|
Tell Us What You Think
name: Robert Gilmer
email: rsgilmer@unity.ncsu.edu
Wednesday, 14-Apr-1999 15:01 PST
The question should not be whether to send in ground
troops, but whether we should be there in the first place.
Historically, this particular area of the world has been
politically unstable. Even the influence of the Austria-Hungary
empire in the 19th and early 20th century was not enough for stabilization.
World War I started here, and there is a slim possibility for another large
war starting here if Russia becomes more hostile towards the NATO
presence there. This possibility is unlikely, but not completely zero.
On the subject of ground troops, however, we SHOULD send them in as soon
as possible in order to prevent more ethnic cleansing and provide some
stability to the region. Air strikes are NEVER enough to get these kinds
of military goals accomplished. We saw them fail in Iraq, and they will
fail here as well.
Dictators such as Slobodan Milosevic should never be tolerated as they
are only power-hungry men who should never be leading a country, but always
wind up doing so when the proper democratic controls are not in place.
name: Jared Espenschied
email: LessXTreme@aol.com
Wednesday, 14-Apr-1999 18:01 PST
Though I'm not sure how related this is to atheism, I'm going to type for a while. The situation in Kosovo is not being helped at all with the current air strike campaign. We're killing both soldiers and civilians, and not getting anything done. The two realistic options that I see at the moment are this:
1) The more costly, but effective option. Send in ground troops, and have them set up a defensive from to protect the Kosovars. Have them do nothing BUT protect the Kosovars. The current air campaign is doing nothing but killing people and not solving the problem. We are, in some cases, actually killing the Kosovars, the people we're supposed to be protecting!
Or, my personally more favored choice:
2)Assassinate Slobodan Milosovich. Announce that he was killed because of his policies of genocide and the murder of thousands of innocents. If his successor continues those policies, have him assassinated as well. Continue until someone comes to power who realizes that these acts of murder and genocide cannot be continued. This may be viewed as an act of terrorism by some, but balance it carefully. At the moment, we are dropping bombs. What does this do? It kills people. Some are innocent civilians. Some are soldiers. We are doing nothing but two things-doing some of Milosovich's work for him, and giving him marytrs to avenge. Hundreds are already dead, and for no purpose. If we (the American people) condone that, how can we not condone the one death that would end this?
name: Charles Brodeur
email: cbrod7504@aol.com
Wednesday, 14-Apr-1999 19:41 PST
It is impossible for me to choose a side in this conflict. Those who are being brutalized now are simply those that are in a weaker position politically at the moment. When they had the power,they too would be brutal. Atrocities are common to all sides in that area. While there are ethnic differences, I don't think that they are the primary cause of the conflicts there. Religious differences are historically at the root of most conflicts in the world and this is no different. There are always problems that need to be addressed in any society, and regardless of ethnic diversity most of them can be successfully overcome, but when religious differences appear then each side is convinced of its' "righteousness", and there can be no compromise.I have no confidence that our presence there will solve anything, and I could wish that we might not get involved. But how can people who care about others watch the carnage and do nothing?
(Who do we think we are, God?) We must do something. But I worry about the results.
name: Barb Reiland
email: bfreiland@cavemen.net
Wednesday, 14-Apr-1999 21:00 PST
Tolerance for the religious views of others is next
to impossible without a secular government in place.
A few well placed bombs and ground troops creating
further destruction will solve nothing. The area
has centuries of ethnic/cultural/religious dissension the
outside world fails to comprehend.
name: David Moses
email: WhyFacts@aol.com
Wednesday, 14-Apr-1999 21:31 PST
Easter Sunday, I walked with BOTH sides in protest of this "war" The world needs LESS war, not more ! It's like a drunk trying to drink himself sober. If the leaders want to duke it out, go ahead on, but don't ask the rest of US to join in.
name: Don Hirschberg
email: dhirsch@centuryinter.net
Wednesday, 14-Apr-1999 21:42 PST
Why have we chosen to go to war in Kosovo because terrible things are happening there - when there are so many other places where terrible things are happening? I heard one commentator say there are presently 23 other situations worse than in Kosovo. I can't vouch for his number but his point is well taken.
The only decisive military resolution achieved solely by air strikes was that produced by just two bombs dropped on Japan. Since the Viet Nam war we have succeeded in a number of (essentially) casualty-free military actions. Now it seems the conventional wisdom is that wars can be won without American casualties. This is nonsense and the active military people know it - but it seems have been told to tout the offical political line only. (This hulabaloo over three US soldiers being captured is a case in point - we kill each other at the rate of 40,000 to 50,000 with cars and murder another 20,000 to 25,000 yearly.)
It is not clear that a "solution" imposed by the US/NATO would really solve anything for long. Isn't it conceivable that we are making things even worse? The Serbs were the victims last time around, zapping them again is hardly gong to make them more amenable.
There are so many bad situations in the world that we must pick and choose if and where to get involved. So, it is rational to pick those situations where we have a vital interest and where a "solution" has a reasonable chance of success.
name: Ric Carter
email: ric@sonic.net
Wednesday, 14-Apr-1999 23:27 PST
The current bombing hasn't and probably can't achieve the stated goal of protecting Kosovars. Bombing for democracy, like killing for peace or f*cking for virginity, is insane. Introducing NATO ground forces into Kosova is also unlikely to protect Kosovars. Unfortunately, political dynamics within NATO, the UN and the Balkans seem to preclude ANY useful options at this time. All parties involved are frozen into untenable poses.
Washington/London, Beograde, Brussels, Moscow, the Vatican, all seem like moths flying merrily into the flames, each driven by 'principle'. Yow.
name: Derek
email: TheDerekH@aol.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 05:48 PST
The Crisis in Kosovo is one which is very hard to place under a war category. It was started by the Serbs for a difference in religious beliefs, but the U.S.'s intervention had nothing to do with the religious parts of the war. The U.S. intervened because we saw people being gunned down in front of their families, and we saw a war brewing that, if not stopped right away, could spill over into an even bigger war that would eventually affect us even if we didn't act. Therefore, we decided it was best to strike now, while the war was small and less people were being killed, then to wait for it to get even bigger. Not to mention that, everytime we help out one of our allies like this, it beefs up the look of the United States with other countries. The "I pat you on the back, you pat me on the back" idea comes into play. For instance, were it the United States that was being slaughtered (a very unrealistic example yes but it proves the point) then we would be crying out for help from all of our allies. Therefore, I firmly am convinced that our intervention in the Kosovo Crisis was the right thing to do. The last thing we need is for another Bosnia.
name: Glenn Crawford
email: glennc@nelvana.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 07:45 PST
The US is acting like the air force of the Kosovars. America seems to be desperately trying to curry favour with Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan)
If NATO's goal was to stop the fighting then send in ground troops between the two, tell both sides to back off and, frankly, kick the living hell out of either side that disobeys.
Or better yet, do not get involved in a Balkan War.
name: Glenn Crawford
email: glennc@nelvana.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 07:48 PST
I read one comment, and I was appalled.
The person mentioned Austria Hungary acting as a stabilizing influence (or at least trying)
Read your history! the AH Empire was the one provoking these people. As is the US now. The harder you push a Balkan people the harder they fight.
The only solution is either to continue the ethnic cleansing of Serbia by the USA, or to stand between the sides and let them calm down. Picking a side is like trying to talk to Pit Bulls out of fighting after it has started
name: Clark Lind
email: zoom@shs-partner.de
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 08:01 PST
As a military member currently serving in Bosnia, I hear the jets flying overhead every day on their way to Yugoslavia.
Everyone seems to think that this would be over in a few days, maybe a week. Anyone who thinks that has no concept military strategy.
The ground troops in Kosovo (Serbian Army) are the last thing to engage in any war. To see that we have reached that point in just under 2 weeks is quite remarkable. Air Power *has* had a dramatic effect. The problem, is dealing with a man who would be willing to die for his beliefs and create a martyr out of himself. *This* is where philosophies clash. His philosophy is "my way, or die." How can you bargain with someone like that? He understands one thing: the use of force. He will either kill, or be killed. To stop his crownies, ground troops are the only way.
Whether us (America) intevening has anything to do with protecting American interests, is a completely different topic.
name: Charles Fiterman
email: cef@geodesic.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 08:08 PST
The UN says stay out and until that changes, and
I hope it does, we should stay out. When it
changes the UN should go in and we should give
what support is required including air power and
ground troops.
