SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50
  1. #26
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OK. First of all, WWII was not a civil war and the situation was quite different. The US didn't become involved until they got bombed. The genocide was well documented.

    Saying that Yugoslavia is a sovereign nation is a far cry from defending the leader of that nation.

    CNN is objective
    Is that so? How come basically all of their stories are pro NATO then?

    If NATO was so interested in restoring peace and saving lives why did they offer a peace agreement that no leader would ever accept? If they were so interested in restoring peace and saving lives why did NATO bombs kill over 400 civilians? Perhaps it's so they could have troops stationed there for a long time to demonstrate the credibility and continued reliance on NATO to the rest of Europe.

    It seems to me there was not much of a peace effort made by NATO, rather they had political motives for bombing. I'm disappointed that the United Nations didn't make more of a peace effort and instead let NATO kill innocent civilians and destroy towns with their bombs.

    Also, the words of the stories on my site are not necessarily the words of me unless I wrote them. Don't get the two confused. If you read a guest editorial in the New York Times do you assume the editor of the times shares those views exactly?

    They are not saying 'let the stronger side kill the weaker side' either. They are saying don't bomb the smitherines out of everybody you don't like, especially when the motives are questionable. Practice has shown that economic sanctions do not hurt those in power, but the people in the countries affected by the sanctions. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq since the gulf war because of the sanctions on that country! People are unable to rebuild the infrastructure there to get food and other supplies where they need to go. Therefore the people get weaker, the citizens resent the western powers for first bombing them and then imposing sanctions that prevent rebuilding and progress. When the people get weaker, it only serves to increase the power of the dictator that they were trying to get rid of in the first place! Democracy is achieved by empowering the people, not by killing them and imposing sanctions that ensure they remain in poverty!


    I am anti-war (that includes economic wars) and anti-imerialsm (that includes economic and political imperialsim). If hating bombs somehow makes me a genocide supporter then I must be guilty.



    [Edited by LuZeR on 09-29-2000 at 07:52 PM]

  2. #27
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I also just found this. #10 on Project Censored's top ten censored stories of 1999. Another of the top ten stories claimed that interest in building an oil pipeline in the balkans prompted NATO aggression.

    The U.S. and NATO Deliberately Started the War in Yugoslavia

    Articles appeared in the following publications.

    Jason Vest, "The Real Rambouillet," Village Voice, May 12, 1999

    Seth Ackerman, "Redefining Diplomacy," Extra! July/August 1999

    Diana Johnstone, "Hawks and Eagles: 'Greater NATO' Flies to Aid of 'Greater Albania,' " Covert Action Quarterly, Spring/Summer 1999

    Amy Goodman, "Democracy Now," Pacifica Radio Network, April 23, 1999

    The Rambouillet talks -- the negotiations between Yugoslavia, Kosovo and the five-nation Contact Group that preceded NATO's bombing of Serbia -- were a sham of diplomacy meant to provoke war.

    A clause of the Rambouillet Accords, Appendix B, written by U.S. State Department lawyers, made it impossible for Milosevic to comply with NATO's proposed peace process, because it allowed for a NATO military occupation of not just Kosovo, but all of Yugoslavia.

    Seth Ackerman, media analyst at Fairness and Accuracy in the Media, reported that the mainstream press portrayed Milosevic as being "hard-line," when in fact his negotiators had said they would consider most of NATO's demands. In the end, Milosevic refused to sign the Rambouillet Accords because the plan granted NATO extraordinary powers, superseded the U.N. and presented no room for compromise.

    "We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply," Ackerman quoted a high-level State Department official at Rambouillet as saying. "They need some bombing and that's what they're going to get."

    "There's no reason to believe reporters from the mainstream press did not have access to the most buried parts of the story," Ackerman said, noting that some reporters may not have quoted this official out of respect for "deep background rules," which ensure their access to important information sources.

    Vest agreed that this form of self-censorship was pervasive in coverage of the war in Kosovo. Vest pointed out, however, that a number of other news outlets did pick up the story.

    "I believe Sam Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy, as well as columnist Norman Solomon, Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League, whoever compiles the 'For the Record' column on the editorial page of the Washington Post and Newsweek's Michael Hirsh, should also be sharing in this award," said Vest.


    The full text of the Village Voice article can be found at http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9919/vest.shtml and it includes some other good info.


