Moscow Victory Day (70 Years) Parade

[sburke]

it might negatively reflect on Battlefronts reputation IMO. You can mock people all day long as a private person, but when you officially link yourself to a company, what you do and say will, to a certain degree, not only be seen as your opinion but as that of the whole company.

Reputation? Ha they let me in, so much for worrying about their reputation.

Folks attach a little too much to "beta tester". We aren't BF employees, we don't in any way whatsoever represent BF and as long as we don't violate our NDA, we are free to particte in the outer forums just like anyone else.

Personally I agree, we have spent far too much time on this topic, but in LukeFF's defense, JK brings some of this on himself by making claims to information and credibility as a former analyst. Those claims of credibility inevitably bring on references to JK's own website claims which he has been told he can not bring in here. That then creates a somewhat unfair situation in that he can not defend his views that are now brought into the discussion.

I am one of those who feels his credibility is non existent. He posts so many links eventually one of them has to be at least somewhat relevant. I choose not to pay attention to the links as I already spend time filtering my own exposure to the Internet, I don't need to repeat that for his posts. That being said, I don't respond to his posts either. At least I try not to. I found it to be an unhealthy diversion. JK obviously has some issues, I can't help with those and flaming him doesn't seem to be a positive thing to do for either of us.

Edited May 13, 2015 by sburke

[Sublime]

panzer, why do you think the international community so quick to condemn Americann aggression atrocities , whatever. whilst there seems to be a long record of silence except from the US and a couple of NATO members when Russia (especially) as soviets did the same similar and sometomes worse. and unapologetically

[Hister]

Yes, complicated, especially on the Balkans.

Lacroix, you should start your story about Albanians in the 60's when their nationalistic tensions started to surge and Tito had to violently surpress the protests. They were slowly going towards their independence ever since. Unfurtunately for them it only got them a failed state and dreams of "it's going to be a paradise when we get our own country" shattered completely.

[Hister]

Sublime, USA was/is more under the spotlight 'cos it is #1 global player who proclaims itself to be one of the "good guys" while it's actions are sometimes somewhat "debatable". Russia is making up for it with it's Ukrainian debacle so USA is less under global attention now.

[John Kettler]

VASFury,

 

I look forward very much to seeing your translation and appreciate your doing that!

 

Thewood1,

 

Would you were so worked up about the illegal (under the Forum Rules) things that have been done many times to me and are still being done to me! Others here have even publicly reproved the three involved. People now know what I have to deal with, that I'm not making stuff up, and have been told directly what kind of damage three callous people are deliberately inflicting upon someone recovering from a severe injury. I have made my points, I believe, and said what I felt needed to be said. You may therefore now exhale, since there won't be another Tolstoy novel. Now, Solzhenitsyn...?

 

I would dearly love to see how you would handle years of what I've been subjected to, especially if your health was as badly compromised as mine. Fundamentally, absent strong action by BFC, I'm in a no win situation here. If I continue to be a combination of doormat, target drone and whipping boy to them, then they'll just keep doing it. But if I sound off as I have and really lay things out, then I have you and a few others complaining about that! I simply wish to be left in peace here so I can go about my lawful occasions and enjoy what is generally and historically (been here 15 years and change now) a great and interesting international group of fellow gamers and grogs. If you don't wish to experience my sounding off about being attacked over and over, why don't you wade in on the side of what's right and do something to fix the problem, rather than kvetching because my cries for help upset you? What are you willing to do to protect and promote the common good? So far, all I've seen from you is an impressive ability to rationalize away some pretty despicable acts.  Finally, I suggest you search the Forums under "hater vibe" and note well the man who made it clearly states I'm not the source of it!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[slysniper]

VASFury,

 

I look forward very much to seeing your translation and appreciate your doing that!

 

Thewood1,

 

Would you were so worked up about the illegal (under the Forum Rules) things that have been done many times to me and are still being done to me! Others here have even publicly reproved the three involved. People now know what I have to deal with, that I'm not making stuff up, and have been told directly what kind of damage three callous people are deliberately inflicting upon someone recovering from a severe injury. I have made my points, I believe, and said what I felt needed to be said. You may therefore now exhale, since there won't be another Tolstoy novel. Now, Solzhenitsyn...?

 

I would dearly love to see how you would handle years of what I've been subjected to, especially if your health was as badly compromised as mine. Fundamentally, absent strong action by BFC, I'm in a no win situation here. If I continue to be a combination of doormat, target drone and whipping boy to them, then they'll just keep doing it. But if I sound off as I have and really lay things out, then I have you and a few others complaining about that! I simply wish to be left in peace here so I can go about my lawful occasions and enjoy what is generally and historically (been here 15 years and change now) a great and interesting international group of fellow gamers and grogs. If you don't wish to experience my sounding off about being attacked over and over, why don't you wade in on the side of what's right and do something to fix the problem, rather than kvetching because my cries for help upset you? What are you willing to do to protect and promote the common good? So far, all I've seen from you is an impressive ability to rationalize away some pretty despicable acts.  Finally, I suggest you search the Forums under "hater vibe" and note well the man who made it clearly states I'm not the source of it!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

John, Really

Do you think you are going to win some kind of victory where you are going to get your 3 tormentors from bashing you. Getting them banded or something along those lines. Do you think you are going to get a group of people to support you in that cause.

Again the only one I see not dropping the subject is you in the last few post, when are you going to realize that you are your own worst enemy.

Keep in mind this whole thing started by the fact that I commented on a post where I disagreed with your post in that it was way over the top for the simple fact that the tanks had bondo making up some of the tank components and you acted like it was a insult to run the machine down the street. But whatever. You replied and put your opinions in a more proper and clear explanation.

