ineffective, I thought you meant it still is.


I wasn't talking about that case.





/jarmo

And now it becomes just another chicken or egg problem. Is the UN ineffective because the US supposedly does not want to be a part of it, or does the US occasionally ignore it because it has proven itself to be ineffective time and again ...

To be fair, it's both and depends on which situation we're talking about at any given time.

The problem without a US-led UN is it's toothless.  Most other countries are able to "abstain" from a UN Action that , for whatever reason, they don't agree with...or support the action in a token manner.  Not true with the US.  If we don't participate....there's no action, or essentially there is no action.  So, without the US, the UN become ineffective...so, both of the above become true. 

The UN become ineffetive if the US does not "join in", but, because our participation is the engine driving the car, we sometimes ignore the UN, if they are too hard to convince, strong arm, cajole, or "bribe" them around to our way of thinking.

[POPmetal]

Ever thought of why the UN is ineffective?

Because some countries just don't wanna be part of it and rather start wars on their own?




/jarmo

The refusal of which country to be a part of the UN rendered it ineffective in stopping the Srebrenica massacre?

"The received version [of events] ... is that Bill Clinton and Al Gore vowed to "bomb the Serbs" and end the war when they were shocked to learn that thousands of Muslims had been massacred at Srebrenica. But, the reader cannot help asking, was news of this impending massacre -- the worst in Europe since 1945 -- really not available to America's two most powerful figures beforehand?

At earlier stages in Bosnia's war, when Muslim strongholds like Gorazde or Bihac had been on the verge of falling, America had worked (without the promise of ground troops) to galvanise its allies -- insisting that battle-plans be drawn up, and threats of bombing be issued, so as to warn off the Serbs. Yet in the final days and hours of the advance on Srebrenica, which American intelligence could monitor closely, Washington fell strangely silent. Srebrenica duly fell, with consequences which were unspeakable in human terms, but not inconvenient diplomatically.

Perhaps it is conspiratorial to assume that America's tardy reaction to Srebrenica reflected calculation rather than negligence. But the question needs asking "

From the Economist 2001

you mean the USA?

Conspiracy theories aside, here's timeline (from the BBC of all rabidly anit-American sources) of the events that took place http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm The US had nothing to do with it. Besides, had the US gotten involved and bombed the Serb army before the massacre happened, the same people who now condemn America for not acting, would have been up in arms that the US is "trigger-happy,"? "imperialist," etc...

Anyway, the essence of my argument was that Europe has not been able to achieve peace as Rain claimed. When you put the blame on Clinton for not acting, that only serves to reinforce my point that Europe is incapable of achieving peace, even on its home-turf, without US help.

[Axls Locomotive]

Conspiracy theories aside, here's timeline (from the BBC of all rabidly anit-American sources) of the events that took place http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm The US had nothing to do with it. Besides, had the US gotten involved and bombed the Serb army before the massacre happened, the same people who now condemn America for not acting, would have been up in arms that the US is "trigger-happy,"  "imperialist," etc...

Anyway, the essence of my argument was that Europe has not been able to achieve peace as Rain claimed. When you put the blame on Clinton for not acting, that only serves to reinforce my point that Europe is incapable of achieving peace, even on its home-turf, without US help.

A rather limited source of information...maybe you should look at the wider picture before quoting a narrow one

try this one
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=74&ItemID=8244

america was involved, if you actually read about it..but all of the UN should share the blame, that includes the US

the problems in Yugoslavia have been known for a century and since it is composed on numerous ethnic groups that are just so different conflict has always been looming...has Europe achieved peace...of course it has...in the most...but this part of Europe bears some of the worst scars of any country in Europe and it will take time for it to return to something resembling normality...to act like as if the US won the day for these people is taking things to the ridiculous because its going to take decades for this country to return to normal and besides no one really won anyway...

[POPmetal]

Conspiracy theories aside, here's timeline (from the BBC of all rabidly anit-American sources) of the events that took place http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm The US had nothing to do with it. Besides, had the US gotten involved and bombed the Serb army before the massacre happened, the same people who now condemn America for not acting, would have been up in arms that the US is "trigger-happy,"? "imperialist," etc...

Anyway, the essence of my argument was that Europe has not been able to achieve peace as Rain claimed. When you put the blame on Clinton for not acting, that only serves to reinforce my point that Europe is incapable of achieving peace, even on its home-turf, without US help.

A rather protracted source of information...maybe you should look at the wider picture before quoting a narrow one

try this one
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=74&ItemID=8244

america was involved, if you actually read about it..but all of the UN should share the blame, that includes the US

the problems in Yugoslavia have been known for a century and since it is composed on numerous ethnic groups that are just so different conflict has always been looming...has Europe achieved peace...of course it has...in the most...but this part of Europe bears some of the worst scars of any country in Europe and it will take time for it to return to something resembling normality...to act like as if the US won the day for these people is taking things to the ridiculous because its going to take decades for this country to return to normal and besides no one really won anyway...

Ridiculous? Who finally got rid of Milosevic? And have there been any large scale atrocities since he was ousted? It was most certainly the US that saved the day for Kosovars. Whether that was the right decision I'm not so sure. But none of this changes the fact that Europe is still not capable of pacifying itself without US intervention.

