101 Reasons Why NATO is Wrong
Billy Pilgrim
> > > the ferocity of the air attacks, killing over 1,000
> > > civilians thus far.
>
> Pure Serb propoganda.
evidence?
> > > 10. Serbs are now comparing NATO to the Nazis. Here's why.
> > > The Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia in April, 1941, began with
> > > the relentless bombardment of Belgrade, flattening most of
> > > the city before a ground invasion by troops from Germany,
> > > Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria. Three of those four are now NATO
> > > members. Modern German bombers, ominously sporting iron cross
> > > Luftwaffe markings, are targeting Serb cities.
>
> And here's why the comparison is just dead wrong. The Nazis bombed the
> entire city, deliberately targeting civilian areas. NATO is making a few
> bombing raids, pinpointing - or at least trying to - military or
> strategic targets. The aim isn't to flatten Belgrade. A single nuke or a
> dozen Fuel Air Explosive bombs would do that.
NATO has made an "attempt" to avoid civilian deaths. however, that
certainly doesn't mean a lot of civilians aren't dying. bombing isn't the
same thing as using a scalpel. we're talking about high explosives here.
besides, we're also talking about the serbian *view* of NATO airstrikes.
do you think it's coincedence that milosevic is now regarded as a national
hero in serbia?
regardless of whether or not the instances are exactly factually the same,
the serbian people *view* them as parallels. which is all that we're
really talking about. you have lots of nice facts, but there's more than
one part to an argument. data alone does not an argument make.
also...don't say "nuke"...www.geocities.com/rainforest/vines/7157/cohn.html
i know you're not going to buy the arguments there (well, i guess i can
hope that you will) but for my own sanity and out of courtesy to me, maybe
you could use another word.
> > > Serbs are not Iraqis.
>
> Damn straight. The Iraqi army was a tough, experienced army which had
> been blooded by a long war with Iran. They made the mistake of thinking
> that they were fighting Iran with its World War One tactics. Iraq paid
> for that mistake. Serbia has fought a long hard war against unarmed
> civilians and small children. Every time they've gone up against real
> troops, they've had their arses soundly whipped.
which is why NATO is "winning" their current war, right?
> And here's the trick answer: which idiotic theory was proven right, in
> Asia, Africa, and South America? That's right: its the Domino Theory
> again.
this really bothers me. you have a very ahistorical view of the world.
the domino theory only existed in the minds of the people running the
countries of the cold war. to a very large degree, the united states
created and was responsible for the soviet "threat" existing, by constantly
looking for russia to be the enemy. that's not to say that the soviets
weren't responsible, too, of course. they were. but no more than we were.
the domino theory only existed because we were all so constitutionally
incapable of conceiving of a world that was not a power vacuum of anarchy
waiting to explode without an iron fist there to prevent it. that's the
defintion of an ideology of international relations known as "realism."
realism is a doctrine of thought that was codified immediately after world
war ii. scholars of international relations were so terrified of what had
happened in the isolationist world preceding the war, they desperately
sought some possible doctrine that would not leave them open to another
such war.
what was developed was an interpretation of international politics that
specified that the world is by nature anarchical and made up of sovereign
states who interact with each other. this doctrine of realism states that
there is inevitably a 'power vacuum' and if one doesn't take up as much of
that power as possible, others will take it and use it against you. only
force can check force. that is POWER POLITICS.
(see, i made it all capital letters so you would notice it. it's
important)
unfortunately, it backfired. what began as an interpretation of global
politics almost immediately, in the face of a dawning cold war, dogma. it
became unquestionable. to do so was to be labelled a commie, a pinkie, a
traitor, or worse. history became objectified. vietnam became a necessary
war because of the domino effect. the alternative that is called for 500
times in posts on this newsgroup is not really that complex. we were DOING
the alternative (or one of them) for portions of time in the last several
hundred years of politics.
jim george has made the most complex and complete analysis of power
politics and its relationship to contemporary international relations
theory that i've yet come across. in his book, he concludes, quite
logically, that the idea of power politics, both by an immediate moral
interpretation, and by actual facts and information has actually created a
substantially higher number of problems than it has fixed.
once again, i'll refer you to jim george, because he speaks more eloquently
than i ever could:
"those at the apex of the International Relations community do not
understand the implications of the questions they ask of their history.
