High noon in Bosnia

Jun 2 03:21 UTC 1995

Now the bosnian conflict has finally come to a head! the serbs got thier
headlines alright, and iit may be thier last! What gripes me about the whole
thing is that the only reason it has gone on this long is because the
superpowers, russia and the usa have been economically entangled in arming both
sides directly or indirectly fo  a long time . They've been doing this because
of the enormous arms buildup during the cold war (all those resources wasted on
weapons that were never intended to be used) that feuled both economies. Now
that cold war is over who is going to by and use these weapons to keep the
ecomies from siezing up? well, enter the croats, serbs, et al. Its time to end
it and admit our mistakes so that developing nations not learn from our
"examples" done

response 2 of 22:

Jun 2 16:44 UTC 1995

  "It's time to end it?"  You mean the war, or supplying arms?  It does
amaze me how much weaponry even out-of-the-way countries like Somolia
stockpiled during the cold war.  But if the superpowers hadn't supplied
the countries with arms, people would still have wars.  Look at Rwanda:
who would have figured you could kill a million people in a week (or
however many it was) using mostly machetes.  Bullets, missiles, and
nukes just make killing more efficient.

response 4 of 22:

Jun 3 05:18 UTC 1995

That isn't true, Jim.  If not for an excessively hasty recognition of
Bosnia as an independent state -- a recognition that may have precipitated
the conflict, and did not rely upon the rules of international law that
apply to the creation of new states -- there would be no disputing that
the conflict in Bosnia is a civil war.  Serbia can be viewed as an
outsider meddling in that civil war only because of that premature
declaration.

Further, it was very possible to expel Iraqis from Kuwait, and to restore
a stable (if not particularly enlightened) government to that nation.
An intervention in Bosnia would be much bloodier for all involved, would
require policing even after the open warfare was stopped (perhaps
perpetually), and there is no universally recognized government to restore
to power.

Your proposal, actually, risks intervention from certain Muslim nations,
and while the strong might survive, there might not be many of them left....

response 6 of 22:

Jun 4 06:53 UTC 1995

You're confusing the exceptional case with the normal.  The reason we
are doing nothing is because that's what we always do.  Except when the
President needs a quick boost in the polls and the job looks easy
(Grenada, Panama) or U.S. interests are deemed threatened (Kuwait).

response 8 of 22:

Jun 7 23:10 UTC 1995

      THe President has often said ' we have no intrests in bosnia'
  I have been to Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro.
        In fact I was in Slovenia and Croatia over Christmas.
  IN those countries, the United States is seen as HELPING the serbs.
  THe bosnians, used to (if not still), have an gun embargo on them.
  THe serbians also have a gun embargo, but they were already stocked.
  We never know about this because we live in america. 
        Yes we should be looking at more than just what's in it for us.
  But the fact is we don't. America today is numb about bosnia.
  When watching the news, bosnia comes on the channel changes.
  It not until your own son may leave for bosnia that we become
  worried. "What's in it for us?", now its our son life.
  
        When this war started, the earth was worried their would be a w
  world war III. Once we saw that this was very unlikely, we didn't
  care anymore. " What's in it for us?", now its our own lives.
  Or rather, back then it was our own lives.
        
        Remember when kuwait was invaded by iraq? It was amazing 
  how quickly we came to the rescue. Especially because kuwait
  sits on 10% of the world's oil. America didn't want to go in 
  until it heard about the baby's being taken out of incubators.
  The military and government didn't until it head about the oil.
        Today we might go in because:
                1 We have a reputation to maintain as world police.
                2 The U.N. is in trouble, and how much have 
                  we spent on them. 
                3 Bob dole is attacking Bill on why he waited so long
                4 Bill made a campaign (sorry I cant spell)promise
                  not to waffle like George.
                5 If we solve solve something, who could we thank? (BILL)
                6 The we have finally shown compassion for the innocent.
        Reason #6 is unlikely. 

        Remember this full page in some big news paper awhile ago?


                *************************
                * O.J Simpson trial     *
--->            * moved to THURSDAY!!   *     <---
                *************************


                                                        in other news 500,000
                                                        rwandans massacred
                                                        

response 10 of 22:

Jun 9 21:53 UTC 1995

When the conflict started, there were good reasons to fear its expansion.
Greece was menacing Macedonia because of its *name*, and there was a real
possibility that any Greek military action would cause intervention by
Turkey.  Russia sides strongly with Serbia, and indicated that it would
intervene if any NATO powers acted to stop Serbia's aggression.  The
refugee problem could only escalate if the war expanded, giving other
neighbors of Yugoslavia grounds to intervene or demand intervention.  It
was also quite clear (and still is) that the ethnic problems will not
go away, and "peace" will last only as long as an occupying power makes
it last.