    [Edited by LuZeR on 09-29-2000 at 08:37 PM]

  3. #28
    SitePoint Enthusiast emke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I really have nothing else to say, you got my point obviously and your points now are getting ridiculous. Just look at the previous two posts by you.
    I would just like to clarify one more thing, there was no civil war in Bosnia, a country was attacked by another country (exactly as Poland was attacked by Germany, two different countries). There are actually a lot of similarities, there was a part in Poland where it was a lot of Germans and Germany took over that part and eventually the entire Poland. That's what Yugoslavia wanted to do Bosnia too. Bosnia is and was a sovereign nation when they were attacked, there are numerous proofs that Yugoslavian forces were attacking Bosnia, you do believe in that or don't you?
    The worst thing that somebody can actually think is that it was a civil war here, it was not. A country was attacked by another country with the intention to take over that country and to kill or to force the population of Bosnia to leave their country.
    I actually agree with you about the economical wars, when you look at them from the side they are no good but they obviously worked in Yugoslavia as Milosevic has lost, do you think that he would have lost the elections otherwise? Sure you can say that NATO interfered but do you think that he deserves to stay as a leader? Do you think that Yugoslavia should not have experienced any consequences after what they did to Bosnia? Do you think that Hitler deserved to stay as a leader if he had survived after the Second World War? Germany is still apologizing for what they did to Jews in the Second World War, do you think that Yugoslavia, Milosevic apologized even once?
    Do you know that it will take Bosnia 20-30 years to be a normal country?
    It's totally destroyed.
    So yes I do feel that Yugoslavia should suffer because we're suffering too, the only difference is that neither I nor my country are responsible for their suffering, they are totally and in every possible way responsible for my and my country's suffering.
    The way you're writing I get the impression that Yugoslavia should have just continued to live like they did before they caused the worst war in Europe since the Second Wrold War, is that what you think?

  4. #29
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LuZeR: even if you see written "evidences not found" or stuff, this is all diplomacy's ********. Like when a murderer is freed because of "evidences not found".


    I don't think NATO acts illegaly when they're just observers in these elections. IMHO, those who try to interfere are those who stuffed things so Milosevic wouldn't be beaten on the first round. Whoever believes in the actual possibility of a 48% (an not 50) for Kostunica can raise his/her hand.
    (In my country we're so aware of false elections results... the mayor of Paris has even used dead people's votes, and our President involved in all this, although, of course, not all evidences have been found, so he won't be worried for the next presidential elections. ******** again.)

    Whoever wonders about NATO's actions in a European country can look at how UN soldiers in some African countries quietly let the people fight their war until there's no survivor...


    Last point, many reactions there have been polluted by remarks like "it's all around Russia", "you must be from a socialist country" and the like, as if bad people were all communists (or as if communists are always bad people, which is a ****ing maccarthist idea that should be swept away but still isn't, for the sake of the nice capitalist america). So who is really objective in the end ?
    [blogger: zengun] [blogware contributor: wordpress]

  5. #30
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok I get the point. You love NATO and hate everybody who questions them.


  6. #31
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Winchester, Hampshire, England
    Posts
    240
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Luzer - something is wrong with your page here:

    http://activistnews.plebius.org/article/000503

    ...and I don't just mean the content!

    Peter
    Thread Closed - Before and After.
    www.Gods101.co.uk - Affordable Quality.
    www.scepticism-inc.com - All extremists should be taken out and shot!

  7. #32
    Idea Developer
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA
    Posts
    521
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with you, if you look at all news agencies they are all biased government controled, and none government control media. If you look at another thing, most news is owned by 2 huge networks, which will control the world.
    Professional PHP programing / Hosting
    aim: downtoi3iz icq: 74637813

  8. #33
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LuZeR no, i don't "love" NATO.

    Anyway, i believe there should be an independant institute to watch every important elections in every country. Yes, that includes "sovereign" countries. Which countries aren't sovereign by the way ? The use of the adjective is a bit obsolete IMHO.
    [blogger: zengun] [blogware contributor: wordpress]

  9. #34
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by necrominator
    I agree with you, if you look at all news agencies they are all biased government controled, and none government control media. If you look at another thing, most news is owned by 2 huge networks, which will control the world.
    Yeah, switch on the TV and watch X-Files. They are controlled by aliens too, they will conquer the news medias on Jupiter when they're finished with the Earth next week.

    Oh, this was a bit of banal paranoia.
    News networks controlling the world ? Switch off the connections with them: radio, TV, internet, and un-learn to read, and then you're ok when that day arrives.

    And by the (other) way, why should they be controlling governments ? Don't governments have enough of the commercial lobbies ?

