Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
A little less than a happy high
Membah this?
9 comments or Leave a comment
komos From: komos Date: May 9th, 2005 06:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not suggesting that the US is better than Switzerland. What I am saying is that Switzerland has its own skeletons. At the opening of the World Wars, the US was "committed to neutrality" as well, albeit with the thought that victory to one side would be far more beneficial to our economic and political interests than the other. I've no doubt that Switzerland, as a modern nation state, operates on much the same concepts.

Incidentally, Belgium was committed to neutrality during the World Wars as well, but a trick of geography has made the country a particularly attractive corridor through which a rapid invasion of France may be achieved.

Reading through the rest, I think we're not disagreeing so much on terms as on scope. For instance, I've never accepted the idea that Desert Storm and Iraqi French Freedom was primarily about oil, but I do acknowledge that control of oil does carry power with it, and that the US is very interested in ensuring that oil-producing nations retain a US Dollar standard. Iraq had switched to the Euro. Iran was debating it.

So yes, modern warfare has a strong economic component to it, and that phenomenon has played part in every war that the US has committed to. My point is simply that a) the phenomenon is not limited to the US and b) there are other factors involved that need to be considered before universally condemning an action as the US government again being a puppet to corporate interests.

I got to ask, though... what are your sources for this?

The alleged 'genocide,' in the Balkans has actually failed to materialize.
From: ulf_rulz Date: May 10th, 2005 01:29 pm (UTC) (Link)
This is a pretty good collection of quotations & articles:


Mass graves have quite a history as ethereal tools of propaganda... and we've now killed far more with the initial bombing & the DU munitions than died in the ethnic violence. The PTB just wanted to get rid of Milosevic because he wouldn't play 'free-market.'
komos From: komos Date: May 12th, 2005 11:06 pm (UTC) (Link)
I've taken some time to review the materials, and I'm still not convinced that you've made your case.

The first story Kosovo Assault Was Not A Genocide [BBC] discusses the case of Miroslav Vuckovic who was indicted for, amongst other things, acts of genocide in 1998-9. The article indicates that the court did find against the defendant for charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the aggression against Kosovo in 1998-9 "...committed by Milosevic's regime cannot be qualified as criminal acts of genocide, since their purpose was not the destruction of the Albanian ethnic group... but its forceful departure from Kosovo." On its face, it looks damning, right?

This is the first article cited, and as such should probably present a rock solid case that the the charges of genocide during the Balkan conflict were categorically false. Instead, it presents a finding that is limited to a single campaign, and presents a decision that was contested.

Moreover, it does not take into account that the majority of cases being heard by the UN War Crimes Tribunal related to the Balkan conflict remain unresolved, nor does it take into account that there actually has been a conviction of genocide by that body for attrocities committed in 1995, as well as a plea bargain that likely mitigated genocide charges against the defendant.

It also overlooks the small fact that a final judgement on Milosovic's indictments (which include two counts of genocide and numerous human rights violations including, but not limited to, "extermination") has yet to be rendered.

In other words, the jury is still out.

The other citations are either similarly inconclusive, and supportive of the presence of, at the very least, widespread attrocities during the Balkan conflict, else they are heavily biased op-ed pieces.

Again, do I think that the presence of attrocities was the sole reason for the conflict? No, but then I'm just as unlikely to be convinced that NATO took action solely to open an eastern European market to western corporations. Both answers are too simple, and really don't address the full reality of the issue.
9 comments or Leave a comment