But in that time frame also managed to get the old feud going once again. Now I agree that your tormentors just come out of the woodwork to take shots at you whenever they can. Can you figure out why? why just you, John? why no one else? What is it that they just cannot leave you alone - there is a simple answer for that but I just do not think you know why or will accept that fact as to why?

Now believe me, I do not justify their actions either, they can be real jerks, and their actions are poor. But most of us can be Jerks at times, and I know I personally just enjoy being a jerk at times. So if not them it would be someone else. You will never solve your problem by removing them from the forum , that is not how to get it resolved. Only you changing will liking affect your future.

Now I do wish BF would just get hard on all parties involved and put a band on all of you from posting intentional comments to discredit each others character. Its not like you all have not been warned before. But in the end, if they did that. I am sure you all would lose access to the site. Is that what you want

Edited May 13, 2015 by slysniper

[Lethaface]

I'm....not going to be insulting but the "bringing in front of a judge" aspect is about as reasonable as "simply waltzing in and arresting Hitler."

 

Agreeing on the practically side of this. Still, the principals of the nations we live in are build upon the rule of law for everyone including the state itself, that is basically the only difference when compared to autocratic regimes. Even though laws can sometimes be stupid, simply dismissing law as unpractical in cases where it is unpractical, comes dangerously close to the 'because I said it' adagium employed by autocratic regimes. Even if the ones calling the shots have all the right intentions. Certainly we can't just put our heads in the ground and think all will be well but neither should we, IMO, shove the whole law thingy because it is impractical and get on with the splatter list.

 

The current drone/cruise missile/etc etc kill program is in scale not alike to the more 'conventional' clandestine operations employed by most nations on the earth and afaik the US before 2000 something. 

There is a reason I mentioned 'several thousand hitlist'. Now, apart from Israel, I don't think any other real democratic nation has ever had such a program. In case of Israel, they should 

have been looking in the mirror intensely for much longer already ;-)

 

Even beyond that looking at historical counter-insurgencies or counter terrorism operations, bringing someone to trial has rarely been the historical case outside of domestic situations, or cases in which the targeted individual either survived the raid somehow, or was apprehended in a way that prevented them from being able to fight back. 

The difference now is drones have the endurance and sensor fidelity to loiter over possible target locations, and the sensor fidelity to do the sort of "kill" it used to take big burly men with 

lots of guns to do.

 

 

I give you that (clandestine) counter terrorism operations in asymetric wars/conflicts without much law involved are not by any means new, or that the principle by which the US operates is completely different. That doesn't say anything about it being a good thing. Moreover the scale and timeframe of the 'war on terror' is different and certain innovations like drone assassinations aren't making the whole thing prettier to say the least. The real reason I think it's a large problem is that the **** is only getting larger and larger. USA is fighting the symptoms and the bloody side effects of this only makes the problem larger.

 

That's sort of making it a bit glib, but these folks are opposed to us not for yesterday's acts, but for a long lasting historical grievances and perceived slights (US TROOPS NEAR MECCA HARRAM!!!!!).  If it was not the US, then it'd be the oh wait they did the UK.  Well if it wasn't the US and the UK it'd be Franc...oh crap.  Okay they did them too.  Well if it wasn't the US, the UK, France, it'd be the Spani...well damnit.  Even in the event of total US departure from the middle east, they'd still be blowing up Americans because of our cultural assault on Islam, or because we did not pay the ransom to not blow us up because allah commands it.  It's not as simple as it seems. It's also not something we can kill our way out of, but the blowing up folks who are dead set on killing Americans is sort of symptoms management for the disease.  We've however mistaken it for the cure which is really more than a small problem.

I'm deliberately saying 'we', the current problem with Islam extremism isn't US only and is very real. To be completely fair it is also a problem for the majority of the people living in the Middle East. The majority isn't trying to blow themselves up taking out infidels screaminig allah akhbar. 

 

Where I disagree is "the long lasting historical grievances and perceived slights". I don't have the time to really elaborate on this now but Ill try:

 

Ideological extremism is something off all places and times. The current anti Western stigma in the Arab world is more a result of their own situation (poor, oppressed) and their views of what the West could and should have done versus what it did. Before the 50's it basically didn't exist in any substantial form. 

Apart from the religious, spiritual, doings of the individual religion is often used as a tool to herd the sheep according to the wishes of the herder. More often than not those wishes have little good in mind for the sheep or third parties, but obviously do benefit the herder with Power and Wealth. ISIS being a prime current example.
Saudi Arabia has been using their rather extreme version of Islam as an export product by ways of humanitarian aid to less fortuned Muslims around the world. This has had it's effects imo, and is an important factor as to why the majority of the Muslim world has become more 'strict' since the 60 and 70s. I know this is true from personal experience visiting Morocco, Malaysia and Turkey but I have heard similar stories from people originating from other countries.

 

Now things like the ousting of Mossadegh, the West supplying Saddam with weapons to throw against Iran first while later attacking him when he grabbed the oil and, of course, Palestine didn't help to put the West in a good daylight there. Actually the West and US especially was looked upon as a role model by a large part of the world, including Muslim countries. Look at Malaysia's flag for an example

 

But I think the hypocrysy is the largest reason for the anti west stigma. Iran is evil but Saudi Arabia is good. Khadafi is/isn't/is/was evil, depending on what deals we can make. And we keep talking about human rights and stuff, but only if it fits our agenda. That's why the average intellectual Arab is probably not very impressed with Western ethics. At least, that's my impression of things and I can't say I don't understand.

