We remember.
Video clip from the Russian song "Yugoslavia" and staffing implications bombing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1jAmL-rfXU
Russia/Siberia
15 Years Ago Nato Bombed Yugoslavia
856 Views | 24 Replies
Translation from russian:
[spoiler=]A wilt flower floats on the evening Danube
it's white,it's white,it's white
And the memory of the melody asks about the passed years
about the passed years,about the passed years
But simple lyrics of our song
faded away like flocks of birds
You leave in the fire, Yugoslavia!
Without me! Without me! Without me!
chorus:
For the night in the hail of leads
For that I'm not beside you
You,forgive me, my sister,Yugoslavia!
For the death under the spring rain
For that I didn't escape
You,forgive me, my sister,Yugoslavia!
You,a black-eyed feeble girl
stand on another shore
But I never can get to that shore
I can't,I can't
A wilt flower floats on the evening Danube
it's white,it's white,it's white
And the memory of the melody asks about the passed years
about the passed years,about the passed years
chorus:
For the night in the hail of leads
For that I'm not beside you
You,forgive me, my sister,Yugoslavia!
For the death under the spring rain
For that I didn't escape
You,forgive me, my sister,Yugoslavia![/spoiler]
Russia/Siberia
At 4/13/14 12:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote: K. What's your point?
Serbs are our brothers. NATO bombed Yugoslavia. We will not forget.
Russia/Siberia
At 4/13/14 12:35 PM, vyacheslav wrote: Serbs are our brothers. NATO bombed Yugoslavia. We will not forget.
My husband is half-Serb and knows his Balkan history extremely well. The problem is that once Tito died, everything there went to hell. Whether or not the bombing was justified is still up for debate in some groups.
My hometown is full of Bosnian refugees now. I always had to keep my husband's Serb background under wraps. The pronunciation of my married name is actually Serb, but the spelling is Hungarian (which he also is), so nobody really figured it out.
Of course, the initial problem was that all these ethnic groups that hate each other were basically grouped into one country and told to get along or else.
Interesting fact: According to a professor of mine who worked for the government, the Yugoslavian situation was priority #1 of the elder Bush administration in terms of foreign policy. But then Saddam invaded Kuwait and priorities shifted, and all those groups were left behind. Maybe if everyone actually continued to give a damn, things would be different and all those people wouldn't have died? I dunno.
At 4/13/14 01:03 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Whether or not the bombing was justified is still up for debate in some groups.
Well, of course. NATO, just like nearly all of the important world organizations base their decisions on economic grounds. The Balkans are important for Europe because of the proximity and major overland traffic routes (plus it cuts off land access to Greece and Turkey), and political instability there will not be tolerated.
While we're discussing interesting facts: Yugoslavia countersued some 15 NATO members for violating Yugoslavia's sovereignty. The US and the Netherlands defense was that Yugoslavia wasn't a UN member, and so the guarantee of sovereignty to UN members didn't apply. Apparently the SFRY was a UN member, but when the SFRY became the FRY, it didn't reregister. So it wasn't a UN member. So it was legal for anyone to invade it. Funny how the world works sometimes.
Interesting fact: According to a professor of mine who worked for the government, the Yugoslavian situation was priority #1 of the elder Bush administration in terms of foreign policy. But then Saddam invaded Kuwait and priorities shifted, and all those groups were left behind. Maybe if everyone actually continued to give a damn, things would be different and all those people wouldn't have died? I dunno.
Tangentially related: The Clinton administration was making remarkable progress in establishing a workable diplomatic relationship between the US and North Korea. Then Bush II came in and, well, you know.
At 4/13/14 01:35 PM, Elitistinen wrote:At 4/13/14 12:35 PM, vyacheslav wrote: Serbs are our brothers. NATO bombed Yugoslavia. We will not forget.Kill all the Muslims. Right.
Among other things too.
With that said, much of what I remember involves the bombing of the Chinese embassy and Clinto being accused of using Kosovo conflict as a mean to distract people from his affair.
To think people said that the 1990s were peaceful times.
"As the old saying goes...what was it again?"
At 4/13/14 01:35 PM, Elitistinen wrote: Kill all the Muslims. Right.
It wasn't quite that simple. It was a huge clusterfuck, every side had despicable war criminals who committed genocide against another ethnic group including the Bosniaks and the UN afterwards convicted people on all sides. Even then it's questionable how effectively the UN stopped the conflict, some former high schools converted to concentration camps by the Croatians to starve out Serbians are still being operated and likewise the Serbs didn't really lose the Bosnian War because they carved out half the country for a Serb republic which constitutes one of the two republics in the Federalist system in Bosnia. So they pretty much just ended the part where there was large overt war and let the Serbs have their own republic. It wasn't formally annexed by Serbia and it really isn't part of it, but the republic for the most part seems to act on its own.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 4/13/14 02:45 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: To think people said that the 1990s were peaceful times.
