Syria: Support

No, the Bosnian army was weak and poorly armed, ........... attacking

The intentions of the Serbs (and the Croats, as is often forgotten) were painfully obvious, and the only reason they were unable to gain control of all of Bosnia was due to foreign intervention.

Oh please, the crimes of the KLA (just like the crimes of the FSA), were nothing in comparison to the actions of the Milosevic regime. To bleat santimoniously about the KLA (I wonder how long before the old allegations of "organ trafficking" get brought up), is to ignore the illegal and unconstitutional abrigation of Kosova's autonomy in 1989, the years of police terror and the crushing of peaceful protests in the years preceeding the 1998-1999 war..


That is without mentioning the crimes which took place in 1912-1941, and between 1945 and 1974.

In the view of left-wing defenders of Milosevic, when a US client like Turkey, Indonesia or Israel massacres innocent civilians it is wholly to blame; when a ‘socialist’ regime does so it is the victims who are primarily to blame.

What you're saying is (or at the least, strongly implying), is that the NATO bombing made the situation worse, and therefore NATO is at fault for the deaths which occured. I've said how such an argument is bull****. Was the NATO campaign a success? Ask the people there, they will tell you. (Or, the fact that there is a statue of Clinton, and plans for a statue of Blair will give you a fairly strong idea of what the answer will be).

It needs to be explained why Serbian military intervention in Kosova (which was not simply part of Serbia), Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia is less objectionable to you than American military intervention, even when it was incomparably more bloody.

Imagine the bleating of the so-called "anti-war" crowd had we have committed ground troops to Kosova. Can you imagine what they would say if we committed ground troops in Syria? Besides, it was done do minimise NATO casualties (many don't care what happens, as long as "our boys" aren't being killed, such was the case in the First Gulf War), hardly a noble reason, but understandable, seeing as it was believed that air strikes would force the Serbs to surrender and no-one wants soldiers to die unnecessarily.

Oh yeah, becuase Serbia hadn't ran roughshod over the sovereignty of its neighbours....oh wait nvm it did. As said before, Serbia violated Bosnia's sovereignty far more than NATO did with Serbia. Besides, Serbia knew that it would not resist NATO bombing for long (as it saw in Bosnia), and that rejecting the Rambouillet Accords would result in said bombing, but it rejected them anyway.

Next time you answer me, quote me properly.

Right, whereas the Serbs had surrounded the city and their snipers could enter at will without major resistance.

If the Serbs were serious about massacring everyone, then they would have done it.

Yes. I Am sure the intentions of the Serbs were obvious. They were so obvious that they couldn't even get Milosevic with anything.

The KLA committed war crimes in the years prior to 1998 and widespread ethnic cleansing of Serbian citizens in the Kosovo region.

The crushing of peaceful political protest does not justify War Crimes.

Unlike you, I apply the same standard to Milosevic that I apply to the KLA.

I have already told you at least once before that is not what I am saying.

Again, more inaccurate and irrelevant assumptions.

I don't really care about the lives of soldiers.

They are certainly not more valuable than the civilians that they could have saved in Kosovo instead of taking part in a moronic bombing campaign.

The fact that Serbia acted like Thugs in Bosnia does not justify the opposite with the West. That is why what they did was illegal.

If Serbia had forced Bosnia to sign an agreement where they could move their troops around when they wanted with full immunity from prosecution then you would be saying something very different now.

I CBA listing all the question or the big hitter positions for libertarians (such marriage/sex laws, free speach, regulation, war, guns, crime punishment, drugs, private property, business views, tax etc etc, I am what you would expect me to be)

but



The only things that separate me from other orthodox right-libertarians is that I would view myself, somewhat, as a Geo-libertarian, the Land Value tax is the only legitimate tax metho, the fact I don't agree with an open doors immigration policy, and the answer to the recession is deffinately not more austerity, or austerity at all, we need to spend and create proper industries. Most right-libs have an ahistorical view of capitalism, that it is the state that has corrupted the free market, Anwhat they should understand is that today's capitalism is true capitalism (whereas right-libs would say it is all crony or state capitalism) as what we have is the logical outcome of private interests, and the state is an extention of those interests, not the state ruining the free market.

Perhaps not, but it does seriously undermine his credibility, and gives readers some idea of who he is.