Other than that I think the whole thing is another
example of religious violence. Thank random chance I'm an atheist.
name: Walter A. Rhoades
email: wcrhoades@aol.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 08:11 PST
I understand that God beliefs is the price we pay for our ever evolving logical human brain. Our human history is stained by the blood of relgious wars and persecutions and I feel the time has come for all fully evolved peoples to stand up and stop this silly barbaric nonsense once and for all.
name: Alexander J Flynn
email: aflynn@atsworld.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 08:38 PST
NATO is far too late in its intervention. The world has stayed to far from this confrontation for too long to be effective in a non-violent solution to this problem. I am normally a pacifist and believe that in most cases nonintervention in other cultures is a valuable asset, after all they might have a different version of right and wrong than what we use as benchmarks for correct and incorrect actions. In this case the ethnic cleansing is clearly an incorrect action because the people who are being ethnically cleansed are not making the choice that this is something they want to have happen. Who would want that to happen? And yet my imagination is broad enough to cover the possibility that a ethnic subdivision might want to be ethnically cleansed - it is not something that I would consider a high probability. In a news cast recently on CNN (I think) a reporter was in a refugee camp and referred to the Kosovo ethnic Albanians as the "ethnically cleansed". This is in fact a correct statement. It is too late. We have two options - fight it out and eventually after many deaths Kosovo may become a free country and capture members of the Serbian government for punishment for crimes against the human race or we could ship out the refugees into the United States and take them in as our own. I would be in favor of the second option except for three facts: 1) No punishment would be delivered to people who have committed atrocities against people who are in many ways no different than ourselves. This is a bad precedent to set and other governments/organizations may see this as weakness and attempt their own "ethnic cleansings". 2) There are still thousands of ethnic Albanians inside Kosovo that would be subject to the wiles of an agressive regime - leaving the situation would be a death sentence (or worse) for the ethnic Albanians. 3) By leaving the conflict we reward the Serbians for their agressive behavior by basically handing over the Kosovo region to them.
I hope I have been clear even though I don't appear to have been concise in giving my opinion.
name: Eric DeArment
email: ejd@efn.org
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 13:23 PST
Personally, I have a strong objection to violence, and I believe that there probably is a peaceful way to solve the conflict in Kosovo. Bombing won't do any good, as violence only breeds more violence.
Not only that, but I find it strange that the United States claims to be fighting for the cause of human rights, even though the US has a long history of committing human rights violations (eg, with Native Americans, poor people), supporting repressive and oppressive regimes in other countries (e.g. Turkey, which oppresses the Kurds, Mexico, which oppresses the Zapatistas and Japan, which has a centuries-long history of oppressing the Ainu).
So, Mr. Prez sir, don't make any effort to convince me that you're
fighting for human rights, not in Kosovo, not in Iraq, not anywhere.
name: William Pigg
email: WPigg58917@aol.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 14:09 PST
Ground troops will already be introduced when the air cav comes in, however patience should be exercised, NATO air capabilities are getting a substantial job done now.
name: Sean
email: Compexpert@aol.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 15:35 PST
We cannot allow this slaughter to continue,
regardless of what religion those people are.
I know if the U.S. was doing something similar
I would want someone to intervene.
name: Chester Twarog
email: ctwarog@hotmail.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 18:19 PST
I really don't see how anyone could consider stopping any ethnic/relgious genocide until we really mature as a "world culture" with absolute tolerance for our differences or finally realize everyone can do without any religious dogma.
name: Al Gerbrand
email: algerbrand@attcanada.net
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 18:49 PST
Religious ideology may be a factor in the events, but only in the eyes of the leaders who are commiting these terrible acts. They are using religion as an excuse to kill, rape, etc. Because religion of any kind is man-made and the only way to truely be born-again is through the grace of our Heavenly Father and by reading and following the only real book, The Bible. For the media and atheists it is easy to blame these events on religion because it is such an easy target. If more people took the time to read and understand the Bible they would know that there is no acceptance of the acts and events taking place in Yugoslavia. Violence on any part is unacceptable.
name: stacey decker
email: Gringlegoo@aol.com
Thursday, 15-Apr-1999 22:32 PST
Slobodan is tyrant-throwback to the Stalinistic
Soviet Union. That system failed its people as
Slobodan is failing his people now. What he
understands most is destruction. That destruction
must be his own brutish regime. After NATO
obliterates Slobodan's thug-filled government
a rational democratic leadership can be put in
its place.
name: Dave
email: DbtngDave@aol.com
Friday, 16-Apr-1999 11:02 PST
Borders change, religions change, rulers change... I fully support the efforts to bring any piece of the world into the hands of its people.