    [Edited by Shin Ma on 09-30-2000 at 02:10 PM]
    [blogger: zengun] [blogware contributor: wordpress]

  10. #35
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Peter Hibbit
    Luzer - something is wrong with your page here:

    http://activistnews.plebius.org/article/000503

    ...and I don't just mean the content!

    Peter
    What's wrong with it, aside from the content?

    Yes, that includes "sovereign" countries. Which countries aren't sovereign by the way ?
    All countries are supposedly sovereign (barring those that must change their laws due to IMF, WB and WTO policies). Not all nations are sovereign though. And I don't mean nation in the sense of a 'country'

    Anyway, i believe there should be an independant institute to watch every important elections in every country. Yes, that includes "sovereign" countries.
    Agreed. But I don't consider NATO or the UN to be independent institutes.

    Oh, this was a bit of banal paranoia. News networks controlling the world ? Switch off the connections with them: radio, TV, internet, and un-learn to read, and then you're ok when that day arrives.
    Yeah, they probably won't control the world but they DO control most of the information that reaches the public. And as consolidation of media companies continues the number of viewpoints expressed to a mass audience will continue to decrease.

  11. #36
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Shin Ma

    Whoever wonders about NATO's actions in a European country can look at how UN soldiers in some African countries quietly let the people fight their war until there's no survivor...
    And why are there so many conflicts in Africa? Because of imperialism. When the imperialist powers left Africa, they divided land without regard to the interests of the various nationalist groups. Now these nationalist groups that have been put into the same country are fighting for power over each other. Another reason for much of the conflict there is economic imperialism. Different groups fight each other for control of resources that developed western countries want to exploit. The UN isn't doing much there if you ask me. Why should they do anything real to try to bring peace when they represent the very people that want to exploit the resources.

  12. #37
    SitePoint Enthusiast emke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You're just coming with bunch of new sites and more information and you're not answering to my questions at all, LuZeR? Don't know what to say?
    Do you really think that Yugoslavian army didn't kill any civilians on Kosovo?

  13. #38
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok. I'll answer your questions.

    Originally posted by emke
    There are numerous proofs that Yugoslavian forces were attacking Bosnia, you do believe in that or don't you?
    Yep. I believe it.

    Originally posted by emke

    The worst thing that somebody can actually think is that it was a civil war here, it was not. A country was attacked by another country with the intention to take over that country and to kill or to force the population of Bosnia to leave their country.
    If there was no civil war in Yugoslavia what was it then? CNN seems to think there was.

    I may not know every little detail about the situation there but I know a lot more than most americans.

    Originally posted by emke
    I actually agree with you about the economical wars, when you look at them from the side they are no good but they obviously worked in Yugoslavia as Milosevic has lost, do you think that he would have lost the elections otherwise?
    He would have lost if a group of independent observers had gone in. The bombing was not necessary to remove Milosevic.

    Originally posted by emke
    Sure you can say that NATO interfered but do you think that he deserves to stay as a leader?
    Only if he's elected in a fair election. I don't think he'd be elected even without NATO influence.

    Originally posted by emke
    Do you think that Yugoslavia should not have experienced any consequences after what they did to Bosnia?
    Of course there should be consequences, they just shouldn't be handled by NATO.

    Originally posted by emke
    Do you think that Hitler deserved to stay as a leader if he had survived after the Second World War?
    If he'd been elected in a fair election, but by then people hated him and it would never have happened.

    Originally posted by emke
    Germany is still apologizing for what they did to Jews in the Second World War, do you think that Yugoslavia, Milosevic apologized even once?
    The Germans that do feel guilty are not the ones who did anything wrong! Those who did the most horrible things didn't seem to care much and never apologized. Aside from the deaths of people on all sides, perhaps the greatest inequity is in the guilt of the innocent and the apathy of the guilty.

    Originally posted by emke
    Do you know that it will take Bosnia 20-30 years to be a normal country?
    If not longer. I don't think NATO is interested in leaving that region any time soon.

    Originally posted by emke
    So yes I do feel that Yugoslavia should suffer because we're suffering too, the only difference is that neither I nor my country are responsible for their suffering, they are totally and in every possible way responsible for my and my country's suffering.
    "Attrocities have been committed by every group in this conflict" - CNN

    I'm sorry anybody had to suffer, but pointing blame won't help ease that suffering.

    Originally posted by emke
    The way you're writing I get the impression that Yugoslavia should have just continued to live like they did before they caused the worst war in Europe since the Second Wrold War, is that what you think?
    Obviously the nationalism in that area is too great for any two nationalist groups to live under the same political leadership. Create nation states where they can rule themselves and be happy with whatever leaders they choose to elect without outside influence, but with proper observation.