[jarmo]

The things that went on in the former Yugoslavia shouldn't have happened.

The rest of the world failed to prevent it from happening, that's really sad and a huge failure.



/jarmo

[Rockin' Rose]

Ridiculous? Who finally got rid of Milosevic?

The Yugoslavians?

By the time Milosevic called elections in September 2000, the country was crippled by sanctions, and many Serbs were living in desperate poverty.

Montenegro - the only republic still with Serbia in Yugoslavia - was threatening to break away, and there was an atmosphere of fear and instability across the federation.

When Milosevic refused to recognise the election victory of opposition leader Vojislav Kostunica, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, and a national strike was declared. One by one, key allies dropped their support, including the Serbian Orthodox church and parts of the state media.

Confidence grew, and 10 days after the election protesters stormed the parliament and the state TV station, setting both buildings on fire. Many policemen took off their helmets and joined the protesters. Milosevic's empire had crumbled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/europe/2000/milosevic_yugoslavia/downfall.stm

[Axls Locomotive]

Ridiculous? Who finally got rid of Milosevic? And have there been any large scale atrocities since he was ousted? It was most certainly the US that saved the day for Kosovars. Whether that was the right decision I'm not so sure. But none of this changes the fact that Europe is still not capable of pacifying itself without US intervention.

absolutely laughable...its like im talking to someone who acts like he knows what he is saying without him reading any history books...it was the people who removed Milosevic just like Rockin Rose said...it was a Yugoslavian revolution...come on, give the credit where the credit is due and give your machismo a rest...

[POPmetal]

Ridiculous? Who finally got rid of Milosevic? And have there been any large scale atrocities since he was ousted? It was most certainly the US that saved the day for Kosovars. Whether that was the right decision I'm not so sure. But none of this changes the fact that Europe is still not capable of pacifying itself without US intervention.

absolutely laughable...its like im talking to someone who acts like he knows what he is saying without him reading any history books...it was the people who removed Milosevic just like Rockin Rose said...it was a Yugoslavian revolution...come on, give the credit where the credit is due and give your machismo a rest...

It wasn't the Yugoslavian people that stopped the attack on Kosovo. And no one can deny that Clinton's bombing during the Kosovo war played a big role in destabilizing Milosevic's regime. So, yeah, Rockin' Rose was right in correcting my implication that the US was responsible for the "final" removal of Milosevic. Does it change the crux of my argument that Europe was incapable of pacifying itself without US intervention? NO. Are you being petty by jumping on my mistake and saying that I'm laughable and I don't know what I'm talking about? Unless you're omniscient, YES.

[Axls Locomotive]

It wasn't the Yugoslavian people that stopped the attack on Kosovo. And no one can deny that Clinton's bombing during the Kosovo war played a big role in destabilizing Milosevic's regime. So, yeah, Rockin' Rose was right in correcting my implication that the US was responsible for the "final" removal of Milosevic. Does it change the crux of my argument that Europe was incapable of pacifying itself without US intervention? NO. Are you being petty by jumping on my mistake and saying that I'm laughable and I don't know what I'm talking about? Unless you're omniscient, YES.

you mean the illegal bombings that claimed 1500 civilians lives? sure it had something to do with it...but in a country that was surrounded by propaganda and very little outside media i doubt it had that much effect, in fact it probably had both a negative and positive effect because there is no doubt that many would support their president more because their own country is being bombed when the bombings resulted in killing over a thousand civilians...

the truth is if it wasnt for those civilians in the uprising after the 2000 election (which happened a good 15 months after the bombings btw) then milosevic would probably still be in power...

[POPmetal]

It wasn't the Yugoslavian people that stopped the attack on Kosovo. And no one can deny that Clinton's bombing during the Kosovo war played a big role in destabilizing Milosevic's regime. So, yeah, Rockin' Rose was right in correcting my implication that the US was responsible for the "final" removal of Milosevic. Does it change the crux of my argument that Europe was incapable of pacifying itself without US intervention? NO. Are you being petty by jumping on my mistake and saying that I'm laughable and I don't know what I'm talking about? Unless you're omniscient, YES.

you mean the illegal bombings that claimed 1500 civilians lives? sure it had something to do with it...but in a country that was surrounded by propaganda and very little outside media i doubt it had that much effect, in fact it probably had both a negative and positive effect because there is no doubt that many would support their president more because their own country is being bombed when the bombings resulted in killing over a thousand civilians...

the truth is if it wasnt for those civilians in the uprising after the 2000 election (which happened a good 15 months after the bombings btw) then milosevic would probably still be in power...

Clinton's bombing had an effect because it destroyed a lot of infrastructure which in the long term made it difficult for Milosevic to keep even his supporters happy. On top of that, the sanctions made it impossible to rebuilt, which further eroded his support. Hence, a little over a year after the bombings, key allies started dropping support for him. Had that not happened, and had those policemen, for example, remained on his side rather than dropping their helmets and joining protesters, we'd have a completely different outcome. Other than that, I agree with your post.