History probably has it's influence as well, white man has been invading land accross the Middle East long before oil was discovered ;-) Given that before 1900 orso invading other countries was something to be proud of, for white/black/brown/yellow man alike, but still people remember what they want.

 

So, I don't agree that Arabs/Muslims are basically born with a wish to destroy the West. A lot of factors are involved and we should look what we have done (or didn't do) instead of just looking at others to blame. Besides saying that 'they hate us anyway' doesn't negate the fact that they will hate you much more if you bomb their kids in collateral fashion.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

True, but that's not a good analogy A better analogy is figuring out how to hold a cops accountable for a botched raid against a drug cartel (legitimate cause) and not handling it well (botched execution), which then leeds to an all out turf war between three major rival drug cartels because one sensed the other was weakened by the initial police raid.

In other words, you can hold the cops accountable for the botched raid, or perhaps even conducting it in the first place, but it gets VERY difficult to hold the cops accountable for everything else that followed. In fact, the argument in defense of the cops is that they wouldn't have had to do the raid in the first place if the drug cartels didn't exist.

 

True, but yours isn't perfect either

 

I'll settle for your analogy if the police raid was in another country, ordered by a higher up for reasons other than 'to protect and serve', based on false information and actually triggering a gang war in which many innocent people died.

 

I don't think it is righteous to hold the cops having served in the raid accountable for the botched raid, conducting it or the aftermath, since they are supposed to do or die without asking why. But I'd expect them to admit, on afterthought, that they feel sick in their stomachs about the whole thing.

Apart from the Cops leadership technically not being responsible for the gang war atrocities and perhaps can be given the courtesy of having tried to combat the gangs, obviously the responsible management cadre should be sacked and forbidden to ever work again in law enforcement or public service.

 

That's sort of my view on the subject

 

As to Powell, I feel for the man. I don't think he feels too happy about what's happening in Iraq now.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Lethaface

[Nidan1]

Guys, just a peeve of mine that I've noticed lately on these new boards.  There are times when posts are quoted where the name of the poster is omitted and it just says QUOTE. For example Lethaface, your post above contains a couple of quoted posts, but no name as to who made them. I'm not picking on you,,,,I've seen it on other posts with quotes as well. Is this deliberate, or does the forum somtimes leave off the name from a quoted post.

 

When multiple quotes are involved, and the discussion has generated a lot of interest, it's really annoying not to know who a person is quoting when responding to a post. It's no fun scrolling back over a long list of posts to try and piece together the multiple quotes and who they belong to.

 

If it happens deliberately, guys, please try to make sure your quotes have the name of the poster in them, if it is something with the board itself, BF please fix or do sumfink!

[sburke]

But it's never been addressed or looked at in a serious light.  There's been much written on the damage the Allies did (from bombing to the sheer number of French civilians killed in the fighting to liberate France herself), and the like, but the Russian narrative remains this action movie mockery of what actually occurred.  The Soviet Army sat and watched Warsaw burn because it was the wrong sort of Poles that stood up.  Countless innocents found themselves outbound to the gulags for reasons only known to political officers and god.  These monstrous acts and all the others have been, and continue to be airbrushed out of the Russian narrative in favor of the "Great Patriotic War."  This in turn does a greater dishonor to history and the sacrifice of the men who served because it turns the nightmare of 1940-1945 into a simple tale of brave stalwart men saving the motherland at great cost! instead of the much more complicated, much more meaningful reality contained within.

 

So to that, the parade is an affirmation of this whitewashed and glamorized history, and it remains a nationalistic celebration of same.

Case in point this is how some in Hungary are remembering May 9th

http://columbustelegram.com/news/world/europe/hungary-commemorating-victims-of-soviet-labor-camps/article_dbe20990-d7d2-575c-ab5c-266289e447d4.html

[Lethaface]

Again, Steve addressed this pretty well.  You can hold the US accountable for:

 

1. The post invasion chaos.  There really wasn't a good plan for that.

2. Disbanding the Iraqi Army.  That created a lot of the low-level trigger puller type insurgents for the Sunni population.

 

The dead Iraqis bloating in the Tigris, the exploding Mosques, the "mentally handicapped children as bomb transportation" tactic, and the VBIEDs in markets is something the Iraqis can take the lion's share of blame for.  It's my fault if I fire you for no good reason.  Your fault if your anger causes you to rape and murder a few people.

 

 

And it's very arrogant to assume we break everything too though.  In a lot of ways it's handy to blame things on "The West" but the troubles of the middle east reach all the way back well past colonialism.  We give ourselves a lot of credit for the power to do both good and bad, and frankly, too much credit for either.  

 

That's really the powerless moment you feel in Iraq.  No matter what you say, what you do, how many times you point out that Shia are people too, there's Sunnis that believe they're pretty much satan worshippers and allah will only smile when all of them are dead.  The looting anything worth money regardless of community benefit is something no amount of "west" could fix, nor the corruption.  No amount of attempt to foster small business with loads or grants would help as long as it was simply seen as a way to scam the Americans (which made it darkly funny in a way, the small grants we gave were totally enough to set up a good shop, or make your current shop much bigger, but nooooo, we're going to buy expensive stuff that's going to get stolen by our jealous neighbor, and then cry to the Americans for more money).

 

If I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, doesn't mean I can't call you a murderer for shooting down Nancy Sinatra.  Further I'd like to think my experience on the ground sets a nice contrast.  I have yet to shoot anyone.  I did however open several schools, briefly restore power to a neighborhood before the generator was looted, provide key tracking of displaced persons, and while I was at it release some prisoners back to their families.  As much as the American way of war can bring devastation, we're very conscious of doing "good" even if it's the kind of "good" I mentioned that can turn out "terrible" once it's actually implemented.