  14. #39
    Idea Developer
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA
    Posts
    521
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wonder if the outside world will interfere if milosevic will not give up his power.
    Professional PHP programing / Hosting
    aim: downtoi3iz icq: 74637813

  15. #40
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They will. If he's been indicted for war crimes I don't know why they haven't arrested him already anyway.

  16. #41
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by LuZeR
    They will. If he's been indicted for war crimes I don't know why they haven't arrested him already anyway.
    You know that many countries would love to judge Saddam Hussein? So why haven't they done it yet?

    Simple, because they can't get him away by just asking. They'll have to use force (war) to get him away, or if they're smart they try to kidnap him.
    www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
    www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.

  17. #42
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's true. But they can't stay in power without support from at least some of the people.

    According to one thing I read, the US has organized the overthrow of over 50 governments since WWII so I don't know why they wouldn't get Milosevic. I'm sure they'll use bombs if they decide they have to.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Enthusiast emke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, I've already explained why there was not a civil war.
    Are Bosnia and Yugoslavia two different countries? If a country attacks another country then it's obviosly agression and it's not a civil war. The opposition in Yugoslavia even admit that it was agression. All their leadres including Kostunica think so.
    When it comes to suffering I'm not saying that other people didn't suffer too and that there wasn't crimes done by all nationalities. There were but we must first clear up a different issue, who started the war? Yugoslavia. Who commited 90% (if not more) of the crimes and murdering? Yugoslavia. There is also one another major difference between the crimes, Yugoslavia commited organized crimes. What I mean by that is that they had a plan that they should kill civilians, rape women etc. Crimes commited by other nationalities were not organized, they were more like that a man lost his wife, his chldren, his parents and then because of his pain killed someone else. I'm not in any way saying that it's the right thing to do but I can definitely understand someone who would do that or have done that. So I'm not pointing blame I'm just stating facts. You can't possibly compare the suffering between a mother who has lost her children with someone from Yugoslavia.
    You said that by the time the war ended Hitler was not popular any more, I agree but Milosevic was popular and that's why he lost first now. He would have not lost if independent observers had gone in. He's controlling all the media there, there are no independent TV stations and so on. That's why he managed to rule for so long.
    About the consequences to Yugoslavia and that NATO shouldn't handle it, I agree. But look at it like this, who would have handled it if not NATO? It would take years to decide who would do it and by then it would be over.
    You can't possibly think that just because Hitler would have been elected in fair elections that he should deserve to stay as a leader after the Second World War?
    About your thoughts that nationalism is too great for two nationalist groups to live together, I don't really want to comment that. I definitely see your point and can relate but I also know some other facts that you even if you know a lot don't. One thing is for sure, I live in Sarajevo and have friends that are of all nationalities, my girlfriend is other nationality than mine.
    I don't know, if people would put some other goals in front of them instead of to have their own leaders but have leaders that are representing all the Bosnia it would be a different issue. It's coming now by the way.
    Regarding Milosevic's arrest, I don't think it'll ever happen but I think that this is the worst suffering for him. Although I also must say that I don't like Kostunica either but he's an important first step for Yugoslavia.
    Although I understand that your posts were not to defend Milosevic, they were more against NATO. I think that it's important for other people that don't know that much about the actual situation and when you look at your posts, someone that is not familiar with the situation might think that Milosevic didn't deserve what he got. He did deseve it and more.
    I understand your opinions on NATO and I agree with you but there isn't another organization that can help countries like Bosnia and until there isn't, NATO there is.

  19. #44
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No physical warfare will help. The only way to defeat dictators is to use psychological warfare. Once the support for the dictator is crumbling beneath his feet (are there female dictators?) success is at hand.

    But: One mistake, no matter how small, and the dictator will find his place being secured once again.

    Psychological warfare allows no mistakes since people remember mistakes made...
    www.nyanko.ws - My web-, software- and game development company.
    www.mayaposch.com - My personal site and blog.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey emke I want to ask you few questions:
    Can you imagine the cost of NATO's bombing here?
    Have you ever think about what it would be if they put (maybe som little part of) this money in ANY OTHER form (not bombs) in this region?
    Is this the way to solve such an old conflict?
    Do you think that destroing a country have something in common with changing the rule in this country?
    How many times USA have changed the rule in one country because they don't like it?
    Why they didn't do it this time?
    ...
    And you can say that they did the right thing?

  21. #46
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Emke, I'm not saying that all nationalist groups should have their own country. But when there are bitter and bloody fights for control it seems to me the best option is to give them their own country if peace can't be reached.