In this case, the US will establish a nice foothold for democracy, forcing the same "melting pot" occurances as in the US. This leads to understanding and eventual acceptance of people with different ideologies. It may take generations and lives to muddle through this, but this being the information age, it may be quicker than we think...
What can I say, my grandfather was a religious bigot, my father religious, myself? well, my best friend is black and my only involvement in religion is in humanitarian efforts.
Dave
Birmingham, MI
name: Huascar Terra do Valle
email: huascar@globalsite.com.br
Friday, 16-Apr-1999 18:00 PST
The Crusades, when Christians tried to take Jerusalem from the Turkish was the first round. The second round was the victory of the Turks, in 1389, when they took Kosovo. The third round is now, when the Serbians want to take back their "Jerusalem", which is Kosovo. Is Nato general's entitled to interfere with History?
name: Ken
email: mansuper@earthlink.net
Friday, 16-Apr-1999 18:43 PST
I think they should wall the balkans off from the rest of the civilized world and let the religious nuts tear each other to pieces.
name: Jim Kelly
email: jwkelly1@pdq.net
Friday, 16-Apr-1999 18:56 PST
Do you think that a political agreement concerning Kosovo can be reached with Slobodan Milosevic in power?
I find this question most intriguing. Why must WE (meaning non-Kosovo citizens) reach a political agreement in a Kosovo decision? Yes I understand that people are dying, but they have been dying in greater numbers in other parts of the world. I have yet to hear a clear "reasoned" explanation of why this fight and not one of the other hotspots. Europe in danger ? Give me a break! They don't want to conquor Europe. This is a country held hostage by occuping armies. It's people have been frozen in time and have used "heritage" and hate as a bonding agent (it makes me think of the middle east). We have the advantage of education and freedom to see things differently, those poor people have a blinding faith leading them. Remember that knowledge happens as a continuum. Their time line is hundreds of years out of sync with ours. More weapons will not add knowledge to this problem. We may act as nations to restrict how we interact with Kosovo but we "must" remember the difinition of a sovereign state. Let us weep at their loses and work for a better tomorrow.
name: Lawrence Louis
email: llouis@bayou.uh.edu
Friday, 16-Apr-1999 19:55 PST
The atrocities that are currently present in Kosovo are indicative of something much greater than just an isolated skirmish. One must look past the obvious conflicts that exist and instead determine the culprit of the bickering itself. When one truly delves into the matter we see that the causal agent of this and other forms of genocide stem from the dogmatic adherence to a religous creed.
One may ask whether blaming religion is in fact addressing the dilemma or the symptom of it. One may conclude that the bloodshed in Kosovo has an ethnic basis or is founded on territorial disputes.
I think nothing could be further from the truth. Religion is the sole and decisive factor that intiated and sustains this carnage. Anyone who has even a minute exposure to the history of the region can tell you that the true symptoms of the destruction that exists in Kosovo are racially and territorial related, but that religion is the true disease from which these symptoms emanate.
This makes what goes on in Kosovo a far worse form of ethnic cleansing than others that have existed in our chaotic history. Ethic cleansing formed from racial ideology can be combated through an application of reason. One can show the racist that his perception of individuals, who are not of his persuasion, to be inaccurate. Rational discourse can be used to reconcile territorial disputes.
However, in the case of religion no form of rhetoric, based on reason can ever rectify conflicts that exist. Religion is, as we all know, based primarily on the vulgar axiom of faith (despite the assertion of apologists). By definition this means not only a suspension of epistemic guidelines to decipher truth from falsehood, but also an overt disdain for the faculty of reason. Conflict divorced from rational deliberation (i.e. faith based conflicts) will always be conflicts whose only solution is of the most repugnant kind; victory through attrition.
So the conflict may seem to have only the most catastrophic of consquences. However, as atheists we should not be apathetic towards the plight of those people indigenious to Kosovo. We may for the most part be ineffectual in helping our neighbors due to the dogmatic and irrational beliefs of their enemies, but we can serve a much higher purpose in educating and bring awareness to meaningless death brought about by religious belief.
Many people are not willing to listen to purely philosphical and logical demonstrations dealing with the falsity of religion, since after all, religion is primarily based on emotive loyalities.