 

Contrast this to the Russian army which can give locusts a run for it's money, if locusts could rape and install puppet governments.  That's actually rather another reason I strongly dislike the Russian military, it's like having another company that does what you do, only sans morality, decency, and gloats about how it gets away with a lack of either.  Which almost loops back onto the topic, it's why I hate the Russian "victory" day parades.  They're in effect celebrating the nightmare they brought through Eastern Europe, the Stalinist oppression of thousands of innocent people, and the systematic rape and looting of anything with a correctly sized set of holes, or that could fit on a train back to Moscow.  It's like if the US Army had a "Wounded Knee Victory Parade" or the Brits held a festival to celebrate the first use of the maxim gun on indigenous people.  Then pair it with being a celebration of a return to Russian militarism and it just honestly gets sort of sick in that regard.  

 

Even though I can't say thanks for your service I respect you having served there and think it's a great thing you haven't had to shoot people but build schools instead. The world isn't always a bad place to be :-)

I won't challenge that the ways of the US Army are vastly preferred over the ways of the Russian army in the event of one of them occupying your neighborhood. 

 

Don't know what to say really about your last paragraph. Yes Russia under Stalin was bad, very bad. Hitler was very very bad too. Mao also figured out how to kill a couple of million with a crazy idea of sending farmers to the city and townsfolk to the farms. Much more bad leaders have been around.

The collapse of the Soviet Union has brought Russia a lot of problems. Criminality and corruption are vast. This has given way to the current leadership, which is in some aspects better than the Jeltsin period. But Russia is far from a stable proper democratic state. This shows in the actions of the regime in various ugly ways. 

 

Doesn't make other crap less crappy though.

[Lethaface]

Guys, just a peeve of mine that I've noticed lately on these new boards.  There are times when posts are quoted where the name of the poster is omitted and it just says QUOTE. For example Lethaface, your post above contains a couple of quoted posts, but no name as to who made them. I'm not picking on you,,,,I've seen it on other posts with quotes as well. Is this deliberate, or does the forum somtimes leave off the name from a quoted post.

 

When multiple quotes are involved, and the discussion has generated a lot of interest, it's really annoying not to know who a person is quoting when responding to a post. It's no fun scrolling back over a long list of posts to try and piece together the multiple quotes and who they belong to.

 

If it happens deliberately, guys, please try to make sure your quotes have the name of the poster in them, if it is something with the board itself, BF please fix or do sumfink!

 

Sorry for that, but sometimes it is just practical to cut a longer posts into pieces and it's easier to just use quote blocks.

[Lacroix]

Yes, complicated, especially on the Balkans.

Lacroix, you should start your story about Albanians in the 60's when their nationalistic tensions started to surge and Tito had to violently surpress the protests. They were slowly going towards their independence ever since. Unfurtunately for them it only got them a failed state and dreams of "it's going to be a paradise when we get our own country" shattered completely.

i agree. it was matter of time. either by war or diplomacy but what i am saying , and Aurelius is that americans single handedly sided with Albanians, without any knowledge of the situation, OR intentionally. honestly i don't know which one is the case.

[Aurelius]

Yes, complicated, especially on the Balkans.

Lacroix, you should start your story about Albanians in the 60's when their nationalistic tensions started to surge and Tito had to violently surpress the protests. They were slowly going towards their independence ever since. Unfurtunately for them it only got them a failed state and dreams of "it's going to be a paradise when we get our own country" shattered completely.

 

That story goes back to the WW2 and an "action" that saw the Albanian nationalist movement crushed for couple of decades. Then came the constitution from 1974 (i think its that year) that basically destroyed the federation and its layer of goverment- autonomous regions and states got a lot more "power". Couple that with growing nationalist movement + money and influence from exiled people and you got yourself a civil war. We were stupid in our decisions to keep the federation and achieve some hallucination called Greater Serbia.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Aurelius

[Aurelius]

panzer, why do you think the international community so quick to condemn Americann aggression atrocities , whatever. whilst there seems to be a long record of silence except from the US and a couple of NATO members when Russia (especially) as soviets did the same similar and sometomes worse. and unapologetically

Yes we could and should speak of Holodomor and gulags in Siberia, adventure in Afganistan and every other Soviet/Russian "adventure". But when you attack "my" country by just relaying one side of the story I get butthurt. 

[Nidan1]

Sorry for that, but sometimes it is just practical to cut a longer posts into pieces and it's easier to just use quote blocks.

Yeah, no problem, I figured it was a matter of practicality. Trying to parse out sections of a large post in order to answer specific points while maintaining the poster's identity can be a pain in the butt.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Nidan1

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I must admit, the behavior of Serbian army was shameful to say the least, but what of the behavior of Croatian army and its paramilitary of-shoots? Of the Bosnian armed militias and jihadists? Your country and its allies chose to side with fascists and radical islamists because it saw it fit at the time. Now we have those radical islamists walking up to the police stations and shooting policemen. And Kosovo. Really? Your country again intervened in entirely internal question and again chose to side with islamists and people who see it fit to finance their operations through drug and organ trade. The entire case for Kosovo was made up by Blair and his wife. Please don't take this as a sign that i support Milosevic and his cronies or that I deny the war crimes that have happened in that period. I answered mostly because what you speak is not entirely true.