  22. #47
    SitePoint Enthusiast emke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LuZeR, I understand that. It's just really complicated, I don't think that anybody can really understand it totally. I hope that you understand that I wasn't banging up on you, I was just trying to get you to realize that while it's easy for you to be anti-NATO there, you weren't in a situation where your life depends on somebody's else help. If NATO hadn't helped us here (although late), who knows what would have happened with us. I'm in no way for NATO but until there is some kind of different orgnization that could help other people, then NATO must do it.
    aba, if you read all my posts from the beginning you can find the answers to your questions.

  23. #48
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    fair enough.

  24. #49
    SitePoint Wizard westmich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Muskegon, MI
    Posts
    2,328
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by LuZeR Obviously the nationalism in that area is too great for any two nationalist groups to live under the same political leadership. Create nation states where they can rule themselves and be happy with whatever leaders they choose to elect without outside influence, but with proper observation.
    Isn't that how this whole mess started in the first place?

    If a body of strong democratic nations like NATO or the UN Security Council isn't fit to carry out peace missions, to whom would you assign the job? What other group of nations could carry out peace missions and have the military might to back it up?

    Originally posted by LuZeRUS involvement through NATO was also unconstitutional as acts of war were committed without the approval of congress
    No, the government did not act illegally. The President has the Constitutional authority to deploy troops at any time without anyone's permission. After the war in Vietnam, however, the Constitution was amended so that after 120 days he needs Congressional approval usually in the form of joint resolution. Also, the Supreme Court just throughout the case filed by lawmakers charging the Clinton's actions were illegal. The Court held up the lower court's opinion that the lawmakers had no right to legally question Clinton's presidential authority.

    BTW, I am not advocating war by any means. If fact, I think we get into situations too often (the U.S. deployed troops 16 times throughout the Cold War, 45 times since 1990). Its just that are elected leaders are entrusted with an awesome amount of power and responsibility. If their is a situation that arises and the US interests are truly at stake (economic or otherwise), and there becomes no other choice, then we need to take actions that will cost US the least amount of lives.
    Westmich
    Smart Web Solutions for Smart Clients
    http://www.mindscapecreative.com

  25. #50
    Destiny Manager Plebius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    682
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by westmich

    If a body of strong democratic nations like NATO or the UN Security Council isn't fit to carry out peace missions, to whom would you assign the job? What other group of nations could carry out peace missions and have the military might to back it up?
    I don't know what peace missions you are talking about. Personally I don't see how bombing the heck out of somebody and killing 400+ civilians is a peace mission. Particularly when the agreement that would have stopped the bombing was never intended to be accepted and it's fullfillment itself would have constituted an act of war.


    Originally posted by westmich

    No, the government did not act illegally. The President has the Constitutional authority to deploy troops at any time without anyone's permission. After the war in Vietnam, however, the Constitution was amended so that after 120 days he needs Congressional approval usually in the form of joint resolution. Also, the Supreme Court just throughout the case filed by lawmakers charging the Clinton's actions were illegal. The Court held up the lower court's opinion that the lawmakers had no right to legally question Clinton's presidential authority.
    "The Congress shall have power ... to declare War" - U.S.Constitution, Section 8

    I doubt the consitution meant that it's only war if it's declared.

    The constitution was meant to say what powers the government had. Nowhere does it give the president the power to engage in war. Besides, 'deploying troops' isn't the same thing as engaging in acts of war.

    Originally posted by westmich

    BTW, I am not advocating war by any means. If fact, I think we get into situations too often (the U.S. deployed troops 16 times throughout the Cold War, 45 times since 1990). Its just that are elected leaders are entrusted with an awesome amount of power and responsibility. If their is a situation that arises and the US interests are truly at stake (economic or otherwise), and there becomes no other choice, then we need to take actions that will cost US the least amount of lives.
    What U.S. interests were at stake in Yugoslavia? The interests of imperialism? Why must we bomb people when they don't do what we say regardless of our interests? I think human lives are more important that the imperialist economic or political interests of the US. The US usually just ends up hurting their interests anyway. Take Iraq for example. The US bombed them, destroying their infrastructure in the process which didn't hurt saddam but has hurt the people, making them weaker and less able to resist a repressive dictator. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because of the destroyed infrastructure and their inability to rebuild due to economic warfare (embargo). We continue an economic embargo against them that not only hurts the people there and weakens their ability to strive for democracy but also decreases the supply of oil we get, meaning higher prices for US consumers.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •