It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia
According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.
What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.
Do read the thread and the link that the thread op posted.edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
amazing
Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia
According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.
What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
The question really is "Was NATO right to intervene?" The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies, that --A. Absolutely. NATO had to Intervene. B. Isolationist policies are always best. To heck with helping people and stopping genocide. C. NATO was in the wrong and caused more damage death and suffering than it stopped. D. Somewhere in the middle. NATO should have intervened but crossed a line at some point.
My answer is A. They had to intervene, but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.
The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies,
My answer is A. They had to intervene,
To heck with helping people and stopping genocide.
but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.
Agent_USA_Supporter
amazing
Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia
According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.
What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
The question really is "Was NATO right to intervene?" The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies, that --A. Absolutely. NATO had to Intervene. B. Isolationist policies are always best. To heck with helping people and stopping genocide. C. NATO was in the wrong and caused more damage death and suffering than it stopped. D. Somewhere in the middle. NATO should have intervened but crossed a line at some point.
My answer is A. They had to intervene, but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.
The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies,
Some of the posts are well thought out replies? i have to disagree with you there.
My answer is A. They had to intervene,
Since your answer is A i guess they had had to intervene in Libya to then. To save Libyans from an brutal dictator.
To heck with helping people and stopping genocide.
Just like those others in here you continue to deny the genocide of Christian Serbs that were brutally killed and hanged.
but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.
NATO are the good guys. What colonialism? they are there to protect Europe according to you.edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
AngryCymraeg
Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia
According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.
What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.
Do read the thread and the link that the thread op posted.edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
Oh, I have read the thread. I have noted a certain tendency on your part to claim that the Kosovo War was a war crime. I would like to know exactly why you claim that this is so. After all, the majority population of Kosovo were ethnic Albanians who were somewhat annoyed as to why first Yugoslavia and then Serbia abolished their status as an autonomous region and then decided to embark on a process of ethnic cleansing.
Oh, I have read the thread.
I have noted a certain tendency on your part to claim that the Kosovo War was a war crime. I would like to know exactly why you claim that this is so.
After all, the majority population of Kosovo were ethnic Albanians who were somewhat annoyed as to why first Yugoslavia and then Serbia abolished their status as an autonomous region
amazing
Agent_USA_Supporter
amazing
Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia
According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.
What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
The question really is "Was NATO right to intervene?" The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies, that --A. Absolutely. NATO had to Intervene. B. Isolationist policies are always best. To heck with helping people and stopping genocide. C. NATO was in the wrong and caused more damage death and suffering than it stopped. D. Somewhere in the middle. NATO should have intervened but crossed a line at some point.
My answer is A. They had to intervene, but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.
The answers on this thread, and some of them are well thought out replies,
Some of the posts are well thought out replies? i have to disagree with you there.
My answer is A. They had to intervene,
Since your answer is A i guess they had had to intervene in Libya to then. To save Libyans from an brutal dictator.
To heck with helping people and stopping genocide.
Just like those others in here you continue to deny the genocide of Christian Serbs that were brutally killed and hanged.
but with an acknowledgement that NATO or at least the USA crossed the line with colonialism. I think the USA has military bases in 30 other countries. That's not good.
NATO are the good guys. What colonialism? they are there to protect Europe according to you.edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
Hmmm it appears that you aren't willing to discuss reasonably any view that disagrees with yours? Interesting. So you are now saying that NATO are the good guys and there is no Colonialism? I have to disagree with you on Colonialism. Afgan and Iraq are big examples of modern colonialism.edit on 30-3-2014 by amazing because: (no reason given)
Afgan and Iraq are big examples of modern colonialism.
Agent_USA_Supporter
15 years since NATO aggression on Yugoslavia
According to you NATO wasn't the aggressor wasn't it? this is what the thread is all about, so do try on reading the thread title before posting.
What NATO to the Serbs and Serbs in General was a War Crime.
Do read the thread and the link that the thread op posted.edit on 30-3-2014 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)
AngryCymraeg
Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
Oh, I have read the thread. I have noted a certain tendency on your part to claim that the Kosovo War was a war crime. I would like to know exactly why you claim that this is so. After all, the majority population of Kosovo were ethnic Albanians who were somewhat annoyed as to why first Yugoslavia and then Serbia abolished their status as an autonomous region and then decided to embark on a process of ethnic cleansing.
Oh, I have read the thread.
You just responded to defend NATO's actions in Kosovo and Bosnia.
I have noted a certain tendency on your part to claim that the Kosovo War was a war crime. I would like to know exactly why you claim that this is so.
So you haven't replied to my PM? why dont you do a little more research on the topic before storming onto here claiming that you know everything about the conflict.
After all, the majority population of Kosovo were ethnic Albanians who were somewhat annoyed as to why first Yugoslavia and then Serbia abolished their status as an autonomous region
There wasn't an Albania until after the fall of the Ottoman Empire the majority of those Albanians living in Kosovo come from Albania whats the proof? the fact they are waving the Albanian flag in every news outlet pictures?
It has being a long time since i didn't thought i would have another debate on about the Yugoslavian war, conflict but just like in 2007 it seems it always seems to me for people whom defend either NATO, The Croatians and the Bosnian Government side clearer still dont have any clue what occurred in the Balkans.
I had lived through the conflict and fled as a civilian to get away from it and what about you again? the way you are defending NATO Desperately Defending NATO? by claiming Serbs were trying to recreate Greater Serbia shows just how much you still dont understand about the conflict.
Including how you denied the ethnic cleansing by the Croatians in there operation storm. May i suggest to you that you should do a little more research on the war.
Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
Kosovo is and always the home by the Serbian people as for the claims of autonomous region status being abolished again why dont you do some more research?
hounddoghowlie
cosmonova
paraphi
cosmonova
NATO agression in numbers :
When you uncork the bottle and all that. Regardless of the numbers, NATOs intervention stopped Serbian aggression in its tracks. Literally. NATO did the job the UN had tasked them to do. The aggression ended and peace was imposed.
Regards
NATO had no approval by UN Security Council, once again, I do not know why are you repeating 'UN has tasked them to do'.
That is absolutely incorrect.
It was an open agression on sovereign country, the same thing happened in Iraq and Lybia.
Those are facts.
Also, how can Serbia be an aggressor on its territory, protecting its sovereignity from separatists in Kosovo?
It was the rightful thing to do.
Do you think US would let separatists inTexas to ever use force in obtaining their goals?
And to get back to main reason for NATO agression, Camp Bondsteel, strategic US base, the largest in Balkans.
'Wag the Dog 'was just standard story (read genocide, rapes,blah blah) to justify said aggression.
just like taliban supporters, nothing that is documented is true, unless it agrees with your point of view.
as others have pointed out, the UN did pass resolutions ask for NATO to intervene. there are resoluation numbers in some of the quotes.
here is the first involvemeants.
Early involvement and monitoring
NATO's first involvement in both the Bosnian War and the Yugoslav wars in general came in February 1992, when the alliance issued a statement urging all the belligerents in the conflict to allow the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers. While primarily symbolic, this statement paved the way for later NATO actions.[1] On July 10, 1992, NATO foreign ministers agreed, at a meeting in Helsinki, to assist the United Nations in monitoring compliance with sanctions established under United Nations Security Council resolutions 713 (1991) and 757 (1992). This led to the commencement of Operation Maritime Monitor off the coast of Montenegro, which was coordinated with the Western European Union Operation Sharp Vigilance in the Strait of Otranto on July 16.[2] On October 9, 1992, the Security Council passed Resolution 781, establishing a no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. In response, on October 16, NATO expanded its mission in the area to include Operation Sky Monitor, which monitored Bosnian airspace for unauthorized flights.
NATO Intervention In Bosnia and Herzegovina
and the first combat roles,
Growing role of air power 1994 Main article:
Operation Deny Flight On February 28, 1994, the scope of NATO involvement in Bosnia increased dramatically. In an incident near Banja Luka, NATO fighters operating under Deny Flight shot down four Serb jets. This was the first combat operation in the history of NATO and opened the door for a steadily growing NATO role in Bosnia.[6] In April, the role of NATO airpower continued to grow during a Serb attack on Goražde. In response, NATO launched its first close air support mission on April 10, 1994, bombing several Serb targets at the request of UN commanders.[7] NATO launched several other limited air strikes throughout the year, acting in coordination with the United Nations.
NATO Intervention In Bosnia and Herzegovina
Srebrenica and the London Conference
In July 1995, the Bosnian Serbs launched an attack on the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, ending with the deaths of approximately 8,000 civilians in the Srebrenica massacre. After the horrifying events at Srebrenica, 16 nations met at the London Conference, beginning on July 21, 1995, to consider new options for Bosnia. As a result of the conference, UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali gave General Bernard Janvier, the UN military commander, the authority to request NATO airstrikes without consulting civilian UN officials, as a way to streamline the process.[8] As a result of the conference, the North Atlantic Council and the UN also agreed to use NATO air strikes in response to attacks on any of the other safe areas in Bosnia. The participants at the conference also agreed in principle to the use of large-scale NATO air strikes in response to future acts of Serb aggression.[9]NATO Intervention In Bosnia and Herzegovina
i guess you hold the same thought as slobydon did when he told The Hague that you can't find any written orders. orders can be given with out being written, but this is not the case here, there is plenty of documentation to support that UN resolutions and asking NATO to carry them out.
*SNIP*
edit on 30-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)edit on 30-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)edit on 3/30/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
paraphi
cosmonova
Lol I made a topic about NATO agression on Yugoslavia and you want me to read NATO justification for agression on NATO website.
Show me a documemt from UN Security Council that authorised NATO to attack Yugoslavia.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the links I gave were merely the UN Resolutions, as written. Within the narrative you'll see the detail, or perhaps you won't.
You can LOL as much as you want, but your statement that NATOs intervention to stop continued Serbian aggression (and aggression by all parties, to be fair), was illegal etc. is just wrong. The facts of the past are well documented. If you choose to ignore and create a completely different fantasy, then that's your affair I suppose.
Regards
cosmonova
Sir do not make a fool of yourself.
I will repeat for fifth time, topic is NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 not NATO involvement in Bosnian War 1992-1995. I will repeat just in case to avoid any confusion, this topic is about NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999.
AngryCymraeg
cosmonova
Sir do not make a fool of yourself.
I will repeat for fifth time, topic is NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 not NATO involvement in Bosnian War 1992-1995. I will repeat just in case to avoid any confusion, this topic is about NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999.
Yes, but the 1999 Kosovo War was born out of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the Bosnian War. It wasn't an individual event on its own. Context is everything on a complicated and multisided issue such as this one.
cosmonova
very good article from Current Concerns, The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility, and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law.
please read the rest,
www.currentconcerns.ch...
AngryCymraeg
cosmonova
very good article from Current Concerns, The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility, and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law.
please read the rest,
www.currentconcerns.ch...
I am somewhat cautious of any website or publication that throws the words 'Neo-colonial' around. I tend to sense a political agenda.