 

Eeeeeh.  Picking a side in the Bosnian conflict is much like picking which person with Hitler as one of their multiple personalities you like best.  To classify the Bosnians or the Croats as "islamists and nazis" is to show a pretty severe bias to say the least.  The historical alignment of the Croats with the Nazis is no worse than the Vichy French policemen, the various Hungarian/Romanian/etc German allies or the Germans themselves.  The Croats had their own reasons to want to leave Yugoslavia, and to dismiss them out of hand by historical association says a lot about your position.  Doubly so on the "islamist" position given the fairly small role of the wahhabist type fighters vs nationalists who just happen to be Muslim.

 

As the case was, the Serbs made themselves "the tallest nail" when it came time for hammers to drop given their belligerence towards UN forces, the actual Serb run concentration camps, and the bloody mess of Sarajevo.  The other factions might not have been clean, but they're sort of a dark charcoal dirty vs the pitch black the Serbs managed to pull off.  

 

I won't even dignify the organ trade thing with a comment.  However the abuses of the Serbian forces in Kosovo are fairly well documented, and while the acts of the Kosovar forces are not exactly stellar examples of human rights and moral pillars of the community, they fought with the advantage of being less able to do damage to Serbian civilians, being aligned with the historical US support of self determination in government (when it does not strongly affect US foreign policy for the negative of course), and the stigma the Serbs still had after the early 90's fighting.  

 

 

 

(note: land in 21st century doesnt need to be conquered on a political 19th century map)

True.  But please note how much control the US has exerted over Kosovo.  You'll find it was generally limited to peace keeping operations (which at least tried to equally protect remaining Serbs). Kosovo could hold an election to rejoin Serbia, or join Russia or New Zealand for that matter and the US would be limited generally to disapproval (and much confusion needless to say in the case of Russia or New Zealand).

 

 

 

on other hand you have Milosevic who is "neutral' and want to perserve things (the president), but in reality he kiiiinda secretly does things to benefit ethnic serbs since he sees things are eventually gona get bad, but how bad ?

 

I have to say, having read up on Milosevic, his secret support of the ethnic Serbs was about as subtle as a sledgehammer falling through a skylight.  

 

In terms of the actual conflict, I'll grant it's entirely possible BOTH sides were pretty wrong, but the Serbian ability to do harm greatly outweighed the Kosovar ability to resist.  And this inevitably lead to a lopsided view of affairs.  As the case was the Serbs could have simply toned down the campaign a bit, but the resulting refugee crisis, combined with imminently believable accusations of Serbian atrocities (which certainly did not happen to the extent claimed, but in the context of Serbian actions circa 1993 were not out of line to believe) then paired with the concerns of a re-ignition of the wider former Yugoslavia fighting led to a fairly strong anti-Serbian response.

 

Looking back on it in 2015, there's a lot apparent that 1999 couldn't see or anticipate.  However in refering to the NATO involvement:

 

1. There was verifiable "bad" things being done to the civilians in Kosovo by the Serbian military.

2. There was a strong case even worse things were being done.

3. The conflict was occurring in an area that was widely viewed as a powder keg, and that continued fighting might spread throughout the region.   

 

All the reasons for getting involved in Kosovo, minus the "wag the dog" allegations stemming from Clinton's sexscapades revolved around reacting to a humanitarian crisis, with at least some verifiable crimes against humanity.  This is a strong difference from something like, say the Russians swooping into the Crimea to save Russians from a total lack of actual actions taken against ethnic Russians, before adding a major port to Russia proper through a fake election thank you very much.

 

 

you know your country (State)  is very famous for ... well ... strange inconsitencies right? so is every country at one point in time, but just keep that in mind when talking about informations and clinton and other ... ' loving' people. 

i think its safe to assume that clinton doesnt (didnt) give a **** about serbs nor albanians. or at lest its more realistic saying that it doesnt matter what he 'thinks' , he can say he did it for humanitarian reasons, or for the money , it doesnt matter, his opinion is irrelevant. So far Evidence has shown that there are no bad/good guys, only dead/alive guys

 

Rather famously, a French dude I actually respect somewhat said "France has no friends, only interests."  The inconsistencies are only inconsistencies if you forget that.  That said, the US is a strongly idealistic nation that's heavily paired with often very pragmatic decision making.  So while we extol freedom justice and the usual, there's a practical limit to how much we can do to bolster those things in many countries.  And often we have to work through governments or groups of people we genuinely do not like, but represent the only point of leverage we have in a region (see the Saudis).  

 

So to that end, I'm actually quite sure Clinton did care, and quite possibly does care deeply about the Serbs and Albainians.  But he's the leader of a country, and having led stuff (on a much smaller scale!) you're frequently asked to pick the best of the worst set of choices.  And given the historical portion of the Clinton administration in which the US missed the chance to head off several mass killings (and indeed, one of the few recognized genocides!) reacting strongly to what appeared to be another set of mass killings in the same damn region that just got done with the last round of mass killings must have been setting of some alarm bells.

 

When it comes to no good or bad guys, I disagree strongly.  We all fall broadly on some scale of morality, with the overwhelming population falling somewhere in the middle.  All humans for the most part broadly chose to make the most moral choice available given the circumstances (and when they do evil , it's frequently justified in a moral context).  This whole "only the alive and dead" mentality to me is a cheap copout from having to recognize the results of one's actions and the consequences of choices.  I strive, and will continue to strive to have been a positive influence to the world at large, because that is what's "right" and I will refuse to accept the world simply falls into dead/not dead.

