The Yugoslav and Kosovo Wars

[Commander62890]

Intro: Hey guys! As you may well know, I’m no veteran of the off-topics forum. I don’t do debates. However, I’ve got a little something I wanted to share with you from my recent reading in Tony Judt's Postwar. I was looking back at a few past discussions of Yugoslavia/Kosovo and I came across multiple criticisms of the way in which NATO (aka the U.S.) handled the situation. Postwar has given me a far different impression.

Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to justify Judt’s views, but am simply trying to generate discussion by presenting an argument that is convincing for me. I want to hear all sides, so as not to end up with a biased representation of the issue. For the sake of brevity, I will do my best to summarize Judt’s ideas. Therefore, I will inevitably be forced to leave out key points, but am more than willing to clarify or add new information as needed. Looking forward to reading everyone’s opinions on this matter.

Judt presents the Kosovo War as being the last of five Yugoslav Wars, a catastrophe that serves as an embarrassment to the international community due to the many years of inaction. Every nation holds its share of the blame, some more than others (ahem, France). On the other hand, while Judt is usually a relatively harsh critic of U.S. policies, he uncharacteristically commends U.S. action with regard to Yugoslavia (though it did come later than it should have).

As for the Yugoslavs themselves, none of them (except perhaps the Muslims, who were usually the ones being attacked) "emerged with honour," as there were atrocities committed on all sides. However, despite this collective share in the blame, one population in particular stands out. Judt states, “In the end, the primary responsibility for the Yugoslav catastrophe must rest with the Serbs and their elected leader Slobodan Milocevic… the appalling ferocity and sadism of the Croat and Bosnian wars – the serial abuse, degradation, torture, rape, and murder of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens – was the work of Serb men, mostly young, aroused to paroxysms of casual hatred and indifference to suffering by propaganda and leadership from local chieftains whose ultimate direction and power came from Belgrade.”

In the Kosovo War, Judt once again places the majority of the blame on Milocevic and the Serb forces. Through their indiscriminate massacre of Albanians, the Serbs finally forced NATO’s hand… and it was a long time coming. Milocevic had demonstrated time and time again that he was willing to massacre ethnic populations to achieve Serb dominance. On the details of NATO’s military action in Kosovo, Judt says only this: “Clinton’s imprudently public insistence that there should be no NATO ground troops engaged… [obliged] the alliance to conduct a war from the air with inevitable mishaps that played into Yugoslav propaganda and the Serb cult of victimhood.

To me, this sounds a bit like the old WWII dilemma of “invading Japan-vs-dropping the atomic bomb.” In other words, a land invasion probably costs more lives on both sides, while the inevitable detachment of an air assault results in calls of inhumane treatment.

From what I’ve read, it was necessary to stop Milocevic, for he would only have continued to commit atrocities if left to his own devices. The Yugoslav Wars had to be stopped once-and-for-all… and they were. In fact, Judt laments that something like this didn’t happen much earlier… though I believe it did happen briefly in 1995, when NATO successfully took out Serb military positions in the wake of the horrifying Srebrenica mass-murder and the second Sarajevo shelling.

I don’t know… all in all, it seems like the Serbs had it coming.
“Tell that to the children killed in the NATO bombings,” you might say… but how can that compare to the thousands upon thousands that the Serbs massacred? I just don’t see it… war is horrible, but sometimes it is necessary. Would you make the same argument for German child in the rubble of Berlin, 1945? What do you think the West should have done in Yugoslavia? Stood by and watched… like it had done for the past eight years? The West felt guilty for not having moved sooner.

Please enlighten me on the nature of the Kosovo conflict, and why you think NATO mishandled it. Should it have been a ground invasion instead? Would this really have minimized casualties, or would it have been a better choice because it would have aroused less controversy?

And thoughts on other aspects are welcome, including the causes/share of blame for the Yugoslav Wars and the nature of Serb self-victimization that Judt believes both instigated the war and was exacerbated by it. Judt goes to great lengths to describe this longstanding Serb“collective self-pity at the injustice of history…” far too much to be said here, but I just wanted to mention it. Serbs, of course, ended up being hurt most by the Yugoslav Wars… their standard of living went down dramatically, so there is reason for them to feel like victims… but let’s not forget what really went on over the course of the 1990s.

[saxitoxin]

If NATO was justified in bombing Serbia to arrest a legitimate Yugoslav police action in their historic territory of Kosovo, NATO is justified in bombing England to arrest illegitimate British martial law against their conquered territory of Ulster. Until someone provides a cogent and rational argument as to why London hasn't yet been turned into a smoking pile of rubble by USAF B-52s, I don't have any interest in hearing any pro-Bombing of Serbia arguments.

• In 1999, on the eve of the NATO genocide campaign, U.S. Defence Secretary Cohen stated up to 400,000 Kosovars might have been killed. A 2002 UNICEF report put that number at about 4,000. It's likely the significant majority of those were heavily armed KLA terrorists (peaceful student pro-democracy activists generally don't carry RPGs). Meanwhile, the NATO war machine killed nearly 5,000 Serbs, and wounded countless others.

I recommend the 2009 Canadian documentary film "Can You Imagine?" about the brutal regime that now runs Kosovo with the backing of the U.S.' European puppet states like Britain and Germany.

[jimboston]

If NATO was justified in bombing Serbia to arrest a legitimate Yugoslav police action in their historic territory of Kosovo, NATO is justified in bombing England to arrest illegitimate British martial law against their conquered territory of Ulster. Until someone provides a cogent and rational argument as to why London hasn't yet been turned into a smoking pile of rubble by USAF B-52s, I don't have any interest in hearing any pro-Bombing of Serbia arguments.

• In 1999, on the eve of the NATO genocide campaign, U.S. Defence Secretary Cohen stated up to 400,000 Kosovars might have been killed. A 2002 UNICEF report put that number at about 4,000. It's likely the significant majority of those were heavily armed KLA terrorists (peaceful student pro-democracy activists generally don't carry RPGs). Meanwhile, the NATO war machine killed nearly 5,000 Serbs, and wounded countless others.

I recommend the 2009 Canadian documentary film "Can You Imagine?" about the brutal regime that now runs Kosovo with the backing of the U.S.' European puppet states like Britain and Germany.

Are you truly this much of an ass? Or do you just like to make idiotic points to see people's reaction?

[saxitoxin]

If NATO was justified in bombing Serbia to arrest a legitimate Yugoslav police action in their historic territory of Kosovo, NATO is justified in bombing England to arrest illegitimate British martial law against their conquered territory of Ulster. Until someone provides a cogent and rational argument as to why London hasn't yet been turned into a smoking pile of rubble by USAF B-52s, I don't have any interest in hearing any pro-Bombing of Serbia arguments.

• In 1999, on the eve of the NATO genocide campaign, U.S. Defence Secretary Cohen stated up to 400,000 Kosovars might have been killed. A 2002 UNICEF report put that number at about 4,000. It's likely the significant majority of those were heavily armed KLA terrorists (peaceful student pro-democracy activists generally don't carry RPGs). Meanwhile, the NATO war machine killed nearly 5,000 Serbs, and wounded countless others.

I recommend the 2009 Canadian documentary film "Can You Imagine?" about the brutal regime that now runs Kosovo with the backing of the U.S.' European puppet states like Britain and Germany.

Are you truly this much of an ass? Or do you just like to make idiotic points to see people's reaction?

You seem emotional, jimboston. So emotional that you aren't able to properly articulate that feelings you are experiencing in words or comprehensible sentences. I recommend a tall glass of cold water and 2 minutes of deep breathing.

[jimboston]

Are you truly this much of an ass? Or do you just like to make idiotic points to see people's reaction?

You seem emotional, jimboston. So emotional that you aren't able to properly articulate that feelings you are experiencing in words or comprehensible sentences. I recommend a tall glass of cold water and 2 minutes of deep breathing.

Actually my sentences make perfect sense.

You seem to be the one who in unable to communicate properly.

I believe you meant to use the word "the" instead of "that" there.

Try harder.

[Commander62890]

Are you truly this much of an ass? Or do you just like to make idiotic points to see people's reaction?

Hey, those were some fair points... especially this one:

A 2002 UNICEF report put that number at about 4,000. It's likely the significant majority of those were heavily armed KLA terrorists (peaceful student pro-democracy activists generally don't carry RPGs). Meanwhile, the NATO war machine killed nearly 5,000 Serbs, and wounded countless others.

If that 4,000 number is correct, perhaps violent military action wasn't justified.

Although, the human rights aspect was certainly not the only reason for the US to be concerned - if the Kosovo Albanians continued to be mistreated and opted to secede, that could have triggered a similar secession in neighboring Macedonia, which also had a significant Albanian minority. A collapse of Macedonia would have a tremendous impact on Albania, Bulgaria, and Greece.

