I say the US intervention in Bosnia was right thing.
While patrolling no-fly zones over Bosnia, US warplanes attacked Bosnian Serb depots and other military targets that threatened UN-safe havens but did not do anything to stop them easily.
Only in August 1995 after Srebrenica massacre and the 2nd Markale massacre, the US and NATO launched a major bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb targets that finally ended bring the warring parties to the peace table, culminating the Dayton agreement.
Victims summary(all sides - Yes; Even Serbs civilians were killed by so called "Bosniaks" who were so peaceful so that they started tearing the Federation they were living in by raiding police stations in order to create, I'll quote a particular "Bosniak" leader" an "Islamic Republic"[the only good thing that came out of it all is that that particular bastard is dead and that the Bosnia today is a secular state]) is 100,000.
millencojo...you heave no nut,pusyies not caring it. I was there, whole fuckin war,fight started becouse of west masonic interest,this pshyco and meny others spread sheat for money. We head to kill those propaganda rats,they cary most war viruses. Now is your time to read some books...if u know how to read..retard.
International community should intervene as '91: it was Slovenia vs. Yugoslavia '91, bilateral civil war in Croatia '91-95, Croatia vs. Yugoslavia '91-92 and vs. Serbia '92-95, trilateral civil war in Bosnia and Bosnia vs. Serbia '92-'95...
Of course - USA, as superpower, was in charge about. But - any kind of bloodshed in Europe would prolong the effective unite of Europe, scheduled for '92.
And they did. Milosevic did the great job. Reward? 1 billion USD for his family exiled - guess where.
Of course that 3 war sides in Bosnia (Serbs, Muslims, Croats) were doing crimes against each other. And of course that the militarily strongest (Bosnian Serbs) made greater number and wider scale of the most horrible crimes than 2 other sides. And of course it was the most visible, exactly what was needed by neo-con (or ex-Maoist, whoever was in power at the moment ) black/white media. Do that media today show Hague Tribunal convictions against Bosnian Croats and Muslims? No, of course.
i believe u taking everything for granted in expressing opinion , for one fact that everyone remembers is that America DID intervene in the Bosnian war, by bombing the Serb Militia's heavy armor and supply routes, thus crippling their effectiveness during the later of the conflict,
but my opinion America's reason for non-intervention in these conflicts is to avoid another Vietnam scenario thats wat they are scared of, also public scrutiny and pressure negatively thus creating a backlash
no we were notg culpable. the american people did not want to lose lives in bosnia. it does not mean we are commiting genocide. this is where hedges loses his credibility. I agree on the evil of war though. we should try to make our society a just place and not interfere in other societies.
@bebeinpa you said he makes it sound as if he sacrificed something? Well if you think of our peace and rights here in America and giving those up to go to a place where you are not protected and could easily be dead is not a sacrifice then you are taking things for granted. You see, what we enjoy here today in USA was not always like that, people have sacrificed their lives for the next generation and their kids to have a better life. You should appreciate things more I think.
@BMuris That's a total misreading of what I said. He didn't go there to fight, but to observe, and in that, he risked little. As the daughter of a Korean vet, the niece of two WWII vets, I think I know about the sacrifices of others for my freedom, thanks.
Read Hedges' "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning," where he argues that all war is evil and wasteful, whatever rationales we create for them, but it is necessary to go to war whenever doing nothing is a greater evil (ex: condones genocide). His point is that we should never lose sight of the fact we indeed *are* committing evil. If he rejects US intervention in Iraq, his problem is in recognizing where we should act. Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds and other Iraqis justfied action.
Clinton was a sick twisted embicile who loved the sight of barbarism and vandalism and sadism, letting bosnians be slaughtered by a masochist called slobadan milosovic.
@Onetimerule Why blame it on Clinton? Clinton tried to persuade the UN and our European allies to use military force against Bosnian Serbs under a "lift and strike" policy many times in 1992, 1993, 1994, and early 1995 but ALL OF THEM SAID NO cause they felt it threatened UN humanitarian effort there but it didn't. The war was largely the fault of Europeans and the UN incompetence. After the Sarajevo market massacre by Serbs in 1995, the US finally pushed NATO to take action in August 1995.
Then he praises HOLLOWCO$T fraudster Eli Weasel. The same Weasel who supports the apartheid state of Israel. The same Eli Weasel whos charges $25000 per lecture in speaking fees. The famous "professional survior" Eil weisel who claims to have survived 5 different concentration camps!? When I heard this guy praise this character i quickly hit the "back" button.