 

 

 

panzer, why do you think the international community so quick to condemn Americann aggression atrocities , whatever. whilst there seems to be a long record of silence except from the US and a couple of NATO members when Russia (especially) as soviets did the same similar and sometomes worse. and unapologetically 

 

The US is George Reeves.  The rest of the world at large sees us as Superman, and expects Superman level performance and capabilities, while totally ignoring its still just George Reeves in a suit trying very hard to be Superman.  When Russian troops steal parts of Ukraine?  Eh.  That's what Russia does.  France kills a bunch of Africans while meddling?  France has always done that.  Etc, etc, etc.  But there's this expectation America is "better" than those things, and by virtue of being the one remaining super-power level nation in the world, is capable of accomplishing anything if it tried, that is often the first step on the road to massive disappointment because, again at the end of the day we're just George Reeves (if George Reeves helped end both World Wars, was the number one provider of international aid, a strong supporter of free elections, and in general a  deeply flawed person with a mess of skeletons in the closet, but often decent enough man most of the time).

 

 

 

Agreeing on the practically side of this. Still, the principals of the nations we live in are build upon the rule of law for everyone including the state itself, that is basically the only difference when compared to autocratic regimes. Even though laws can sometimes be stupid, simply dismissing law as unpractical in cases where it is unpractical, comes dangerously close to the 'because I said it' adagium employed by autocratic regimes. Even if the ones calling the shots have all the right intentions. Certainly we can't just put our heads in the ground and think all will be well but neither should we, IMO, shove the whole law thingy because it is impractical and get on with the splatter list.

 

Thing is, we've wandered into this weird realm where terrorism is now bigger than simple law enforcement.  If we were at war with Cuba or something, and flew drones all over blotting out Cuban soldiers left and right, no one would bat an eye.  However because the fighters we're facing, no matter how deadly their intent or desires are, are not uniformed, somehow that's different.

 

We're effectively at war with their organizations, if they're nation states or not.  We've been directly attacked by the folks we're meatsaucing all over the landscape.  I don't feel the lack of nation-state makes them somehow more deserving of due process than someone wearing a uniform for Cuba.  

 

 

The current drone/cruise missile/etc etc kill program is in scale not alike to the more 'conventional' clandestine operations employed by most nations on the earth and afaik the US before 2000 something. 

There is a reason I mentioned 'several thousand hitlist'. Now, apart from Israel, I don't think any other real democratic nation has ever had such a program. In case of Israel, they should 

have been looking in the mirror intensely for much longer already ;-)

 

It's again, not a "new" concept, just new tools.  Looking at the French and Brits during the Cold War in their colonies (or recently former colonies) there's still a pattern of targeted killing vs arrest and apprehension.  Same deal with nearly every COIN campaign in history.  The only difference this time is technology allows for a wider more distributed insurgent network, and allows for a more active "kill" network from the other end.

 

Same game, difference pieces if you will.

 

 

But I think the hypocrysy is the largest reason for the anti west stigma. Iran is evil but Saudi Arabia is good. Khadafi is/isn't/is/was evil, depending on what deals we can make. And we keep talking about human rights and stuff, but only if it fits our agenda. That's why the average intellectual Arab is probably not very impressed with Western ethics. At least, that's my impression of things and I can't say I don't understand.

History probably has it's influence as well, white man has been invading land accross the Middle East long before oil was discovered ;-) Given that before 1900 orso invading other countries was something to be proud of, for white/black/brown/yellow man alike, but still people remember what they want.

 

That's fine, but how is international affairs a reasonable justification for flying planes into the World Trade Center?  Does European hypocrisy justify American terrorists shooting up cheese factories because we're not allowed to sell "Parmesan" cheese now?  

 

The west is a handy thing to blame for internal problems.  You listen to many of the anti-American, anti-Western speakers, and it's well beyond objections to current events, and well into the realm of fantasy and make believe levels of US/Western crimes.

 

 

 

So, I don't agree that Arabs/Muslims are basically born with a wish to destroy the West. A lot of factors are involved and we should look what we have done (or didn't do) instead of just looking at others to blame. Besides saying that 'they hate us anyway' doesn't negate the fact that they will hate you much more if you bomb their kids in collateral fashion.

 

That is not at all what I said, or believe.  I said the anti-western folks will be anti-western regardless of what we do or not do.  There's a significant population that might sway one direction or the other, but my experience in Iraq amounted to while they might hate the US for being in Iraq, they equally hated the insurgents who were planting the bombs.  We rarely dealt with the "I was cool with America, but then you came and destroyed everything!" terrorist that seems to keep showing up on TV and in the media.  The majority hated us before 2003, or even 1991, and were going to hate us if we gave them reason to hate us or not (we were accused of importing "special insect" to eat all of Iraq's crops.  I really cannot make up the distinct detachment from reality we dealt with).

 

And it did not change based on how kinnectic we were.  My first deployment we were ripping doors of hinges, and still dropping bombs in places.  If you cut into our convoy during our road movements, you were going to be staring down the barrel of a .50 cal in short order (we did not open up on anyone, most folks got the message).  Second deployment?  We couldn't enter a building without being invited in,* nothing had fallen off a plane and exploded in well over a year.  We let the traffic just flow in and around our movements, no big deal.

 

And the hate and hostility was there regardless of how nice we were, or rough we were.  We were the infidel invader of terrible to that population of people.

 

So to that end the folks we actually worry about, the actual "going to try to kill people" folks are largely, and almost entirely the sort of folks who'd hate us and try out the whole terrorism thing anyway.  It happened before drones, it'll keep happening after drones, with the overwhelming majority having an opinion on same, but the number of "new" anti-American folks is negligible.  

