Thread: ‘We bombed you to save you’

‘We bombed you to save you’ – NATO head Stoltenberg speaks about 1999 bombings on visit to Serbia

Although many people in Serbia hold “painful” memories of NATO’s 1999 bombing of their country, it was, in fact, done precisely to protect them from their own government, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in Belgrade.

He was answering questions about the bombing and about the NATO campaign against the government of the former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, during a meeting with the students of Belgrade University.

“I stressed that we did this to protect civilians and to stop the Milosevic regime,” Stoltenberg said, as quoted by the local media, claiming locals have painful memories of the events.

So NATO wants the alliance and Belgrade to “look into the future.” Stoltenberg also boasted of an “excellent relationship” between NATO and Serbia, adding that the military bloc “respects” Belgrade’s decision not to join the alliance. Still, he maintained that NATO wants to be Serbia’s “partner.”

He also said that NATO supports “dialogue” between Serbia and its breakaway region-turned-self-proclaimed state Kosovo, not only diplomatically but also “in the form of KFOR” – the NATO-led international peacekeeping force deployed to Kosovo.

His words came about a week after a brief escalation of tensions between Belgrade and Pristina sparked by the visit of Kosovo’s leader to a northern part of the breakaway region, which is populated by Serbs who refuse to recognize Pristina’s authority. The KFOR stayed conspicuously inactive during the incident, according to some reports while others suggested that the NATO-led force had even accompanied the Kosovo representative on that trip.

In March 1999, NATO launched airstrikes in what was then Yugoslavia, without the backing of the UN Security Council, after it accused Belgrade of “excessive and disproportionate use of force” in a conflict with insurgent Muslim ethnic Albanians in the region of Kosovo, which unilaterally declared independence nine years later, in 2008.

During the bombings, NATO dropped “between 10 and 15 tons of depleted uranium, which caused a major environmental disaster” and prompted Serbians to sue NATO over its actions, linking them to a rise in cancer-related illnesses across the region.

"In Serbia, 33,000 people fall sick because of this every year. That is one child every day," a member of the international legal team that was preparing the lawsuit told RT in 2017. Back in 2015, Stoltenberg himself expressed "regret" for the civilian casualties of NATO's 1999 bombing.

https://www.rt.com/news/440616-stolt...-nato-bombing/

If this us true it should fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. That's what I thought, but a visit to their website teaches, "The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression."

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about

Sparkling use of words, cleverly inserting "individuals" and just as carefully omitting groups and military forces sponsored by governments that also fund the ICC. Iow, let's show the world how determined we are to prosecute those who dare to offend the piper, but never the piper.

So slaughter to stop the slaughter, or don't slaughter and allow the slaughter to continue.

What a conundrum.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So slaughter to stop the slaughter, or don't slaughter and allow the slaughter to continue.

What a conundrum.

Continued civilising missions to expand the empire.

Dontcha recognize as such?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

‘We bombed you to save you’

The NATO mission in Serbia was a humanitarian mission to stop genocide.

There is literally no western military action which some crackpot tinfoiler is not going to try and cook up some list of Machiavellian ulterior motives to try and discredit.

Sometimes military intervention is actually the right and honourable course of action.

Blinkered anti-western conspiracy theorists just have shit-tinted spectacles when it comes to any military action whatsoever carried out by western sponsored forces.

Originally Posted by HuangLao

Continued civilising missions to expand the empire.

Dontcha recognize as such?

Fuck off Jeff.

"Humanitarian" bombardment of Yugoslavia - in a world history an exceptional case of betrayal and deception peppered by a grab of land...

Originally Posted by Klondyke

"Humanitarian" bombardment of Yugoslavia - in a world history an exceptional case of betrayal and deception peppered by a grab of land...

Perhaps not an exception, as these types of activities have gone on forever under the said guise of humanitarian efforts.

Gore Vidal penned the phrase: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

Read the honourable Chris Hedges' tome: WAR IS A FORCE THAT GIVES US MEANING

Originally Posted by Looper

Sometimes military intervention is actually the right and honourable course of action.

Sometimes but not most of the time.

Originally Posted by Looper

The NATO mission in Serbia was a humanitarian mission to stop genocide.

Whilst that was the case, they did not have to use Uranium 238 munitions (1/2 life of 4.5 Billion years), so effectively contaminating the land and water courses for eternity.

And as usually when helping changing the regime some few lucrative businesses are found, however, not for the local population...

The debate over "just" war goes back to antiquity. Egypt, China, Greece, Rome as nations all had their own definitions. All basically defined as whatever was in the interest of the nation was just. Just about covers any war given the right spin.

Originally Posted by Listerman

Whilst that was the case, they did not have to use Uranium 238 munitions

Depleted Uranium is used for armour piercing and armour plating since it is much denser than steel or even lead.

There was no evidence found of any harmful levels of contamination of the environment by UN commissioned studies carried out after the war.

Originally Posted by Norton

All basically defined as whatever was in the interest of the nation was just. Just about covers any war given the right spin.

We have a much more sophisticated moral framework in the 21st century and we have democratically accountable governance. You are suggesting that the level of moral analysis that goes into the decision to take military action is the same now as it was in past centuries which is simply not true.

Peacekeeping missions by the UN involve armed forces. But they really do keep the peace. They provide armed rival coalitions with a way of backing down without losing face to their rivals.

Military intervention can be a perfectly morally justifiable course of action - and not driven by self interest.

Originally Posted by Looper

We have a much more sophisticated moral framework in the 21st century and we have democratically accountable governance. You are suggesting that the level of moral analysis that goes into the decision to take military action is the same now as it was in past centuries which is simply not true.

Peacekeeping missions by the UN involve armed forces. But they really do keep the peace. They provide armed rival coalitions with a way of backing down without losing face to their rivals.

Military intervention can be a perfectly morally justifiable course of action - and not driven by self interest.

Wondering who is the "we"?

And wondering whether your statements will get any comments...

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Wondering who is the "we"?

It is short for 'westerners' of course...!

Don't forget Klondyke.

When in doubt... West is Best

Originally Posted by Looper

It is short for 'westerners' of course...!

Don't forget Klondyke.

When in doubt... West is Best

That's what I have assumed: "We" the Exceptional. Sure, it is better (and be proud of that) to be among "we" than among the "they"...

Originally Posted by Klondyke

they

Are bad!

Originally Posted by Klondyke

we

Are good.

Originally Posted by Looper

Depleted Uranium is used for armour piercing and armour plating since it is much denser than steel or even lead.

Obviously you know very little about DU, the major advantage it offers is that it is pyrophoric, and literally burns through armour

Its also extremely toxic both as a metal and as Uranium Oxide (something it has in common with most heavy metals), it's also an extremely long 1/2 life high dose rate Beta radiation emitter.

They could have chosen to use Tungsten tipped munitions, but they are significantly more expensive than DU.

Originally Posted by Looper

There was no evidence found of any harmful levels of contamination of the environment by UN commissioned studies carried out after the war.

Link please.

The NY times had a different interpretation of the situation at the time:

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/w...ms-europe.html

Also see:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/afterm...nition/5623803

and

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/03/uran-m31.html

Originally Posted by HuangLao

Continued civilising missions to expand the empire.

Dontcha recognize as such?

I've got some terrific pics of mass graves for you if you need your memory refreshed.