Sometimes the West's hypocricty sickens me.

[Martin]

These double standards and hypocricy are despicable. This article (in one of Canada's major newspapers) does a very good job of describing what has been going on with the KLA over the last several years.

Link



So do you think something should be done about these terrorists, or should we continue to turn a blind eye and sponsor them?

 

[gopunk]

isn't canada part of "the west"?

 

[Murphyrulez]

If you raise enough money, you can run for president in the next election. I'm sure you'll have all the world's problems solved in a flash.

Paul

 

[Looney]

Again, another BS article from the National Post... i stopped reading them after a month.

Of course the west isn't going to bother with the KLA, it's NOT THEIR PROBLEM. When Bush said they were against a war on terrorist, and any nations that harbor them would be considered an enemy, they meant those terrorists and nations that are out for the US. If the US was going to go after ALL terrorism, do you realize what kind of endeavor that would be? They would not only have to go after all those int he middle-east, but the ones in China, Russia, Chechnya, Ireland, Columbia, and who knows where else.

When the US is the world police, people whine. When the US isn't the world police, people whine. There's no way the US is going to please the world... and they shouldn't. Like every other nation or people in this world, they have the right to consider only what is in their best interests... if they decide to be altruistic, then that should be a bonus, but it shouldn't be a requirement. If you're asking why the US isn't helping against the KLA, ask why Russia, China, Japan, Korea, Phillipines, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Britain, France, Sweden, etc etc etc ask why aren't they helping as well.

 

[Martin]

<< isn't canada part of "the west"? >>



Yes it is unfortunately, and this is one of the times I am really ashamed to be Canadian. I was not just talking about the US, I was talking about Nato, EU, Canada......sickens me....






<< If you raise enough money, you can run for president in the next election. I'm sure you'll have all the world's problems solved in a flash. >>



Seeing as how I'm not american, I don't see that happening. Perhaps I won't solve the world's problems, but at least I won't selectively support or kill terrorists...
But we all know one has to be a special brand of dumbass to be a politician.

 

[ToBeMe]

It's always easy to be an "armchair quarterback" and point out all the flaws.................solving them though is where the problems begin! If things were perfect the way you or the guy whom wrote that thinks things should be, I'm sure it would just make someone else mad and here we'd have the same problems...............just with different people! Hey......if someone has all the answers though, i hope they come forward and attempt to solve all the problems.............sure would be nice to have a "perfect world" in everyones eyes!

 

[Martin]

MoralPanic,

1. By "west" I don't mean the US alone
2. I neither want, nor expect them to be the world's police.
3. If its not in their interests to help, perhaps they should not SUPPORT the fvcking terrorists???
4. Its easy to dismiss any paper that doesn't share you views as BS, just FYI, I've seen simliar articles in the Star.

 

[Martin]

<< It's always easy to be an "armchair quarterback" and point out all the flaws.................solving them though is where the problems begin! If things were perfect the way you or the guy whom wrote that thinks things should be, I'm sure it would just make someone else mad and here we'd have the same problems...............just with different people! Hey......if someone has all the answers though, i hope they come forward and attempt to solve all the problems.............sure would be nice to have a "perfect world" in everyones eyes! >>




But of course, you're right! How could I have been so stupid. I'm truly sorry that I actually started this thread, seeing as how everyone is telling me to come forward and solve all the world's problems, instead of actually commenting on the issue I tried to raise.

 

[datalink7]

Hyprocrite:

A hyprocrite is someone who... well, who isn't?

 

[bigbootydaddy]

being an asshole and not caring about who you dont want to is every american's god given right.

booty

 

[Looney]

2. I neither want, nor expect them to be the world's police.

Then what's with the thread?

3. If its not in their interests to help, perhaps they should not SUPPORT the fvcking terrorists???

Do you know WHY they were supporting the Albanians? I have no idea, but the article doesn't provide anything more than movements on the ground. Are you insinuating that the west is supporting a terrorist groups whose goal is to do nothing but kill the civilians?

 

[BoberFett]

<< but at least I won't selectively support or kill terrorists... >>

So you'd ignore it completely? Yes, you do seem like a spineless wimp.

 

[Martin]

<< Are you insinuating that the west is supporting a terrorist groups whose goal is to do nothing but kill the civilians? >>



As the case with the KLA, yes. This is in essense what they are doing.



<< So you'd ignore it completely? Yes, you do seem like a spineless wimp. >>


You have to know when you should go in and when to stand at the lines. The West is doing this nowadays, however, all at the wrong times. Instead of bombing the hell out of Serbia (killing civilans and destroying the environment and their economy, or what was left of it, in the process), they could helped eradicate the KLA, while at the same time ensuring constitutional changes to protect Albanains's rights. Of course, this is where you would attack me for being naive, but I suggest you read up on the issues more first. I've seen quotes in articles from the actual Rhombollier negotians, the damands NATO made far exceeded anything any sovereign country could justify signing. Even more important was that this was NATO and not the UN.

Would the US EVER allow foreign troops (not UN peacekeepers) on its territory, free form percecution and accountability, under the control of foreign nations over a domestic issue? No, this will never happen, and no one should have expected Serbia to sign anything like that either.


edit: Just a quote to support my point

"With regard to the rest of Yugoslavia, the terms for the occupation are set forth in Appendix B: Status of Multi-National Military Implementation Force. The crucial paragraph reads: 8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations. The remainder spells out the conditions that permit NATO forces and those they employ to act as they choose throughout the territory of the FRY, without obligation or concern for the laws of the country or the jurisdiction of its authorities, who are, however, required to follow NATO orders "on a priority basis and with all appropriate means." One provision states that "all NATO personnel shall respect the laws applicable in the FRY...," but with a qualification to render it vacuous: "Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities under this Appendix, all NATO personnel...."

It has been speculated that the wording was designed so as to guarantee rejection. Perhaps so. It is hard to imagine that any country would consider such terms, except in the form of unconditional surrender."

 

[Looney]

As the case with the KLA, yes. This is in essense what they are doing.

And did you read what the purpose was?



<< This did not stop the United States from arming and training KLA members in Albania and in the summer of 1998 sending them back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and intimidate hesitant Kosovo Albanians. The aim was to destabilize Kosovo and overthrow Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic.
>>



They had to pick the lesser of two evils. KLA, or Milosevic... Milsosevic who was ethnic cleansing, or a terrorist group who also had the same political goal as the US and Nato, to overthrow Milosevic. If the US and Nato hadn't done anything, people would have whined that the US and Nato hadn't done anything. So they chose the lesser of two evils.

I'm not even claiming i know anything of what's going on in Kosovo aside from the article you linked... but i'm reasonable enough to assume there IS some sort of purporse behind the actions. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Looney]

It has been speculated that the wording was designed so as to guarantee rejection. Perhaps so. It is hard to imagine that any country would consider such terms, except in the form of unconditional surrender."

And that's what it should have been, an unconditional surrender. For 2 years the US and Nato didn't involve themselves in Bosnia, and the Serbians were ethnic cleansing all the muslims. People began to whine that the world should help them, like how the world helped Kuwait with Iraq. But this was obviously a different situation, it was a civil war, not an invasion.

So now that the US and Nato finally did intervene, now people are whining that they picked the wrong side? And you know, those demands so quite reasonable. This WAS a war.

 

[Martin]

<< They had to pick the lesser of two evils. KLA, or Milosevic... Milsosevic who was ethnic cleansing, or a terrorist group who also had the same political goal as the US and Nato, to overthrow Milosevic. If the US and Nato hadn't done anything, people would have whined that the US and Nato hadn't done anything. So they chose the lesser of two evils.

I'm not even claiming i know anything of what's going on in Kosovo aside from the article you linked... but i'm reasonable enough to assume there IS some sort of purporse behind the actions. Hindsight is always 20/20. >>





Heellllooooo!!! What world are you living in? Large scale ethnic cleansing did not begin until the bombing campaing began.
Serbia, belongs to Serbs. They have lived there for centuries, it is their own sover territory. Now along come the albanians. They want more rights, so what do they do? Unlike blacks inthe US led by martin king, they dont peacefully protest, they form a terrorists organazation, linked to OBL, and start seeking independence. Kosovo is a a very sacred land to Serbs, so natural they will never give it up. So Milosevic (don't get me wrong, he's no angel) sends forces to try and eradicate these thugs, who have been condemned by the US as terrorists. Along the way the forces sweep some (not many) civilans, who are allegdly harboring the KLA (not hard to imagine). Now along comes the mighty West (not the UN) and demands that Sebia in essense reliquish any control over Kosovo and hand it over to NATO, keeping the region in Serbia only on paper. Serbia naturally refuses, so the righteous West starts bombing Serbia, civilian buildings, FERTILIZER FACTORIES, CHEMICAL PLANTS, even some busses and trains, causing incredible evironmental and economic damage, along with close to 1000 civilian deaths. So finally, serbia gives in, they sign a treaty with the terrorists and give them power. Now what did this achive? Serbs have been driven from their own lands, and the KLA has even carried attacks outside of kosovo itself. Then the terrorists move into Macedonia, where they wreak further havoc.

Of course, you'll tell me now "But we cannot condone ethnic cleansing". But I ask you, isnt this in essense what Israel, backed by the US and the West, has been doing for a VERY long time? Even its leaders are known to have committed massive war crimes, yet while Milosevic lingers away in The Hague, Sharon orders the latest strikes against Palestinians.
What I am against is this savage hypocricy. While the West ruined serbia, it helps israel do the same things!!! Of course, this is not just about Israel, similar things happen elsewhere too.



Of course, you are right in presuming there was a purpose, but ask yourself, was it the RIGHT purpose? There was a purpose behind Vietnam too, yet, would you justify that war?





<< And that's what it should have been, an unconditional surrender. For 2 years the US and Nato didn't involve themselves in Bosnia, and the Serbians were ethnic cleansing all the muslims. People began to whine that the world should help them, like how the world helped Kuwait with Iraq. But this was obviously a different situation, it was a civil war, not an invasion.

So now that the US and Nato finally did intervene, now people are whining that they picked the wrong side? And you know, those demands so quite reasonable. This WAS a war. >>



There was no war. NATO never declared war on Serbia, it was a "campaign". NATO too the role of the UN security council, since they knew China and Russia would veto any such outrageous action.

And you think those demands are reasonable????? Tell me, would Canada have gladly agreed to "unconditionally surrender" and accept foreign troops (and not from its allies) onto its territory during the FLQ crisis? No, any idea is simply ridiculous, so why do you expect any other nation to do such a thing?

If you want an alternative view on this, read this article. You may have prejudices against the author, yet try and concentrate on the content, not on who wrote it. It does a wonderful job of showing how while sebia was being bombed, similar atrocities were happening elsewhere.

Also another such article...


the last two are farily old (from 99) so they do not mentioned 9-11