 

 

*Unless it was self defense, like we'd been shot at from the building, or needed cover

[Aurelius]

So i guess you said (in case of Kosovo) that only a select few ethnic groups and nation have a right to self-determination (that right must be guaranteed by US or NATO, gods forbid it Russia or someone else). And everything else you said sounds a lot like WMD's in Iraq (from alleged atrocities to powder keg situation). I guess you can make a positive impact in world by bombing railroad bridges just as the train is crossing it or maybe drop a bomb or two on a TV station... Unlike everyone else in those conflict we had the courage to prosecute people involved in war crimes. We paid a price for that. Can the same be said of anyone else involved in those conflict?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Nah.  What I said was the situation escalated to the point where it was starting pose a danger beyond Serbian inability to conduct COIN.  Then the then recent Serbia concentration camps and the like brought back some uncomfortable memories.  The Serbian right to shoot folks in Kosovo ended once it started pouring over the borders, and started looking like 1993 all over again.

 

 

 

 I guess you can make a positive impact in world by bombing railroad bridges just as the train is crossing it or maybe drop a bomb or two on a TV station...

 

Logistical node, enemy ability to conduct information operations.  Pretty legitimate targets.

 

 

 

Unlike everyone else in those conflict we had the courage to prosecute people involved in war crimes. We paid a price for that. Can the same be said of anyone else involved in those conflict?

 

Take your case to the ICC if you feel you can get some folks for war crimes, sounds like you have some great cases in mind.  Plenty of Croats and some Bosnian folks have wound up prosecuted too.  Just happens Serbians were the ones that went that extra mile in terms of atrocities.    

[MikeyD]

Some irony people talking about 'ethnic self-determination' and Putin's Russia in the same breath. I suppose Cossack underworld bar flies deserve to have their own independent fascistic state... in eastern Ukraine.

[Battlefront.com]

you know your country (State)  is very famous for ... well ... strange inconsitencies right? so is every country at one point in time, but just keep that in mind when talking about informations and clinton and other ... ' loving' people. 

i think its safe to assume that clinton doesnt (didnt) give a **** about serbs nor albanians. or at lest its more realistic saying that it doesnt matter what he 'thinks' , he can say he did it for humanitarian reasons, or for the money , it doesnt matter, his opinion is irrelevant. So far Evidence has shown that there are no bad/good guys, only dead/alive guys

Very true. As someone who visited Yugoslavia in 1990, I took an extremely unusual interest (for a non-expat Yugo American) in the war as it unfolded. It was a horror show on all sides. However, there was a primary aggressor with vastly bloodier hands that started the war and was almost solely responsible for it continuing as long as it did. If Yugoslavia had dissolved peacefully, as did Czechoslovakia, who knows what would have happened within each republic towards various minorities. Because Milošević and his supporters didn't allow that to happen, we will never know. We also don't know how many lives would have been saved and property left intact if NATO had intervened much, much sooner.

Two things stick in my mind from my travels in the summer of 1990. One was a guy giving me an HDZ lapel pin and after he left some people advised me to not wear it because it might bring me trouble. A week or so later I found myself in a train compartment with a bunch of Kosavars. We had a fun attempt at conversation with our broken German, English, and the little bit of Serbo-Croat that I knew. I understood that they were from Kosovo, so to demonstrate I knew this I said "Pristina". The whole family looked shocked! I thought I said something wrong, but the guy (father?) managed to get me to understand they were shocked that anybody would know where Kosovo was, not to mention Pristina. They were pretty damned happy about this, which I think indicates how beaten down they felt. At least that is how I interpreted it at the time.

 

Eeeeeh.  Picking a side in the Bosnian conflict is much like picking which person with Hitler as one of their multiple personalities you like best.

Not to mention contrary to the facts. Franjo Tuđman, one of the founders of the HDZ, was elected in 1990 as president of the Croatian republic while it was still part of Yugoslavia. In WW2 he fought against the Germans and their Croatian puppets, then became a general under Tito post war. Hard to qualify him as a Nazi.

Also, let's not forget that the Serbian Četniks cooperated with the Italians, some then went on to collaborate with the Nazis and even the Ustaše. On the whole, the Četniks were every bit as brutal and murderous as the Nazis were. Which is one reason Tito purged many of them and kept a tight lid on their activities after the war. Then they became a favored tool of Milošević during the civil war.

I could go on, but this is getting very off topic. To sum up...

The world is not a black and white place where there is only good and only evil. Sometimes bad things are done by good people, less commonly good things are done by those who are evil. When trying to summarize a particular historical event to cultural tendency, it is important not to forget this. However, it is more important to not blur the distinction between good and bad too much. There is a difference between a guy who accidentally kills 7 people while driving drunk and someone who is part of an organized death squat who executes 7 people at close range. In both cases there are 7 people dead for bad reasons, but say the two people responsible are even remotely in the same moral category of good/evil is crazy.

Steve

[Aurelius]

Or better yet: a civilian dies in NATO peacekeeping operation- collateral damage. Civilian dies in Kosovo during operations led either by the police or army- war crime. If you really take a step back you'll see that there is no good or evil and that the ones proclaiming something as good or evil are trying to use as a tool.

 

 

 

Take your case to the ICC if you feel you can get some folks for war crimes, sounds like you have some great cases in mind.  Plenty of Croats and some Bosnian folks have wound up prosecuted too.  Just happens Serbians were the ones that went that extra mile in terms of atrocities.    

 

Or better yet a UN created Tribunal where there were some pretty hefty sentences. And thats just for the leadership. I was talking about the ones that did the killing- they were sentenced by our courts. Some cases are still ongoing. And then i take a look to the west and see a country that celebrates the day they forced every Serb they could get their hands on (about a thousand or so were killed in their homes) out of the country. Doesn't that constitute a humanitarian crisis or maybe even a crime against humanity (part of ethnic cleansing is forced relocation)?

Edited May 14, 2015 by Aurelius

[Nerdwing]

Thats a very strange interpretation of Martin Luther King's day!