Mostly true, but if that is the case, why cite him as an authority, why uncritically post a video of one of his speeches, as though it was indisputable fact?



Given his record of support for the syrian regime (and everything else posted above), I think it is fair to treat everything he says on the issue with a fair amount of skepicism, to say the least.



Partially true, much of his stuff in the 1980s was very good, I especially enjoyed his essay on Sharon's actions in Lebanon, it was brilliantly written and argued. However in the 1990s, starting with the breakup of Yugoslavia, he went off the wall and started to take incredibly wierd and reactionary positions which have completely discredited him in my view. That's not to mention his infamous and frankly bizzare essay on the Khmer Rouge.



Lets face it, any impartial observer would see that Hitchens slaughtered Chomsky in their exchange.

So...you are not a libertarian in other words.

In relation to his posting of the Galloway video; It's not important of his past standings or even if how he acts contradicts what he espouses. The "tu quoque" fallacy is what you're inciting, and I agree people would be suspicious of his motives, you can't reprimand it on prior basis. It's a logical fallacy.

Actually, it is if anything, an ad hominem fallacy. And while it dosen't totally demolish his arguments, it undermines his credibility by showing his

1. Lack of integrety
2. Dishonesty
3. His conflict of interest
4. The blatently partisan nature of his views

If Galloway were a historian, he would have absolutely no credibility (and he dosen't, he denied that thousands were killed in Hungary), and no one would take him seriously.

Where did I quote you improperly, if I did so, apologies, it was not intentional.

You are aware of course that the Serbs and the JNA made several attacks on Sarajevo, even coming within 50 metres of the President's building, but were beaten back. That's why they decided to besiege the city. Most of the snipers were in the hilltops surrounding the city, or in Serb controlled areas.

They did in virtually every area they controlled.

Bwahaha, you would probably say the same about Hitler. Besides, that isn't even true. This is what the ICTY had to say about Slobo

With respect to the Amici Curiae submissions concer............s thereof.

The only reason that Milosevic was never formally convicted is because he used every delaying trick in the book, and died during the trial.

Please give one instance of widespead ethnic cleansing of Serbian citizens in Kosova committed by the KLA before 1998 (and no, merely killing some Serbian civillians dosen't count).

Like I've said, I acknowledge that the KLA has committed war crimes, but they are simply incomparable with the war crimes committed by Milosevic.

No, but that, plus everything else that happened, justifies armed struggle.

That's foolish and does not make you "neutral" or "objective" any more than applying the same standard to the British, Americans or even the Soviets during WW2 as to the Nazis does not make one "neutral".

I'll let the readers decide whether or not you implied that NATO was responsible for the deaths which occured after the bombing began.
How is it irrelevent, I think it is completely relevent to showing the double standards of the so-called "anti-war" movement who whine about NATO intervention in Kosova.

he Serb's abrigation of Kosova's a.............d Bosnia.

There were still snipers within the city. If the City was so well defended, then they wouldn't have been able to get in, let alone control entire corridors of the city.

AS I said before, there was no evidence connecting him to any of the massacres in 1995.

That is why he was never charged in 1995.

Lol@ "Killing some Serbian civilains doesn't count"

The KLA commited War Crimes. So I don't even know what the argument is. They were not on the scale of the crimes committed in the early 90's but neither were the Serbian Attacks in the same period.

No. It is not foolish to apply the same standards to everyone.

If the KLA commit War Crimes then they should be brought to justice like the Serbians.

I said that more people died after NATO began bombing than before the bombing began.

I am talking about the Ramboiullet Agreement and had Serbia applied such conditions to Bosnia. No one would call it fair then.

I notice you still havent told me where I quoted you incorrectly, however you have repeatedly chopped bits of what I said and have misrepresented much of my position, as will be evidenced below.

That is not what I meant.

I didn't know when you had replied to me because you hadn't used the QUOTE function correctly with my Username. Therefore, I didn't know you had replied to me 2 days ago.

Didn't the Government & army agree to a ceasefire, only for the rebels to continue so they in turn had to continue?

The rebels say they wont back down, the army says it wont back down until the rebels back down, its an endless cycle.

NATO will give it a nudge, kill some innocents by accident yet again and then in 40 years face another threat from Syria.