Riiight, uhh he isn't praising him he's praising what he said. Which basically can be summarized as. "if you're capable but unwilling, blood is on your hands." So Eli Weasel might be the worst human being in the world, but it doesn't take away the truth that he said in 1990.
Also compare Bosnia to Iraq and you'll see what he means. Bosnia had mass genocide, Iraq was political oppression. There's a difference.
No.. Military Intervention is a sham and it's always been used as an excuse for governments to occupy a nation and attempt empire. Also just because a government says there is a genocide somewhere doesn't always mean there is one. Even if there is a so called genocide happening in a 3rd world country somewhere intervention wont be justify UNLESS the American people approve of such an intervention with a direct vote, and NOT from media polling.
I strongly disagree with this guy on his conflicting views on intertvention. He sends mixed messages. He admits Iraq is a mess due to US intervention, but then in the same breath he argued in favor of the US government intervening in the Balkans and Somalia? Damned if we do, and damned if we dont. So needlessly intervening in countries is a waste, and its NOT are fault. His thinking doesnt make sense to me. He's the atypical liberal do good journalist no different than the Neocons.
@xxashyy Iraq is a mess was not due to US intervention but because Iraq was a buffer to Iran. After the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, US President George Bush Sr decided not to push into Baghdad due to the fact it would lead to another "Vietnam" aka quagmire and it would have human costs, meaning Iran would take over and cause trouble.
Even in 1994, Dick Cheney said toppling the Iraqi government would lead to a "quagmire" and have US forces there in Baghdad in the 90s. Now look at Iraq now.
I say the US intervention in Bosnia was right thing.
While patrolling no-fly zones over Bosnia, US warplanes attacked Bosnian Serb depots and other military targets that threatened UN-safe havens but did not do anything to stop them easily.
Only in August 1995 after Srebrenica massacre and the 2nd Markale massacre, the US and NATO launched a major bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb targets that finally ended bring the warring parties to the peace table, culminating the Dayton agreement.
Hperman09 4 months ago
"Quarter of million dead".
Victims summary(all sides - Yes; Even Serbs civilians were killed by so called "Bosniaks" who were so peaceful so that they started tearing the Federation they were living in by raiding police stations in order to create, I'll quote a particular "Bosniak" leader" an "Islamic Republic"[the only good thing that came out of it all is that that particular bastard is dead and that the Bosnia today is a secular state]) is 100,000.
Interesting mathematics here...
Orthodoxcrusader 4 months ago
No biggie, BMuris. Take care yourself.
bebeinpa 6 months ago
a ti poturice ne jedi govna,if this gay speaks truth,u are one who is not be in position to speak any more.
srboosVuk 2 years ago
millencojo...you heave no nut,pusyies not caring it. I was there, whole fuckin war,fight started becouse of west masonic interest,this pshyco and meny others spread sheat for money. We head to kill those propaganda rats,they cary most war viruses. Now is your time to read some books...if u know how to read..retard.
srboosVuk 2 years ago
jebem li vam majku srbsku this guy speaks the truth
D03271467 2 years ago
i wish we killed u nub liar,who paid for your armored car,who paid you to spread lies..fuckin masonic rat.
srboosVuk 2 years ago
srboosVuk
Shut up and read some books instead of bashing a great human being.
Lick my left nut
millencojo 2 years ago
International community should intervene as '91: it was Slovenia vs. Yugoslavia '91, bilateral civil war in Croatia '91-95, Croatia vs. Yugoslavia '91-92 and vs. Serbia '92-95, trilateral civil war in Bosnia and Bosnia vs. Serbia '92-'95...
Of course - USA, as superpower, was in charge about. But - any kind of bloodshed in Europe would prolong the effective unite of Europe, scheduled for '92.
And they did. Milosevic did the great job. Reward? 1 billion USD for his family exiled - guess where.
dejanvul 2 years ago
Of course that 3 war sides in Bosnia (Serbs, Muslims, Croats) were doing crimes against each other. And of course that the militarily strongest (Bosnian Serbs) made greater number and wider scale of the most horrible crimes than 2 other sides. And of course it was the most visible, exactly what was needed by neo-con (or ex-Maoist, whoever was in power at the moment ) black/white media. Do that media today show Hague Tribunal convictions against Bosnian Croats and Muslims? No, of course.