[Aurelius]

Some irony people talking about 'ethnic self-determination' and Putin's Russia in the same breath. I suppose Cossack underworld bar flies deserve to have their own independent fascistic state... in eastern Ukraine.

They don't. Neither do "Kosovars".

[VasFURY]

Panzer wrote:

 

"Contrast this to the Russian army which can give locusts a run for it's money, if locusts could rape and install puppet governments.  That's actually rather another reason I strongly dislike the Russian military, it's like having another company that does what you do, only sans morality, decency, and gloats about how it gets away with a lack of either.  Which almost loops back onto the topic, it's why I hate the Russian "victory" day parades.  They're in effect celebrating the nightmare they brought through Eastern Europe, the Stalinist oppression of thousands of innocent people, and the systematic rape and looting of anything with a correctly sized set of holes, or that could fit on a train back to Moscow.  It's like if the US Army had a "Wounded Knee Victory Parade" or the Brits held a festival to celebrate the first use of the maxim gun on indigenous people.  Then pair it with being a celebration of a return to Russian militarism and it just honestly gets sort of sick in that regard."  

 

Panzer, you just gotta look at Russia as a country that is going through the cycles that all other major countries went through 100-400 years ago (sort of, delayed evolution). What you describe, is exactly the same as what the British or the French did to their colonies. Or what the young (first founded) Americans did to the Indians or the African slaves. Russian people themselves are people who have been enslaved for hundreds of years by the Mongol-Tatars, then by the Imperialist Tsarism, then by the corrupted "freedom" of Communism, then by the Mafiosi of the 90's, and now by the current dictatorship. This, and the huge population losses of two world wars and the subsequent Stalinist repressions, has really made the people "bitter". I know its not an excuse, but Russia (well, certainly Russian mentality) has not evolved as quickly as the rest of the civilized world. You can still sort of consider it as a, maybe not 3rd world country, but definitely 2.5 world country. I feel that for my homeland to reach similar levels of Morality as is exhibited right now in the West, it will take about 50-100 or so years, and a few regime changes. 

 

HAVING SAID THAT, I believe that Russians actually need a strong Dictator leader at the present moment, because without one, the country will just return back to the 90s, with various fragments of society all vying for power through dubious means. 

 

Regarding the Victory Day parade celebrations - you got it wrong mate. Its like saying that you guys celebrate 4th of July Independence day as a celebration of all the pillaging your nation did in its birth, and then got away with it by cutting ties to "civilized" european "motherlands". Russians celebrate Victory day, because 20 or so million people died in WW2, and about 2million in WW1. The looting/raping/oppression of Eastern states is a by-product of a harsh and severe attitude that was exerted onto Russians during the Nazi advance. My Grandmother on my Father's side was raped by Fashist Poles (she is from Western ukraine). My Nanny, from when I lived in St. Petersburg in my infancy,  was captured by the Norwegians and mutilated during the 300 day blockade of Leningrad. And there are MILLIONS of stories like that. How do you think the Husbands, Fathers, Brothers of such women would react, when bitterness is deep in their soul and they are finally pushing back into the lands of the invaders? There you go. 

 

You Americans have never experienced such loss/terror/anguish, because all your wars of the last 100 years are far away from home. Don't judge Russians for their attitude, because there is A LOT of history that got them to this attitude. 

 

Of course, the flip side, is that - this was 70 years ago, Russians should move on, let go of the bitterness, forgive and forget so to say, act more "honourable" etc. like the rest of the world is, become friendly with neighbours, etc etc. I dont know. I see that the African population of certain cities in the US is definitely still bitter about certain circumstances that used to happen more than 150 years ago (before slavery was abolished in the States). I mean heck, they BUILT your country and its economy, but yet probably more than half of them live much worse off than a poor Russian family currently lives (and I have been to the States many times, so I do know what I'm talking about). 

 

So, not to take a bite at you or anything with the above, but Russians are a proud people (maybe not noble, but definitely very proud), who respect their past/history, celebrate the memory of the forefathers, like to flex their muscle (even when its made out of cardboard), think the rest of the world is out to get them (not just because of state propaganda, but because of the lessons taught by history), and will continue to do whatever the hell they want until either (a) they are knocked on the head (internally or externally), or ( throgh the years they travel west more, see how the rest of the world lives, and try to bring good moral principles back to their homeland for improvement. They definitely do not view the Americans or the States as anything that should provide them with a good moral compass (you guys have been ridiculing Russia waaay to much in the past - Hollywood et al, which just adds to the Russian's "bitterness"). They do view Germany and the UK in quite high regard, as well as Finland/Sweden.

 

Oh, almost forgot to say, regarding the behaviour of the current Russian Military - you gotta remember that the RF military has not fought alongside any of the Western militaries against a common enemy in like, ever? I think for the Russian Military, in order to act in the "morally correct" way that you describe, would need to be deployed somewhere along side Western forces, so as to learn from their behaviour, emulate it, and garner respect from their comrades in arms for emulating such behaviour. I mean, isnt this how you guys became so "polite" while waging war? Because you did it alongside the French and the Brits, who would say - Oi, you there Sir, why are you acting like that to those poor farmers? It must be a psychological thing - if you are criticized for your behaviour from the OUTSIDE, then the Russian troops are like - whatever, youre not here, dont tell us what to do and what not to do. Whereas, if your troops are next to theirs, pinned in an arty bombard, losing comrades in arms equally, and then if the Russians start abusing the residents of a village that you both have just stormed, and you say - dude, thats wrong - they may listen to you closer, because they wont want to look bad in the eyes of their comrades in arms.