Originally posted by Rockpuck
Why do you call NATO intervention "moronic" and devoutly support the Serbian side of the situation?
Do you realize the wide spread rape, torture and systematic genocide that took place? .. Surely you see that while there was politics in the
situation, the US people support NATO's action because of the things that where going on. The Kosovo rape, torture and genocide is none-deniable..
there are thousands of well documented cases.
Genocide is a very general word, and what the West knows as "genocide" can be real and it can be fake. What is a genocide? Is it when your family
and friends are being driven from your homeland because somebody feels that you will be "in the way" of a new independent country based on nothing
more than an ethnical majority in a province? Is it when your country and people are systematically bombed by stealth fighters of a "peacekeeping
force" that just happened to intervene when a really important man was exposed of having a sex scandal? Or is it when you start a war hoping for
independence and knowing that there will be civilian casualties among your people because of your diehard arrogance? Is it when you gather dead
bodies of your guerilla fighters, dress them as civilians, cut off their heads, and bury them all in a fresh ditch so you can call UN to investigate
Is it genocide when you have two very determined sides fighting each other via dirty methods and guerilla forces, and in the process many civilians
happen to die ON BOTH SIDES, when you take your anger out on the first village you come upon? If it is, then why does one side get accused of
genocide and combed by an international coalition, while the other side is free to go on killing and looting? Shouldn't genocide be equally cruel,
whether it is done by your ally or by your enemy? Why did NATO chose a scapegoat and make him out to be the "bad guy" when what you had was a war
with "bad guys" and innocent deaths on both sides? Why is it that BBC and other Western media only covered one side of the genocide, and made the
other side to be nothing but a devil and a butcher, when it had lost just as many civilians?
Nothing is black and white. What NATO and US did in the Serbian War was propagate a clear black and white separation between the two sides so to
convince the its mindless citizens that Milosevich is evil and Albanians are poor innocent sheep. NATO could not care less about Albanians or anyone
else in that conflict - there was a deeper political agenda for EU and NATO - and that was to put an end to powerful regime in Yugoslavia that did not
fit in the "New Europe".
I do not support Milosevich or the attrocities Serbians committed, nor do I support the attrocities that Albanians committed. It was a dirty war
started by arrogant "freedom fighters" who felt that the time was right to create their own nation - and overlooked the fact that somebody else
already had a nation there. These "freedom fighters" who feel that because they call themselves that they can start any conflict they want in the
world and expect the world community to throw flowers at them and cheer them on - they are the ones who I blame for this war. Serbia did not have the
power to hold on to Kosovo through a conventional "clean" war, so it resorted to a dirty war which the other side was already waging.
What NATO did was come in with full force and say - THIS is the bad guy, and THAT is the good guy - and then proceeded to systematically destroy the
fighting capabilities, along with collateral damage civilians of the deemed bad guy. Never mind the crimes that Abanians committed. Noooooo - we
will only try Milosevich and his generals in order to prove to our accountants and lobbyists that this was a justified war. And what do you know -
Milosevich dies when he subpoenas Clinton to come to the Hague. Milosevich was butcher, but he was a smart butcher (as opposed to a dumb butcher like
the current white house coutrt jester deeming himself President). He knew how to defend himself, and how to turn the arguement around against NATO.
NATO's intervention was illegal by its own doctrine. Serbia did not pose any threat to any member of NATO. It was an internal conflict.
So to answer your question - I do not support everything the Serbians did. But I do not support NATO's biased intervention (and a spit in the face
at Russia at its weakest moment) even more. Thousands of innocent people got killed in Yugoslavia and NATO found it imperative to intervene at full
force. Meanwhile in Africa and Asia genocide attrocities far worse than this are being committed everyday and NATO couldn't give two hoots. Only
when one of the sides committing the attrocities is NATO's enemy, does NATO get up and do something. But not if that side has oil or means to defend
itseld. NATO is like a dying sick tiger, which only attacks that prey that cannot come back and hurt it in some way. Oh yeah - you can make excuses
to attack anyone - whether its "genocide", "axis of evil", "WMDs", "terrorists", "communists", "gangsters" - take your pick. One can make
excuses to attack just about anyone, especially with the help of the media.
Why is it that Americans question the war in Iran and Vietnam, and not Yugoslavia? Is it only because it hurts when you see your soldiers being
massacred in mass, and yet you cannot care less as long as your sons come home with no missing limbs? Westerners seem to be very picky about what
they "question and protest" with conspiracy theories and the like and what they put up with blindly.
[edit on 10-12-2007 by maloy]