dejanvul 2 years ago
i believe u taking everything for granted in expressing opinion , for one fact that everyone remembers is that America DID intervene in the Bosnian war, by bombing the Serb Militia's heavy armor and supply routes, thus crippling their effectiveness during the later of the conflict,
but my opinion America's reason for non-intervention in these conflicts is to avoid another Vietnam scenario thats wat they are scared of, also public scrutiny and pressure negatively thus creating a backlash
RalphMarx 2 years ago
no we were notg culpable. the american people did not want to lose lives in bosnia. it does not mean we are commiting genocide. this is where hedges loses his credibility. I agree on the evil of war though. we should try to make our society a just place and not interfere in other societies.
tonylee1973 2 years ago
He volunteed to go to Bosnia? He makes it sound as if he was sacrificing something!
bebeinpa 3 years ago
@bebeinpa you said he makes it sound as if he sacrificed something? Well if you think of our peace and rights here in America and giving those up to go to a place where you are not protected and could easily be dead is not a sacrifice then you are taking things for granted. You see, what we enjoy here today in USA was not always like that, people have sacrificed their lives for the next generation and their kids to have a better life. You should appreciate things more I think.
BMuris 1 year ago
@BMuris That's a total misreading of what I said. He didn't go there to fight, but to observe, and in that, he risked little. As the daughter of a Korean vet, the niece of two WWII vets, I think I know about the sacrifices of others for my freedom, thanks.
bebeinpa 6 months ago
@bebeinpa I apologize for misinterpreting your comment. Take care.
BMuris 6 months ago
Read Hedges' "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning," where he argues that all war is evil and wasteful, whatever rationales we create for them, but it is necessary to go to war whenever doing nothing is a greater evil (ex: condones genocide). His point is that we should never lose sight of the fact we indeed *are* committing evil. If he rejects US intervention in Iraq, his problem is in recognizing where we should act. Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds and other Iraqis justfied action.
CarolKlees 3 years ago 5
Clinton was a sick twisted embicile who loved the sight of barbarism and vandalism and sadism, letting bosnians be slaughtered by a masochist called slobadan milosovic.
Onetimerule 3 years ago
@Onetimerule Why blame it on Clinton? Clinton tried to persuade the UN and our European allies to use military force against Bosnian Serbs under a "lift and strike" policy many times in 1992, 1993, 1994, and early 1995 but ALL OF THEM SAID NO cause they felt it threatened UN humanitarian effort there but it didn't. The war was largely the fault of Europeans and the UN incompetence. After the Sarajevo market massacre by Serbs in 1995, the US finally pushed NATO to take action in August 1995.
Hperman09 4 months ago
Then he praises HOLLOWCO$T fraudster Eli Weasel. The same Weasel who supports the apartheid state of Israel. The same Eli Weasel whos charges $25000 per lecture in speaking fees. The famous "professional survior" Eil weisel who claims to have survived 5 different concentration camps!? When I heard this guy praise this character i quickly hit the "back" button.
xxashyy 3 years ago
Riiight, uhh he isn't praising him he's praising what he said. Which basically can be summarized as. "if you're capable but unwilling, blood is on your hands." So Eli Weasel might be the worst human being in the world, but it doesn't take away the truth that he said in 1990.
Also compare Bosnia to Iraq and you'll see what he means. Bosnia had mass genocide, Iraq was political oppression. There's a difference.
asurawind 3 years ago
Comment removed
xxashyy 3 years ago
No.. Military Intervention is a sham and it's always been used as an excuse for governments to occupy a nation and attempt empire. Also just because a government says there is a genocide somewhere doesn't always mean there is one. Even if there is a so called genocide happening in a 3rd world country somewhere intervention wont be justify UNLESS the American people approve of such an intervention with a direct vote, and NOT from media polling.
xxashyy 3 years ago
I strongly disagree with this guy on his conflicting views on intertvention. He sends mixed messages. He admits Iraq is a mess due to US intervention, but then in the same breath he argued in favor of the US government intervening in the Balkans and Somalia? Damned if we do, and damned if we dont. So needlessly intervening in countries is a waste, and its NOT are fault. His thinking doesnt make sense to me. He's the atypical liberal do good journalist no different than the Neocons.
xxashyy 3 years ago
@xxashyy Iraq is a mess was not due to US intervention but because Iraq was a buffer to Iran. After the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, US President George Bush Sr decided not to push into Baghdad due to the fact it would lead to another "Vietnam" aka quagmire and it would have human costs, meaning Iran would take over and cause trouble.
Even in 1994, Dick Cheney said toppling the Iraqi government would lead to a "quagmire" and have US forces there in Baghdad in the 90s. Now look at Iraq now.
Hperman09 4 months ago
I have always respected Chris as a brave man who is unafraid to tell the often bitter truths about an often cruel world.
blackiron60 3 years ago