Specifically, what a critical social theory perspective illustrates is that
power politics behavior is not endemic in global history, nor is it the
cause of 'peace' greatly assisted by the Traditional solutions when it does
occur. Rather, the dominant historical narrative in International
Relations is both inaccurate in its own terms and highly dangerous in
anyone's terms, given that by Realism's own literary account the Realist
'solution' to warlike activity in an anarchical world is to effectively
accelerate the liklihood of war."
you may claim that realism will bring peace, you may even believe it, but,
like bradley klein says (in the quote that will be on the backs of the oak
harbor debate shirts as soon as drew gets them made...):
"Peace may be relative but it depends where your relatives live. For those
with families in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad,
Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Namibia, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland,
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and the West Bank, life these past few years has
been wracked with war."
go ahead and add kosovo to that list.
let's run down a list of things that have happened because we bombed kosovo
--innocent people have died
--russia has pulled out of the partnership for peace
--russia is seriously talking of a 'new cold war'
--china and russia are honestly beginning that russo-sino bloc we've been
so scared of
--milosevic hasn't lost a shred of power
--hundreds of thousands of people have been forced INTO a choice between
emigration or death
--i'm scared to death
> > > 39. After a brief shift toward reason earlier this decade,
> > > when Americans slashed their defense budget in the wake of
> > > the Cold War victory
>
> If slashing the defence budget was so clever, how come there's so many
> more wars now that the Cold War is over?
see above. it's cuz we're still so damn entrenched in the system that
created the cold war. look specifically to the Klein evidence. peace may
be relative...
> Answer: without the USSR and the USA holding the reigns, petty thugs
> like Hussein and Milosevic have felt free to kill whoever they wish.
clinton seems like a pretty petty thug in my book. he's bombed kosovo,
iraq, sudan, and afghanistan all within the last 8 months. why? because
they did things he did not agree with. why is he any different that these
"thugs?" because you happen to agree with him? what if i'm not a white
male american?
i'm certainly not saying that milosevic or hussein are any good at all.
but in my book, neither is clinton. diplomacy should not be conducted with
bombs by anyone.
> > > 40. In 1809, the Turks built a tower in the town of Nis.
> > > It was made of the skulls of Serbs who had tried to rebel.
>
> Well why didn't you say so! That makes it OK for the Serbs to massacre
> Croats, Bosnians and Albanians then.
you're missing the point with your sarcasm. the point is that these ethnic
hatreds have progressed along a 600 year continuum. now bill clinton and
madeline albright show up and it's suddenly supposed to disapear because we
throw a couple bombs into the mix?
why does no one understand that this only *continues* the 600-year
tradition of great powers coming into the balkans and committing acts of
violence to make things follow that great power's wishes?
> > > 42. America is once again indiscriminately bombing civilian
> > > populations
>
> "Indiscriminately"? That one simple word shows that this entire piece of
> crap is nothing but Serb propoganda.
indiscrimate means a lot of things. sure, i agree that *for now* NATO is
not directly targetting civilians. but the fact is that they're dropping
bombs which a) are hitting civilians, and b) only speeding up milosevic's
actions. that sounds like the very people we're trying to help are getting
the worst of this deal.
> > > 52. Educated Westerners are supposed to be opposed to
> > > imposing their moral rules on other cultures.
>
> Speak for yourself. Cultural relativity is ethically and intellectually
> bankrupt, and always has been. Its a cop-out for those who don't like to
> make hard choices, so they can say "Its none of my business."
have you read "heart of darkness?" if not, go read it and see if you can
come back and spout that drivel. do you realize what you've just said?
"americans are smarter than everyone else. if other people disagree with
us, we have to kill them to make the world safe for our values."
that's ass.
> > > Folks, in a genocide, you don't let a single refugee go.
> > > You kill every single one of them
>
> Gosh, then those Nazis didn't commit genocide either, because there's
> still Jews in Europe. I've heard that there's two whole families of them
> in Austria!
you're a dork. i'm sorry for the insult but this borders on being
offensive. genocide is a matter of intentions. genocide in the holocaust
involved an attempt by germany to kill jewish people simply because they
were jewish people. to kill gypsies simply because they were gypsies. AND
to do it on a national and international level. AND to have the intention
and desire of removing ALL of these people from the earth. THAT is NOT
happening right now and to say that it is cheapens every humyn being even
peripherally affected by the Holocaust.
> > > If NATO invades and occupies Serbia, the trouble will
> > > just be starting.
>
> NATO never intended to invade Serbia. But if they do, you can be damn
> sure the only ones in trouble will be those poor stupid Serbs.
i hope you're not saying that all serbs are stupid. that would be pretty
offensive.
do you honestly believe a ground war is not imminent? do you believe
EVERYTHING politicians tell you? that's just silly.
> I could go on, and on, and on, but life is too short.
because of people like you.
charles olney
oak harbor, washington
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
--Pastor Martin Niemoller (victim of the Nazis)