Still... even though it may only have been 4,000, I think the West was probably fed up with Milocevic and the Serbs committing crimes with near-impunity. The run-in in 1995 clearly did nothing to change his tactics; Kosovo may have been on a smaller scale, but it's pretty much the same deal. The KLA's terror did not justify the Serbs' massacres, and even though they were on a small scale, they brought back memories of what Serbs had done over the course of the decade. Besides, who knows how much worse it could have gotten? That's the thing. The fight would probably have escalated on both sides; you have to know that it would have gotten a lot worse if not for the intervention. Think how many lives could have been saved if this had happened during the earlier wars?

[jimboston]

Hey, those were some fair points... especially this one:

Comparing Ulster to Kosovo?

No... not justified.

Just typical Saxi BS.

[saxitoxin]

1. The NATO Bombing Had No Legal Basis - Under international law, any military action by one state against another state - other than that required for immediate self-defence by the first party - requires approval of the United Nations Security Council on a finding that military action is required to enforce treaty law or maintain international peace. No such approval was granted by the UNSC. The Russian Federation, specifically, raised this point in calling for an end to the NATO genocide campaign.

2. The NATO Bombing Had No Moral Basis - To justify the genocide against Serbia, William Cohen stated "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing. They may have been murdered." Meanwhile, "the head of a Spanish team sent out ready to provide 2,000 post-mortems left last month having found only 187 corpses, some of which may have been bombing casualties. He guesses that perhaps 2,500 civilians were killed." The KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) - who the Yugoslav Army had been battling - had been listed by the United States itself as a "designated terrorist organization" until that designation was revoked mere months before the bombing began.

So, given the absence of legal or moral basis, why did the U.S. and her client states like Britain and Canada begin bombing Serbia?

• #1 - At the time Clinton was facing growing press attacks over his sexual improprieties. Launching a 3-month military action helped push the spiraling scandal off the front pages.
  #2 - The 1990 US peace treaty with Germany prohibited American forces from being deployed in territory of the former DDR, or east of the Oder-Neisse Line. This was done at Soviet insistence to keep the cache of U.S. puppet states confined to western Europe. The U.S. - among the first to recognize Kosovo independence - now has a rump state on Russia's doorstep in which they can legally base troops (similar to the rump nation of "Manchuko" imperial Japan created on the Soviet border in WWII), even though the UN itself insists Kosovo cannot declare independence and their declaration of independence is null and void.

[Baron Von PWN]

I think an important thing to remember in terms of the Kosovar war is the brutality of what occurred in Bosnia-Herzegovina just a few years earlier. There can be little doubt of the massacres which occurred there, the better question is why did Nato intervene for Kosovo but not Bosnia?

I think it was out of a desire to not see the events of '95 repeated. Nato/the west did nothing then and tens of thousands died. Nato action could very well have prevented a second war of similar magnitude from occurring. That Nato sided with the Albanian Kosovars likely had much to do with the antagonistic attitude of the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia, which in my view led to the demise of that country.

[Baron Von PWN]

• #1 - At the time Clinton was facing growing press attacks over his sexual improprieties. Launching a 3-month military action helped push the spiraling scandal off the front pages.
  #2 - The 1990 US peace treaty with Germany prohibited American forces from being deployed in territory of the former DDR, or east of the Oder-Neisse Line. This was done at Soviet insistence to keep the cache of U.S. puppet states confined to western Europe. The U.S. - among the first to recognize Kosovo independence - now has a rump state on Russia's doorstep in which they can legally base troops (similar to the rump nation of "Manchuko" imperial Japan created on the Soviet border in WWII), even though the UN itself insists Kosovo cannot declare independence and their declaration of independence is null and void.

#1 meh, maybe.

#2 doesn't make sense. The US already had access to much better operating basses much closer to Russia. Like say Turkey, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania or Bulgaria. Kosovo as a staging ground is rather useless, besides they already had Albania which is right next door.

Secondly the agreement you mention, was never a formal signed treaty(Unless I'm mistaken) but rather an understanding between US and Soviet diplomats. However with the demise of the Soviet Union how valid is such an "understanding", when you have portions of the former Soviet Union asking for US assistance in military defense.

[saxitoxin]

That Nato sided with the Albanian Kosovars likely had much to do with the antagonistic attitude of the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia, which in my view led to the demise of that country.

Another way to read this would be that any nation that doesn't fully prostrate itself in reverential respect of the American Eagle will be destroyed, regardless of any facts or realities.

When worded that way, stripping away diplomatic fancy talk, I agree.