Yeah, what I discovered during my thesis research was that Clinton's foreign policy fuckups also paved the way for bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the following decade. Maybe if he'd actually had the balls to act on intel when they found the hideout in '96, we could have avoided a lot of the trouble we've had. But this is pure speculation on my part.
At 4/13/14 08:36 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Yeah, what I discovered during my thesis research was that Clinton's foreign policy fuckups also paved the way for bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the following decade. Maybe if he'd actually had the balls to act on intel when they found the hideout in '96, we could have avoided a lot of the trouble we've had. But this is pure speculation on my part.
IIRC he fired cruise missiles at them which didn't kill him. He also fired cruise missiles in Sudan but ended up blowing up a pharmaceutical factory instead. I'm not sure if OBL was a major player at that point, he had worked his way up as there were other Arabs in his way IIRC. I mean that's why I think the overly aggressive foreign policy is a bit naive IMO. We only think it would've been good because we know what he ended up doing, if Clinton just killed him and the story got out then the US would be unpopular for killing some Fundamentalist dude who posed no threat to the US even if he did harbor malice towards them (let's be honest, prior to 9/11 if you were to tell people that some people in Afghanistan were going to crash a plane into the WTC and bring it down people would think you were crazy). Any other action would've been seen as a disproportionate response.
This was the same response Reagan did against Qaddaffi when the Lockerbie bombing happened and the Libyan government sponsored it. It provoked an international outrage and France refused to let the US fly its planes over its airspace to try to kill Qaddaffi. The planes made it there but failed to kill Qaddaffi obviously. Now with drones both OBL and Qaddaffi would've probably been killed, but the same international response would've also occurred.
That's the problem IMO, overtly aggressive foreign policy is much more naive than pragmatic as shown clearly in Iraq.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 4/13/14 08:36 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Yeah, what I discovered during my thesis research was that Clinton's foreign policy fuckups also paved the way for bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the following decade. Maybe if he'd actually had the balls to act on intel when they found the hideout in '96, we could have avoided a lot of the trouble we've had. But this is pure speculation on my part.
In part, I agree with you. But OBL at the time wasn't considered a major player on the world stage, (though the Embassy bombings in Africa and the USS Cole attack should've been dead giveaways) and the Yugoslavian crisis was front and center to us, and the rest of the world for that matter. One of the criticisms that foreigners have against America has the last 50 years or so was their aggressive foreign policy, and Clinton was mindful to acknowledge this, whereas Bush didn't really care about it. (To be fair, most of the world did have their heads in the sand for a long time, and they also were fond of not taking care of their responsibilities)
Before '98, taking out OBL would have gotten us a lot of heat for picking fights with weaker countries simply for a terrorist leader, and even before 9/11, it was rather dicey proposition, even with the evidence at at hand. I think we all knew what happen after 9/11, and how everything changed.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
At 4/14/14 05:06 PM, orangebomb wrote: Before '98, taking out OBL would have gotten us a lot of heat for picking fights with weaker countries simply for a terrorist leader, and even before 9/11, it was rather dicey proposition, even with the evidence at at hand. I think we all knew what happen after 9/11, and how everything changed.
Exactly. Terrorists in general were considered small beans until they proved what they can do in the early 2000s. Before then, they were akin to minor warlords, pests and bad people, but nowhere near dangerous enough to warrant full scale operations.
At 4/14/14 05:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Exactly. Terrorists in general were considered small beans until they proved what they can do in the early 2000s. Before then, they were akin to minor warlords, pests and bad people, but nowhere near dangerous enough to warrant full scale operations.
That's not true at all. The '98 embassy bombings were nothing to blink at.
At 4/14/14 05:26 PM, Feoric wrote: That's not true at all. The '98 embassy bombings were nothing to blink at.
I did say it was before '98, where OBL (and international terrorism) was just considered a minor issue, but I did mention that both the Embassy bombings and the Cole attack were eye-openers, the thing is, those weren't on mainland soil, compared to 9/11. I guess if you want to make a boxing comparison, the embassy and Cole bombings were light jabs to the stomach, 9/11 was a groin punch with a barbed wire glove, go figure.
Clinton had other things to worry about, (Bosnian crisis) but that was the biggest thing under Bush.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
At 4/13/14 01:03 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:
Maybe if everyone actually continued to give a damn, things would be different and all those people wouldn't have died?
Today, Ukraine is on the verge of civil war. After the coup, which staged there (or helped arrange) USA. People in Ukraine are ready to kill each other, none of this even could not imagine another half a year ago. U.S. intervention destructively.
Russia/Siberia
At 4/15/14 03:23 AM, vyacheslav wrote:At 4/13/14 01:03 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:Today, Ukraine is on the verge of civil war. After the coup, which staged there (or helped arrange) USA. People in Ukraine are ready to kill each other, none of this even could not imagine another half a year ago. U.S. intervention destructively.
Maybe if everyone actually continued to give a damn, things would be different and all those people wouldn't have died?
The coup helped arrange USA?
I don't know what the issue in Ukraine has to do with the American Revolution.
"As the old saying goes...what was it again?"
At 4/15/14 03:23 AM, vyacheslav wrote: Today, Ukraine is on the verge of civil war. After the coup, which staged there (or helped arrange) USA. People in Ukraine are ready to kill each other, none of this even could not imagine another half a year ago. U.S. intervention destructively.
That's a bold claim. Prove it.
Did you guys catch that? America engineered the violent nazi protests in Ukraine, so when violent nazis start shooting at peaceful Russians it will be America's fault. What a darn shame!
At 4/15/14 07:31 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: The coup helped arrange USA?
I don't know what the issue in Ukraine has to do with the American Revolution.
I badly know English may not be correctly formulate phrase, it is difficult to explain in detail the situation.
Ukraine was the standard "color revolution". I think You can find a lot of information, such as the revolution can be done from another country. This time America was not concealing their participation. Senior U.S. officials were directly involved in the rallies. The U.S. has repeatedly put forward the ultimatum, preventing Yanukovych somehow disperse demonstrations, even if the protesters grossly violated the laws. It was already after protesters killed/beat many police, peaceful people. After the protesters started to set fire to police with Molotov cocktails.
The very chronology of events is also revealing. The protests began after refusing legitimate government of Ukraine to sign the Association agreement with the EU, arguing the negative impact of the agreement on Ukraine's economy. Before the West with Yanukovych actively cooperated, and after Yanukovych immediately became a tyrant.
Russia/Siberia
At 4/15/14 10:04 AM, Feoric wrote: Did you guys catch that? America engineered the violent nazi protests in Ukraine, so when violent nazis start shooting at peaceful Russians it will be America's fault. What a darn shame!
Not quite. I think that the United States started the process, but were unable to control it.
Russia/Siberia
Man after the war in My country of Croatia everything went down hill we got two parties HDZ(rIght wing) and SDP(left wing) there all the same corrupted governments,the y rob the country,with each day they destroying the country with corruption,thievery,laws and etc the same goes for every country in former Yugoslavia I have an ass kissing government that thinks that the best way to fix all are problems is to sell everything to the foreigners and that the EU will help as the same EU that only watches only there own interests and is falling apart .
At 4/14/14 05:45 PM, orangebomb wrote: I did say it was before '98, where OBL (and international terrorism) was just considered a minor issue, but I did mention that both the Embassy bombings and the Cole attack were eye-openers, the thing is, those weren't on mainland soil, compared to 9/11. I guess if you want to make a boxing comparison, the embassy and Cole bombings were light jabs to the stomach, 9/11 was a groin punch with a barbed wire glove, go figure.
Clinton had other things to worry about, (Bosnian crisis) but that was the biggest thing under Bush.
Okay, but I don't think it's accurate to say Middle Eastern terrorism was just considered a minor issue, especially in the mid-late 90s. The World Trade Center was supposed to collapse back in '93. The American populace didn't pay much attention to it the same way we do now, but it was definitely a hot button issue after the first WTC attack.
At 4/15/14 10:04 AM, Feoric wrote: Did you guys catch that? America engineered the violent nazi protests in Ukraine, so when violent nazis start shooting at peaceful Russians it will be America's fault. What a darn shame!
Could be worse, I mean the next thing you know, the US will attack France just so they can enforce their control over the Bermuda Triangle.
"As the old saying goes...what was it again?"
At 4/15/14 02:18 PM, MrPercie wrote: Holy shit im already confused, Just please stop killing one another and agree to disagree.
You would have to eliminate different nations and religions. Maybe that would work.
Seems like I remember the editor of OMNI mag wrote an article on the future of terrorism and mentioned in the same article why the WTC would be a target. Seems like it was written a decade before 9/11. I don't have a source, I just remember reading it in an old omni mag.
At 4/15/14 11:25 AM, Feoric wrote:At 4/14/14 05:45 PM, orangebomb wrote: I did say it was before '98, where OBL (and international terrorism) was just considered a minor issue, but I did mention that both the Embassy bombings and the Cole attack were eye-openers, the thing is, those weren't on mainland soil, compared to 9/11. I guess if you want to make a boxing comparison, the embassy and Cole bombings were light jabs to the stomach, 9/11 was a groin punch with a barbed wire glove, go figure.Okay, but I don't think it's accurate to say Middle Eastern terrorism was just considered a minor issue, especially in the mid-late 90s. The World Trade Center was supposed to collapse back in '93. The American populace didn't pay much attention to it the same way we do now, but it was definitely a hot button issue after the first WTC attack.
Clinton had other things to worry about, (Bosnian crisis) but that was the biggest thing under Bush.
Thanks to Green-Chicken for the sig graphics, ur awesome.