Therefore to appeal to the masses, combating religious beliefs through the use of an emotional appeal as opposed to a rational one may be a viable route to take. The case in Kosovo can be used in this way. Therefore, though mostly negative, the crisis in Kosovo can have postive ends; namely to give a good emotional foundation against religion. Seeing the death of a child or an elderly women in Kosovo and being able to draw a corelation between such horror and religious belief not only is the socially responsible thing to do, but also establishes a case for atheism.
name: Gordon McGrew
email: gmcgrew@wwa.com
Friday, 16-Apr-1999 23:40 PST
If this were a case of two fanatical religions going at each other's throats, I wouldn't dream of proposing that we intervene. But this is a case of one religious side commiting genocide against a people who seem to be just minding their own business. Milosovic is clearly an aspitring Hitler and he must be stopped and, perhaps of even greater importance, those who would seek to emulate him must see that there will (may) be consequences to such offenses.
Some say that our efforts to save the Kosovars are futile. This may very well be so. Our only real chance to save Kosovo was when the war was in Bosnia. If we had done then what we are doing now the Kosovars would be sleeping in their own beds tonight.
name: George Ricker
email: gricker@iu.net
Saturday, 17-Apr-1999 10:46 PST
The appropriate international agency for dealing with the situation in Kosovo is the United Nations, not NATO. The NATO attack is an act of war that is a direct violation of the UN Charter and has greatly exacerbated the suffering of and the danger to ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo, not to mention the Serbs living there and throughout Yugoslavia. Regardless of their opinions of the moral character of the leadership of another state, the NATO allies have no right to intervene in what is essentially a civil war within the boundaries of a sovereign state. The intervention is especially troubling since it cannot hope to achieve its stated objective - the protection of the lives and the rights of the ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo. In my view, NATO would be well advised to declare victory, stop the bombing, and turn the whole sorry mess over to the United Nations.
name: Robert Phillipoff
email: Gladbob@aol.com
Saturday, 17-Apr-1999 13:16 PST
From the point of view of protecting our fragile planet, there is a need to think and act globally, not in terms of one nation or group of nations. The organization best equipped to do that is the United Nations, founded, as it was, on the ashes of World War II to save humanity from world war.
It is clear from reading the UN Charter that except in matters of self defense, and even then only temporarily, it is the UN Security Council, not the United States or Nato, or any other single nation or group of nations, that is empowered to make the determination of whether or not military action against another nation is justified.
There was never any UN Security Council authorization for the Nato bombing in Kosovo. There is no legal justication for the bombing under international law.
The effect of the bombing has been the
opposite of the intentions. Kosovo is now stripped of practically all of the Albanians because of the bombing.
The Serbian government offered a poltical solution to the crisis which includes
Cessation of the bombing
Return of the refugees under UN supervision.
This approach appears more sensible than the Nato bombing (unless you are a major stockholder in Boeing).
name: R. C. Kelly
email: w6bky@aol.com
Saturday, 17-Apr-1999 14:30 PST
This "war" is a really BIG mistake, but all the "shoulda's" and coulda's" are now irrelevant.
We (the U.S., as part of NATO) are in it now, so the real question is "Do we r-e-a-l-l-y want to win?" If the answer is "yes", then send in the troops, probably LOTS of troops. Sadly, many of them will not return alive.
Sigh.
name: Marc Forrester
email: Mharr@shades99.freeserve.co.uk
Sunday, 18-Apr-1999 09:35 PST
My feelings here are the same as they were
regarding Bosnia.. It is not our place to
pick sides in these primitive conflicts,
but if we wish to pay the price, we could
make it our place to side with innocents
against the aggressions of uniformed mobs
of muderers, whatever the nationalities,
religions and skin tones involved.
If it were up to me, having noticed such a
situation I would wish to move in an excessive
armed force to impartially offer their services
in the defense of any and all threatened civilian
targets that we could reach, like a bystander
holding apart a pair of brawling drunks.
(And being aggressively anti-authoritarian,
in my ideal world I'd be one of that force.)