• This reminds me of the Tampico Affair, in which 9 U.S. merchantmen were arrested by Mexican police in Veracruz and subsequently released. In response, Woodrow Wilson landed 3,000 troops in Veracruz pending Mexican agreement to fire a 21-cannon salute to the U.S. flag in the Zócalo in Mexico City, a demand with which the Mexicans ultimately complied after 6 months of occupation.

In answer to my initiative question, this is why London isn't a smoldering pile of rubble. Britain (and certain other nations) is properly diminutive and meek in the face of the United States. Serbia lost as an injured lion - with honour - to a greater force, instead of winning as a groveling weasel. See, Saxitoxin:

Earlier this year Wikileaks released cables that showed aides to Prime Minister Cameron dutifully reported to the palatial residence of President Obama's ambassador in London and promised they would introduce a "pro-US regime" in Britain. The cables reported that US diplomats mocked and laughed at the Britons after they had left and that Obama was generally annoyed by the almost constant grovelling to which he had been subject by both Brown and Cameron.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/US-Moc ... cial_Relat

It was previously revealed that, due to hard-wired coding, the UK can't launch their US-made nuclear weapons without prior US authorization.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 13320.html

[Baron Von PWN]

That Nato sided with the Albanian Kosovars likely had much to do with the antagonistic attitude of the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia, which in my view led to the demise of that country.

Another way to read this would be that any nation that doesn't fully prostrate itself in reverential respect of the American Eagle will be destroyed, regardless of any facts or realities.

When worded that way, stripping away diplomatic fancy talk, I agree.

...
Bar Bar BAr BAr Bar
...

The US had very little to do with the break up of Yugoslavia. That had everything to do with Serb chauvinism with regards to its sister republics. Throughout Yugoslav history Serbia often felt all other republics should be its Junior members, under the old king that was somewhat the case. Tito had a much better vision of pan-nationalist co-operation, and fostered it through even appointments from the various republics. His successor felt the Serbs deserved a greater share. Perhaps you disagree with Tito, and would rather see more aggressive competition between nationalities like say Milosevic.

[saxitoxin]

That Nato sided with the Albanian Kosovars likely had much to do with the antagonistic attitude of the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia, which in my view led to the demise of that country.

Another way to read this would be that any nation that doesn't fully prostrate itself in reverential respect of the American Eagle will be destroyed, regardless of any facts or realities.

When worded that way, stripping away diplomatic fancy talk, I agree.

...
Bar Bar BAr BAr Bar
...

The US had very little to do with the break up of Yugoslavia. That had everything to do with Serb chauvinism with regards to its sister republics. Throughout Yugoslav history Serbia often felt all other republics should be its Junior members, under the old king that was somewhat the case. Tito had a much better vision of pan-nationalist co-operation, and fostered it through even appointments from the various republics. His successor felt the Serbs deserved a greater share. Perhaps you disagree with Tito, and would rather see more aggressive competition between nationalities like say Milosevic.

The question isn't about whether the U.S. was involved in the break-up of Yugoslavia, the question is NATO's justification in bombing the people of Serbia.

As I stated, NATO had no legal or moral justification to bomb the people of Serbia, the rump thing "NATO" - like Japan's Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere - is a legal fiction under which the U.S.' puppet states are grouped for ease of coordination and the execution of opportunistic initiatives, in this case, a brutal attack against the people of Serbia to secure future basing rights and distract from serious domestic problems of the then-ruling regime in Washington.

[saxitoxin]

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Conference, 1943: Japan front/center, flanked by Burma (puppet government), Manchuko (puppet government), Nanjing (puppet government), Thailand (puppet government), Philippines (puppet government), India (puppet government)


North Atlantic Treaty Organization Conference, 2010: United States front/center, flanked by Canada (puppet government), UK (puppet government), Luxembourg (puppet government), Belgium (puppet government), Denmark (puppet government), Italy (puppet government), etc.

[Baron Von PWN]

That Nato sided with the Albanian Kosovars likely had much to do with the antagonistic attitude of the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia, which in my view led to the demise of that country.

Another way to read this would be that any nation that doesn't fully prostrate itself in reverential respect of the American Eagle will be destroyed, regardless of any facts or realities.

When worded that way, stripping away diplomatic fancy talk, I agree.

...
Bar Bar BAr BAr Bar
...

The US had very little to do with the break up of Yugoslavia. That had everything to do with Serb chauvinism with regards to its sister republics. Throughout Yugoslav history Serbia often felt all other republics should be its Junior members, under the old king that was somewhat the case. Tito had a much better vision of pan-nationalist co-operation, and fostered it through even appointments from the various republics. His successor felt the Serbs deserved a greater share. Perhaps you disagree with Tito, and would rather see more aggressive competition between nationalities like say Milosevic.

The question isn't about whether the U.S. was involved in the break-up of Yugoslavia, the question is NATO's justification in bombing the people of Serbia.

As I stated, NATO had no legal or moral justification to bomb the people of Serbia, the rump thing "NATO" - like Japan's Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere - is a legal fiction under which the U.S.' puppet states are grouped for ease of coordination and the execution of opportunistic initiatives, in this case, a brutal attack against the people of Serbia to secure future basing rights and distract from serious domestic problems of the then-ruling regime in Washington.

Serbia had provoked another internal war, had a proven track record of massacres in Bosnia the likelihood of that happening again was fairly high. Ff you consider the prevention of massacres a moral justification. Then the US had a moral reason to intervene.

[Commander62890]

I think an important thing to remember in terms of the Kosovar war is the brutality of what occurred in Bosnia-Herzegovina just a few years earlier. There can be little doubt of the massacres which occurred there, the better question is why did Nato intervene for Kosovo but not Bosnia?

I think it was out of a desire to not see the events of '95 repeated. Nato/the west did nothing then and tens of thousands died. Nato action could very well have prevented a second war of similar magnitude from occurring. That Nato sided with the Albanian Kosovars likely had much to do with the antagonistic attitude of the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia, which in my view led to the demise of that country.

Yes, this is more along the lines of what I was thinking. NATO's action in Kosovo was intended to prevent the large-scale atrocities of '95 from happening again. And it did, didn't it?

[saxitoxin]

That Nato sided with the Albanian Kosovars likely had much to do with the antagonistic attitude of the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia, which in my view led to the demise of that country.

Another way to read this would be that any nation that doesn't fully prostrate itself in reverential respect of the American Eagle will be destroyed, regardless of any facts or realities.

When worded that way, stripping away diplomatic fancy talk, I agree.

...
Bar Bar BAr BAr Bar
...

The US had very little to do with the break up of Yugoslavia. That had everything to do with Serb chauvinism with regards to its sister republics. Throughout Yugoslav history Serbia often felt all other republics should be its Junior members, under the old king that was somewhat the case. Tito had a much better vision of pan-nationalist co-operation, and fostered it through even appointments from the various republics. His successor felt the Serbs deserved a greater share. Perhaps you disagree with Tito, and would rather see more aggressive competition between nationalities like say Milosevic.

The question isn't about whether the U.S. was involved in the break-up of Yugoslavia, the question is NATO's justification in bombing the people of Serbia.

As I stated, NATO had no legal or moral justification to bomb the people of Serbia, the rump thing "NATO" - like Japan's Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere - is a legal fiction under which the U.S.' puppet states are grouped for ease of coordination and the execution of opportunistic initiatives, in this case, a brutal attack against the people of Serbia to secure future basing rights and distract from serious domestic problems of the then-ruling regime in Washington.

Serbia had provoked another internal war, had a proven track record of massacres in Bosnia the likelihood of that happening again was fairly high. Ff you consider the prevention of massacres a moral justification. Then the US had a moral reason to intervene.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4#p3462435

brushing past the facts with excerpts of long-discredited NATO press releases furiously restated in ever-louder tones doesn't make said facts go away

[saxitoxin]

I think an important thing to remember in terms of the Kosovar war is the brutality of what occurred in Bosnia-Herzegovina just a few years earlier. There can be little doubt of the massacres which occurred there, the better question is why did Nato intervene for Kosovo but not Bosnia?

I think it was out of a desire to not see the events of '95 repeated. Nato/the west did nothing then and tens of thousands died. Nato action could very well have prevented a second war of similar magnitude from occurring. That Nato sided with the Albanian Kosovars likely had much to do with the antagonistic attitude of the Serbian portion of Yugoslavia, which in my view led to the demise of that country.

Yes, this is more along the lines of what I was thinking. NATO's action in Kosovo was intended to prevent the large-scale atrocities of '95 from happening again. And it did, didn't it?

This is a logical fallacy as it pre-supposes the so-called "large-scale atrocities of '95"* would have happened had NATO not bombed 5,000 Serbian women and children to death and that the absence of said "atrocities" is proof of the efficacy of bombing the 5,000 women and children to death.

• - You went to the store on Monday.
  - On Tuesday I chopped down a tree in your garden.
  - On Tuesday you did not go to the store.
  