Perhaps the most effective means of stopping the outright warfare would
be for the U.S. to explain to Serbia in no uncertain terms that any
further acts of aggression would be attributed to Serbia (not just the
Bosnian Serbs), and would result in air strikes against Serbia (not just
Serb positions in Bosnia).  But that is politically unacceptable.  (It is
also not possible while UN troops remain in Bosnia, due to hostage-taking.)

response 12 of 22:

Jun 14 20:43 UTC 1995

  The US has already established that we'll pull out of military conflicts
based on public opinion.  Taking hostages/prisoners is an effective method
of using the media to erode US public support for continued involvement in
the region.
 
  While I don't credit Somolian "warlords" with masterminding the incident,
the abuse of the corpses of US servicemen by mobs in front of TV cameras was
the most decisive, effective defense against a US invasion that I've seen.
If I were trying to defend a small country from US military involvement, I'd
care more about good media transmission capability, to broadcast attrocities
from either side to the American public, than I would about mobile artillary.

response 14 of 22:

Jun 18 00:28 UTC 1995

...... And if I were taken hostage, I would consider myself dead, and moreover
, I would antagonize my captors untill they killed me! The few must NOT be abl
e to play on the heartstrings of the many through the use of the media. If the
 s
serbs hadn't attempted to ethnically cleanse thier region, The UN and thus the
rest of the world, wouldn't have gotten involved. Small Facist groups *know*
this and play it to align potential suppliers to thier cause. This has to stop.
And I believe the UN security council has an obligation to address this type of
problem and pass resolutions to avoid a situation like bosnia in the future.
How long can we, as a planet continue to pour resources into petty little
squabbles like this one, and continue to move forward and outward. Conflicts
over religion and other such mythological/historical referances must cease, or
armegeddon (sp?) will become a self-fulfilling prophesy, now won't it! THINK!

response 16 of 22:

Jun 18 20:41 UTC 1995

Are they really volunteers?  I thought they were soldiers, trained to kill
and paid for their work.
 
I wouldn't exactly consider them "dead," but I think bargaining for the lives
of the hostages endangers far more lives in the future, than taking a tough
no-compromises stance.  For example, people rarely hijack planes in this
country, as they know once they land, they won't take off again with hostages.
That's our federal policy.  Greece's policy is "fuel 'em up and ship 'em out,"
which is why they're a popular stop-over for terrorist hijackers (ok, it has
a bit to do with their proximity to the middle east).

response 18 of 22:

Jun 19 15:28 UTC 1995

  Hm, thinking about it, I have to admit, that's correct terminology.
It just seems to put a "selfless" spin on it, like they're doing the
world a favor, ignoring that it's their job for which they're being
compensated.  At least in the US and Canada, where there is no
compulsory service, the armed forces compensate very competitively.
 
  It's like saying people volunteer to work at McDonald's for $5/hour.
McDonald's is all-volunteer run, since the employees chose to take the
jobs of their own free will.

response 20 of 22:

Jun 24 00:17 UTC 1995

Look, I belive there is a problem with your terminology once again! As I've
written before, The UN troops are technically POWs not "Hostages" and the Serbs
need to know about the geneva convention or thier forces should be wiped out,
and thier leaders put before the world court on charges of warcrimes, which
still may happen. Cutting deals such as the one that was made is political sui
suicide for the UN! This should be avoided in the future, and airstrikes shoul
continue.

response 22 of 22:

Jun 24 20:03 UTC 1995

True there isn't a way to measure the inhumanity, and truth is always the
first casualty of war, however, the UN has passed resolutions regaurding this
conflict and not enacting on the violation of these resolutions by either side
weakens the UN and makes the probability of future conflicts like this one
much higher.
 
I belive that the conflict has been ignored largely for econic concers of the 
superpowers. i.e. The main export of both the US and russia, in monetary terms
is  weapons, without a conflict somewhere in the world, weapon sales would 
plummit, something that niether country is prepared, economically, to do.
 
Nonetheless, The UN should not consider this when making resolutions, and no
matter where the UN troops come from, failure to abide by UN resolutions should
not be tolerated. Quick decissive action must be taken or it only invites more
conflicts where the UN is used as a chesspiece.
 
In fact, the UN should enforce a world wide arms embargo, or at least, maybe
through the World Trade Organization, make *All* trade transactions between
all countries a matter of public record, including arms sales, or trade would
not be allowed. This would make motives for conflicts much clearer.
 
The only way to end the conflict now is forced compliance of UN resolutions
and UN negotiated treaties. A pullout would leave the civilians helpless, which
was the reason the UN got involved in the first place. This conflict has gone
on long enough and the UN has been repeatedly lied to by all invoved and not
involved. Time for Decisive action, Take thier toys away from them. Bomb all
military supply lines until they come to the negotiating table. Both sides.
Hey the french have a carrier in the area, in russia is nervous about NATO
doing it! The Time is now, and Make it quick!