Back in the real world, I am unsure on the
question of air strikes. I do not support
attacking Serbia as an end in itself,
but it may be that we cannot hope to move
in defensive forces without first clearing
the skies. My gut reaction is that we seem
more interesting in killing Serbs than in
defending Kosovars directly. Not good.
name: Jim Peterson
email: jamestp@tampabay.rr.com
Sunday, 18-Apr-1999 22:26 PST
This is a difficult and complex situation. It fairly begs the question of what humankind as a whole is going to do about these "traditional" conflicts that keep erupting into violence with some regularity. I can imagine that only an ongoing campaign on behalf of reason, logic, critical thinking, and a well rounded education, reresents the only hope we have for any kind of lasting peace. Humanity will forever be the prey of political and religious demagogues unless they are properly equipped to prevent their rise in the first place.
name: Ron Jones
email: rjones@mds1.mastnet.net
Sunday, 18-Apr-1999 23:40 PST
Like the Vietnam and Gulf Wars, the action is
unconstitutional. Congress should be required to
declare war before action is enganged unless the
United States itself is endangered or attacked.
Since the enmity between the various factions has
been going on for hundreds of years, it is
arrogant of the U.S. and other NATO members to
think that we can bomb those people into peace.
There are no "good guys" fighting the Yugoslavian
civil war. It makes about as much sense for the
U.S. to intervene in that war as me driving to
Los Angelos and trying to intervene in conflict
between the criminal gangs Crips and Bloods taking
sides and blowing up their guns and ammunition,
expecting that to bring peace between them. I
live in Eastern Texas.
So it is a wasteful, foolish, and evil war.
name: David Wilkes
email: dwilkes@svpal.org
Monday, 19-Apr-1999 01:04 PST
There are mines and mineral wealth in Kosovo. That is one of the main factors.
Serbia should not enjoy unjust enrichment. Kosovo should be turned over to Albania since the inhabitants (now former inhabitants) are Albanian. Yougoslavia was an artificial country to begin with.
There should be no bombing in Kosovo, only Serbia, to stop the genocide. At this point they are bombing in Kosovo which makes me very suspicious of the mission.
Again, this is a situation which calls for separation of the combatants, a prohibition of all contact between them, and an international peacekeeping force. This wpld work in Ireland, Israel, Somalia, and anywhere else people can't get along together. Any parent with more than one child knows the drill.
David Wilkes
name: Kevin Seiler
email: mseiler@racal-pelagos.com
Monday, 19-Apr-1999 10:44 PST
Another Marshall Plan, as instituted in Japan after WW2, needs to implimented in the region. It will take a lot of resources and work, but will be the only thing that will create a lasting peace in the Balkans. We must first send in ground troops to accomplish that end. The rest of the world needs to be shown that our ground troops are still the best in the world. After Somalia, other millitaries of the world got a false sense of the capabilites of the US's soldiers and marines. All that remains in the way of a true solution is the non-commital attitude of our political oppurtunists on Capitol Hill. Milosovec is counting on the inability of our leaders to assume any political risk.
name: darien lynette hicks
email: hicksdar@exotrope.net
Monday, 19-Apr-1999 11:56 PST
the land-rights and nationalism problems have existed in this area since the dissolution of the ottoman empire. like the problems of the mid-east, these are based on the political carving-up of areas where people who think they are fundamentally and inherently different from others based often on religion have decided to persecute said others. were we all materialist/secular humanitarians, the biggest problem we'd have on earth is "fattism" or "uglyism."
the roots of sexism, racism, and economic injustice are found in religion; the "holy" has polluted all aspects of human life.
any who find the marxist explanation for exploitation sufficient would do well to email me for a discussion of how religion, not capitalism, explains more.
thank you for your perusal.
darien lynette hicks
name: Stuart Bechman
email: sbechman@earthlink.net
Monday, 19-Apr-1999 15:43 PST
I hear a lot of debate over air strikes vs. ground troops. This confuses me, as I don't see it as an 'either/or' situation. Wouldn't air strikes be necessary regardless? Wasn't the air efforts made against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War decisive in 'softening up' Saddam's legions and keeping the alliance's losses absurdly low?
I don't see any problem with continuing the air strikes against Serbia, it won't take away our option to go in with ground forces. And if/when we do decide that we need to do that, the resistance should be far less potent and our casualties far greater than it would have been if we had sent in ground forces at the start.
name: Mike Mahoney
email: clamgulch@aol.com
Monday, 19-Apr-1999 20:14 PST
The Balkan Conflict is centuries old. A continuation of fiefdoms exerting political power by calling on a GAWD for rightousness of their cause. If assistance is given to the vanquished, let it be food and shelter and medicine. Ostracize the genocidal leaders in the community of world nations and do not give them sanctuary when their own people toss them out. Economic boycotts could work except "war is good business". And the US is the largest supplier of war material in the history of the planet.
The Euro Market should bring some stability in the near future to this fractured continent.
name: Rick D
email: fivhunlaps@aol.com
Monday, 19-Apr-1999 21:17 PST
Military intervention in Kosovo is a mistake.Did anyone invovled invade ANOTHER country? Then it is a civil matter,and one outside countries should stay out of. Imagine what could have happened if another nation became involved in our own civil war? What if Spain had sided with the Confederacy? Would that be right?
name: John Huey
email: jhuey@on-net.net
Monday, 19-Apr-1999 23:29 PST
Based on the information that I have heard, what
we are seeing is a political event where a tyrant
is using religious and ethnic issues to create
a crisis where none really existed in order to
obtain and hold power. True religious differences
are only secondary. If it wasn't a religious or
ethnic difference then it would have been some
other difference.
name: Keith D. kelly
email: beefus@uswest.net
Monday, 19-Apr-1999 23:52 PST
Religious ideology is being used as a smoke screen
as it always has to justify theft of propert and life.
name: Kenneth F. Flaherty
email: sirecho@msn.com
Tuesday, 20-Apr-1999 10:58 PST
Although that doesn't make it right, Milosevic is doing what any leader of any country would do, under the same circumstances. We did our bit against the Indians, we had our Civil War, etc. Our right to do what we deemed necessary; should be his right also. I think this country's real motivation, is to protect the Pope's Catholics, from the other Catholics and other religions.
name: Norman Doering
email: ttdoerin@prairienet.org
Tuesday, 20-Apr-1999 17:13 PST
You can't bring peace to people who don't want it -- and certainly not by bombing them.
The two groups will be at each other's throats until one of them has been eliminated.
name: Dan H
email: lobster@chorus.net
Tuesday, 20-Apr-1999 18:05 PST
I'm proud that our country is willing to go to war for a moral reason (re: the claims of ethnic cleansing), but I'm afraid that in this particular instance, there's nothing we can do. This has frequently been compared with the Haulocaust, but the big difference I see is that the Haulocaust was carried out by a single regime, and once that regime was eliminated, the mass slaughter did as well. This conflict has been occuring for hundreds of years regardless (for the most part) of the particular government in place. These people obviously believe that what they are doing is right, they are carrying out the will of their god--and any interference from the West is just strengthening their determination. The more Serbian nationals that are killed by NATO forces, the more martyrs we create. And as far as I've seen, this is precisely what is occuring--More innocent people are being killed since this most recent intervention began.
I do hate to see innocent people die; but what we are doing now seems to only be accellerating the process of the ethnic cleansing.
name: chris
email: antiwar@bellsouth.net
Tuesday, 20-Apr-1999 20:32 PST
The big "humanitarian effort" in kosovo isn't the real reason we are bombing yugoslavia. It's a simple case of NATO bombing a country that didn't do what the U.S. govt wanted them to do (signing a treaty basically giving up a region of their country). The bombings have made Milosevic to decide to commit greater atrocities than had been commited before the bombs, and now hundreds of thousands of people are out of homes. But NATO seems to be content for now herding them up in "camps" where they basically sit in their own filth because NATO would rather spend money on bombs than aid these people.
name: marcia
email: msmarcia@postalzone.com
Tuesday, 20-Apr-1999 21:52 PST
The United States has quite possibly, the most abominable past and present track record - on not only religious persecution, but also, ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses. With this in mind...how can anyone, realistically believe, that they are in a postion to impart a "humane" resolution to this conflict?
name: Huascar Terra do Valle
email: huascar@globalsite.com.br
Wednesday, 21-Apr-1999 11:55 PST
The Kosovo problem has many historical roots. In the neiboring Albania a radical Communist regime was implanted. As usual,instead of transforming the country in a paradise, as promised, Albania turned into an inferno. Many Albanian citizens fled from the country, especially to neigboring Kosovo, that, incidentally, is a sacred place for the Serbians. Albanians have tried every trick to take hold of Kosovo, including having big families. Albanians and Albanian descendents were already 90% of the Kosovo population. It is indeed an INVASION by heterodox methods. The situation in Albania has deteriorated to a point, due to the Communist regime, that Albanians, in Germany, for example, commit crimes with the idea that if they are arrested they'll be happy, because the jail is much better than their "Communist paradise".
This war is a disaster because Nato, under the insistence of Madeleyn Albreight (born in the Check Republic)took the side of the Albanians and not of the Serbians. It was a demagogic decision. Nato should be impartial. Who will pay for the damages that are being done to Yugoslavia, after the conflict is over? Probably European and American taxpayers.
name: Frank Wayne
email: fwayne@enteract.com
Wednesday, 21-Apr-1999 13:29 PST
Do we want to return Kosovans to their homes, help them rebuild, and keep them safe? The question of whether or not to send ground forces into Yugoslavia comes down to this. Air power alone will not provide a solution. Can we rally the fortitude to pronounce that this injustice in Europe is sufficiently horrific and people of fairness and reason must, in the wake of failed diplomacy, use force to help the helpless?
If we decide to send young men to bleed in Yugoslavia, they should have well defined objectives that include the security of Kosovo, the return of displaced Kosovars, and the capture and trial of Yugoslavian military personnel suspected of crimes. This group must include government officials with military responsibility, including Slobodan Milosevic.
name: Elliott Hulley
email: pyromaster@mailcity.com
Wednesday, 21-Apr-1999 15:51 PST
The US government has made absolutely no attempt
to attain peace with ground troops. I think
that they should have started with troops and
sent in mindless missiles when necessary. I find
a certain hypcrisy in talking about the atrocities
in Kosovo when NATO & the US are constantly
bombing city after city, "claiming" that there are
minimal civilian casualties. Not even the entire
US population supports these actions. NATO should
have at least put out a video or something over TV
that showed what was going on, and let the public
decide what was going on and what to do. Also,
they are totally avoiding the sensible targets,
for instance the Capitol building (or governing
building) and going after weapons facilities.
Granted, they should go after those buildings, but
they need to get some priorities straight. The
first thing they should of done was try to take
out Milosevic. It might have made things easier.
name: Sam Rivier
email: NcRiviera@aol.com
Wednesday, 21-Apr-1999 17:13 PST
I found it difficult to answer some of these questions because the media is using heavy propoganda to support the bombing and say that there is in fact ethnic cleansing. Right now I think that the seperation of Kosovo was an extremely stupid idea. The Kosovars were in a great pressure situation with the Serbs, and Milosevic was a ruthless ruler. It was completely irresponisble and idiotic to seperate at the peak of pressure. Now this war has allowed a crack for Clinton to hide in while he aimlessly sends in wave after wave of NATO airstrikes, and by this he is increasing pressure with other countries, and is endangering the lives of the world. I can back this up with the fact that even more atrocious crimes are being committed in Africa as we speak. In Sudan, there is slavery and mass killings happening every second, and Somolia is in a worse condition than ever. Suddenly, something happens in region that coincidently started World War I and he jumps all over it with meaningless speeches and claims, and this is causing the entire world to suffer. NATO has had too many misses, Milosevic is outraged, the people of Serbia have developed a personal hatred for America, and we are endangering the lives of uninvolved people. There is definitely something wrong going on in this region.
name: Ralph Chinn
email: navylad@aol.com
Wednesday, 21-Apr-1999 19:34 PST
Firstly, 'll be damned if I can figure out how to get my vote counted, I've clicked, etc on each of the questions but nothing happens. My votes are as follows: 1-no, 2 - no, 3. yes, 4 - no, 5 - no, 6. - yes.
I am against the whole damn project because the congress does not have the guts/backbone to counter the lying, draft dodging coward in the Oral Office. We are going to have to pay for reinstalling the infrastructure of jugoslavia , if we prevail. Molosovic is strong and has the people's support and any plan that keeps him out of the picture will not work. Furthermore, there are those in the wings who are equally if not more bastardly than he. I object STRONGLY because we have no worked out Foreign Policy in the post-cold-war era. It is knee jerk at best with the two biggest jerks , M. Albright and Cohen. If we want to get on our moral high horse, then how does one explain our non intervention with the huttsis and tuttsis and the cambodians and the Indonesians to mentaion a few. Clinton should be tried as a war criminal.
Go to Poll/Results.
![[back]](../backarrow.gif) Back
to Top of Forum.
![[top]](/uparrow.gif)
Copyright
© 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.
|