  It is illogical for me to assume the fact I chopped down your tree stopped you from going to the store. It is equally likely you got all your groceries on Monday and didn't need to go to the store on Tuesday, or any number of other reasons.

* For the record, I refuse to acknowledge any "large-scale atrocities" occurred in Bosnia in 1995, but for sake of keeping this thread on track I'll settle for putting that in quotes.

[Baron Von PWN]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4#p3462435

brushing past the facts with excerpts of long-discredited NATO press releases furiously restated in ever-louder tones doesn't make said facts go away

Hmm don't see any Nato press release excerpts in my posts. Are you getting confused in your old age Saxi?

1.Legal justification, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... ution_1199.
2. Cohen said 100k people were missing, and may have been killed. He did not say they had been killed. Those missing individuals could have simply been displaced by the conflict.

However it appears a good deal of people were killed

In the 2008 joint study by the Humanitarian Law Center (an NGO from Serbia and Kosovo), The International Commission on Missing Person, and the Missing Person Commission of Serbia made a name-by-name list of 13,472 war and post-war victims in Kosovo killed in the period from January 1998 to December 2000.[113][114][115] The list contained the name, date of birth, military or civilian status of victim, type of injury/missing, time and place of death. There are 9,260 Albanians and 2,488 Serbs, as well as 1,254 victims that can not be identified by ethnic origin

Human rights watch, put the estimated Civilian deaths as a result of NATO bombing in Serbia at somewhere between 400 and 600.

As for your reasons for the Nato effort. One doesn't make much sense, how is Kosovo of any value when they already have many much better situated areas to operate from?

The second that Bill Clinton organized this as a cover for his sex scandal. Other than the events happening around the same time, what evidence do you have for that?

[saxitoxin]

1.Legal justification, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... ution_1199.

Nothing in the text of 1199 authorizes military action against Serbia proper, or military intervention into Kosovo, it is an expression of concern.

For military action to be legal it must be done in self-defense or with the explicit authorization of the Security Council. An expression of "concern" is not "explicit authorization" for an attack. This is a NATO trick - put out a toothless resolution that sounds so nice that it would be a PR disaster if Russia voted against it. Then claim the resolution authorized something it didn't knowing that the Russian veto can't be applied retroactively. After it became clear NATO was going to use 1199 as an authorization for genocide, Russia attempted to introduce a resolution declaring that 1199 did not authorize military force but was blocked by the U.S. The trick worked.

The only court to adjudicate the matter, the Greek Council of State, determined the NATO genocide campaign against the Serbian people was illegal under all laws known to man and issued an injunction preventing the transit of NATO forces across Greek territory or airspace.

Human rights watch, put the estimated Civilian deaths as a result of NATO bombing in Serbia at somewhere between 400 and 600.

Human Rights Watch, like other U.S.-created and controlled institutions with egalitarian sounding names ("National Endowment for Democracy", etc.) exists to give a green light to U.S. foreign policy. Are you aware the current head of Human Rights Watch old job was as a United States federal prosecutor in New York trying state security crimes? That's just the tip of the iceberg with HRW.

This is a tired U.S. trick. It's a matter of time before they rename the Green Berets "the Organization for the Protection of Puppies and Kittens."

[saxitoxin]

Judgment of the Council of State of Greece in the matter of military action against the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ... the Council of State is the Greek Supreme Court and renders decisions by 2/3 vote of its more than 100 judges ... this is their judgment after a legal evaluation of the NATO genocide campaign:

1. NATO's offensive against a sovereign European state, unprecedented in the post-war years, is an affront not only to the ethical principles of Greek and European civilization, but also to the fundamental precepts of international law. This latter is a legal issue and should not be overshadowed by the moral revulsion that is justly provoked by this cowardly and barbaric attack. On the contrary, this issue is of primary importance and must be clarified in particular by those who have a competent opinion about the Law, since their duty is to serve it.

2. This inexcusable attack is taking place in flagrant violation of articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, which expressly prohibits the use of violence in international relations, and designates the Security Council (article 41 ff.) exclusively competent in international crises. According to these provisions, but also to the generally recognized precepts of international law, there is no room for self-appointed crisis managers, nor is it permitted, on any pretext whatsoever, for third countries to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

3. But this attack even violates the NATO Charter, the exclusive purpose of which is collective defense of the area defined therein that coincides with the boundaries of its member states, and which has committed itself in its international relations to refrain from the threat or use of violence in any way whatsoever that is incompatible with the principles and purposes of the UN (article 1). That is, by its own Charter, NATO has been placed under the rule of the UN Charter. And it could not have been otherwise, since no international organization or alliance can be placed above the United Nations.

4. In addition, both the United Nations Charter and all generally recognized precepts of international law safeguard the equality and sovereignty of all peoples, irrespective of their numbers and power, and do not recognize any jurisdiction on the part of powerful nations to intervene in the internal affairs of weaker nations or to dictate solutions to their own liking.

Consequently, however serious the crisis in Kosovo may be, it remains an internal Yugoslav affair and belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign Yugoslav state. Any humanitarian or other interest on the part of the UN, other international organizations or third countries may be manifested only in a peaceful way and by diplomatic means within the context of the UN Charter.

5. And, in this case, the United Nations, respecting these restrictions, remained within its jurisdiction, recommending to the lawful government of Yugoslavia that they fulfill their obligations (Security Council resolutions No 1160/31.3.1998 and 1199/ 23.9.1998). But behind the scenes, the NATO military alliance appeared in a self-appointed role, and without having - nor could it have had - any competence to become involved in this matter, having first dictated an insolent ultimatum disputing the very sovereignty of Yugoslavia, then launched an aggressive war against this state, demanding that it conform to NATO demands. This attack is accompanied by the revival of dark propaganda that attempts to exploit the misery of the refugees to draw public attention away from the violation of international law.

6. The legal significance of these actions should not be concealed nor underestimated. By their armed attack, the NATO countries are committing the following international crimes, in accordance with the charter being drafted for the International Criminal Court, which refers to the Geneva Conventions dated 12 August 1949 (UN Doc. A/CONF/183/9) and in particular:

• a) the crime of waging an offensive war, with the violent destruction of human life, cultural monuments and entire settlements;
  b) the crime of genocide by the deliberate destruction of the infrastructure of the Serbian community and the creation in it of conditions that lead to its physical annihilation; and
  c) the crime of ecological destruction by the use of military technology that causes damage to people's health and to the natural environment, a crime also committed against third countries to which deadly pollution is carried.

7. During the recent Washington summit, the leadership of the attacking NATO countries tried to amend the provisions of its Charter to make it autonomous in continuing the attack on Yugoslavia, and also with regard to its plans for the future in carrying out so-called peace-making and humanitarian interventions under the pretext of "crisis management"! It tried in vain. The only valid crisis management, according to international law, remains as ever the UN. And no other organization that is by definition inferior to it can remove or usurp this role. NATO cannot abolish international law nor can it produce new, generally recognized precepts of international legality. Its new Charter affects only the governments that signed it. And even if it is ratified by the national Parliaments of its member states, it will declare the intentions of just 19 out of a total of 158 states on the planet.

The remaining states will not tolerate the falsification or mockery of international law. They reject the theory that might is right, whether overt or disguised. And small states like Greece will be in danger if they relinquish rights which have been undisputed for centuries. The truth is that NATO's attack on Yugoslavia inaugurates a period of lawlessness in international relations. We are returning to the era of the Holy Alliance and the Axis, against which humanity, and the Greeks in particular, fought with such great sacrifices.

8. Having become involved in this crisis, Greece has no option other than to do what its culture and Constitution dictate, namely to follow the generally recognized precepts of international law, to seek the consolidation of peace, and to use its armed forces only for defensive purposes (article 2 para 2 and article 4 para 6 of the Constitution). In the light of these provisions of the Constitution of the Hellenic State and the provisions of the United Nations Charter, it is possible to interpret the provisions of articles 27 para 2 and 28 para 3 of the Constitution, which after a special law is passed, make it possible for foreign troops to sojourn in or travel across the Hellenic State or for national sovereignty to be restricted. These provisions could, however, be implemented only with respect to the participation of Greece in a declaration of war, and not to facilitate an attack against a third state. Consequently, the involvement of Greece in this on-going war against Yugoslavia cannot be decided upon even by law because such a law would be totally unconstitutional.

[PLAYER57832]

I remember what my late grandmother said at the time -- that area has been mired in conflict for thousands of years. Any involvement there is going to be a tangled mess.

Per the specifics, you can go back to us standing by, essentially and letting the Soviet take the region over.. and the soviet, apparently suppressing cultures to such an extent that a lot of old issues simmered and boiled instead of being fixed. Then, when the soviet yoke was thrown off, they were like a classroom of kids held under an iron fist.. until the teacher steps out.

[Commander62890]

I remember what my late grandmother said at the time -- that area has been mired in conflict for thousands of years. Any involvement there is going to be a tangled mess.

Per the specifics, you can go back to us standing by, essentially and letting the Soviet take the region over.. and the soviet, apparently suppressing cultures to such an extent that a lot of old issues simmered and boiled instead of being fixed. Then, when the soviet yoke was thrown off, they were like a classroom of kids held under an iron fist.. until the teacher steps out.

One of the things Judt mentions is that Yugoslavia didn't have the population transfers during-and-after WWII that most other Eastern European nations did, due in part to less Soviet involvement in the region (since Yugoslavia overthrew the Nazis on their own). This created a situation in which Yugoslavia retained its intermingled ethnic minorities, which was the key problem.

After communism fell, most Eastern European nations reverted to nationalism; this caused less obvious problems in most nations, where the ethnic minorities were not as intermingled (due to mid-war and post-war genocide and population transfers). But, in Yugoslavia, where ethnic minorities were still intermingled... the reversion to nationalism in post-communist society resulted in far greater tensions.

Anyway, Player, I agree with you - Yugoslavia was always a bit of a ticking time-bomb.
Just thought I'd add a few added dimensions that help explain why Yugoslavia was in much worse shape with regard to ethnic tensions than the rest of Eastern Europe after the fall of communism.

And, of course, Judt would disagree with any notion that spoke of Yugoslavia as being, "doomed." In his view, the Yugoslav Wars "did not just break out from spontaneous ethnic combustion. Yugoslavia did not fall; it was pushed. It did not die: it was killed." He's referring to Milocevic.

[PLAYER57832]

I remember what my late grandmother said at the time -- that area has been mired in conflict for thousands of years. Any involvement there is going to be a tangled mess.

Per the specifics, you can go back to us standing by, essentially and letting the Soviet take the region over.. and the soviet, apparently suppressing cultures to such an extent that a lot of old issues simmered and boiled instead of being fixed. Then, when the soviet yoke was thrown off, they were like a classroom of kids held under an iron fist.. until the teacher steps out.

One of the things Judt mentions is that Yugoslavia didn't have the population transfers during-and-after WWII that most other Eastern European nations did, due in part to less Soviet involvement in the region (since Yugoslavia overthrew the Nazis on their own). This created a situation in which Yugoslavia retained its intermingled ethnic minorities, which was the key problem.

After communism fell, most Eastern European nations reverted to nationalism; this caused less obvious problems in most nations, where the ethnic minorities were not as intermingled (due to mid-war and post-war genocide and population transfers). But, in Yugoslavia, where ethnic minorities were still intermingled... the reversion to nationalism in post-communist society resulted in far greater tensions.

Anyway, Player, I agree with you - Yugoslavia was always a bit of a ticking time-bomb.
Just thought I'd add a few added dimensions that help explain why Yugoslavia was in much worse shape with regard to ethnic tensions than the rest of Eastern Europe after the fall of communism.

Yeah, I guess return to nationalism might be a better description than sovietization.

[Baron Von PWN]

I remember what my late grandmother said at the time -- that area has been mired in conflict for thousands of years. Any involvement there is going to be a tangled mess.

Per the specifics, you can go back to us standing by, essentially and letting the Soviet take the region over.. and the soviet, apparently suppressing cultures to such an extent that a lot of old issues simmered and boiled instead of being fixed. Then, when the soviet yoke was thrown off, they were like a classroom of kids held under an iron fist.. until the teacher steps out.

One of the things Judt mentions is that Yugoslavia didn't have the population transfers during-and-after WWII that most other Eastern European nations did, due in part to less Soviet involvement in the region (since Yugoslavia overthrew the Nazis on their own). This created a situation in which Yugoslavia retained its intermingled ethnic minorities, which was the key problem.

After communism fell, most Eastern European nations reverted to nationalism; this caused less obvious problems in most nations, where the ethnic minorities were not as intermingled (due to mid-war and post-war genocide and population transfers). But, in Yugoslavia, where ethnic minorities were still intermingled... the reversion to nationalism in post-communist society resulted in far greater tensions.

Anyway, Player, I agree with you - Yugoslavia was always a bit of a ticking time-bomb.
Just thought I'd add a few added dimensions that help explain why Yugoslavia was in much worse shape with regard to ethnic tensions than the rest of Eastern Europe after the fall of communism.

Yeah, I guess return to nationalism might be a better description than sovietization.

Sovietization would be pretty off the mark, as they didn't have as much influence there. Titto (Yugoslavia's communist leader) had a split with the USSR resulting in a significantly different style of communism. He also kept a lid on nationalist tensions through maintaining a careful balance between the various groups.