5 ms·

The U.S. War on Yugoslavia [video]

25 points by spaceheater 4y ago

formerly_proven 4y ago
CW: Michael Parenti inside
ermir 4y ago
If it was not for American intervention in Kosovo in 1999 my entire extended family would probably be refugees or dead. Fuck these leftist “anti-imperialists” that hate the west so much they resort to genocide apologia and love affairs with Milosevic and his type.
- xdennis 4y ago
  Yeah, so instead the Serbs became refugees and dead and most of the Christian history of Kosovo was wiped out under the watch of the Americans[1][2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritage_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritag...
  - roundandround 4y ago
    These kinds of arguments seem very similar to the Israelis arguments with their occupation of Palestine.. The numbers on one side are 10-100 times higher than the other, with one group having losses so high it is mere statistics while every loss by the other is mourned individually. As for religious artifacts, I find the whole concept of institutional Christianity a mockery of the Jesus from the bible. It is hard to imagine Jesus in a world where Rome remade it's coins with his picture accepting his new role and mocking the downtrodden while crying if they take revenge on the boots of the establishment.
hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
Take it with a grain of salt as the issue is a very emotional one for me. Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades. Why? It was painful to see the spiral of hate in action. Someone from one side killed a child, then someone from the other side killed a family. At this point the whole action was in rage. There was nobody who could stop the hate. Plus a million of other factors like who is dominating, who is controlling the media, religious issues, etc. A big mess. The UN mission was a total failure. An then, after NATO bombings, the war stopped. Yes, it was wrong. Yes, they were afraid of flying low and killed civilians. But they never said it was good, everybody knew it was bad and immediately they set up a fund and help program for the victims. Was there any other way to end this war? If so, please tell me.
- xdennis 4y ago
  There could have been a UN intervention. Instead, NATO intervened, forever tarnishing it's reputation as a defensive alliance. It could have stopped there, but instead they set up a system that allowed the destruction of Christianity in Kosovo[1] and unilateral declaration of independence despite the fact that UN peace resolution[2] reaffirmed the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia. That was later used by Russia to steal Crimea. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo
  - VincentEvans 4y ago
    There would’ve never been a UN intervention, because UN is not an organization realistically capable of taking meaningful action - as it currently stands, whatever was the original intention at inception - it is now not much more than a forum to exchange political statements.
    - 0dayz 3y ago
      You the in peacekeeping forces that was literally targeted by the Serbs?
      - VincentEvans 3y ago
        I don’t mean to say that UN is not capable of ANY action, but rather increasingly not capable of the scope of action that is meaningful in my view. Also, I think the impotence of the UN is a recent and progressing phenomenon. That is to say that its possible it was more capable and willing to act in the 90ies and progressively became less so since.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    If Rwanda hadn't happened, I would have believed this could be a feasible solution.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London.
0dayz 4y ago
Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone). I've to this day not heard a single good argument from the "anti-imperialists" of what the world should have done after multiple attempts with large peace treaties being violated. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czQrU0OPIR8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czQrU0OPIR8 Here's a much better video showing the time line.
- imiric 4y ago
  > Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone). That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of 6 Balkan countries, didn't exist anymore in 1999. But the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of Serbia and Montenegro, existed between 1992 and 2003. Colloquially, they're both referred to as Yugoslavia, and it's clear from the date and context which one is referenced. > Here's a much better video showing the time line. I haven't seen the video from the OP yet, but this one from Johnny Harris, while slick and well produced, refers to SFR Yugoslavia being communist. It was actually a more liberal form of socialism (the S in SFRY) than communist USSR countries ever enjoyed. Tito famously established the Non-Aligned Movement of countries that rejected both Western and Eastern influence. Overall, it gets many things right, but my history knowledge in the period isn't great to fact-check what else it got wrong.
  - 0dayz 4y ago
    >That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong. I'm sorry but you don't see the irony of saying my point is "pedantic" and then you go well ashctually. And even if we skip past that I'm not wrong since I said de facto not de jure (which even then you are wrong, _socialist_ federal republic is not the same as federal republic, that's like saying USSR is the same as modern day Russia). The video is about the war not the state, since the war didn't happen during titos reign. Hence why I think you can gloss over the oversimplification.

25 points by spaceheater 4y ago

CW: Michael Parenti inside

If it was not for American intervention in Kosovo in 1999 my entire extended family would probably be refugees or dead. Fuck these leftist “anti-imperialists” that hate the west so much they resort to genocide apologia and love affairs with Milosevic and his type.

xdennis 4y ago
Yeah, so instead the Serbs became refugees and dead and most of the Christian history of Kosovo was wiped out under the watch of the Americans[1][2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritage_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritag...
- roundandround 4y ago
  These kinds of arguments seem very similar to the Israelis arguments with their occupation of Palestine.. The numbers on one side are 10-100 times higher than the other, with one group having losses so high it is mere statistics while every loss by the other is mourned individually. As for religious artifacts, I find the whole concept of institutional Christianity a mockery of the Jesus from the bible. It is hard to imagine Jesus in a world where Rome remade it's coins with his picture accepting his new role and mocking the downtrodden while crying if they take revenge on the boots of the establishment.

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago

Take it with a grain of salt as the issue is a very emotional one for me. Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades. Why? It was painful to see the spiral of hate in action. Someone from one side killed a child, then someone from the other side killed a family. At this point the whole action was in rage. There was nobody who could stop the hate. Plus a million of other factors like who is dominating, who is controlling the media, religious issues, etc. A big mess. The UN mission was a total failure. An then, after NATO bombings, the war stopped. Yes, it was wrong. Yes, they were afraid of flying low and killed civilians. But they never said it was good, everybody knew it was bad and immediately they set up a fund and help program for the victims. Was there any other way to end this war? If so, please tell me.

xdennis 4y ago
There could have been a UN intervention. Instead, NATO intervened, forever tarnishing it's reputation as a defensive alliance. It could have stopped there, but instead they set up a system that allowed the destruction of Christianity in Kosovo[1] and unilateral declaration of independence despite the fact that UN peace resolution[2] reaffirmed the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia. That was later used by Russia to steal Crimea. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_unrest_in_Kosovo
- VincentEvans 4y ago
  There would’ve never been a UN intervention, because UN is not an organization realistically capable of taking meaningful action - as it currently stands, whatever was the original intention at inception - it is now not much more than a forum to exchange political statements.
  - 0dayz 3y ago
    You the in peacekeeping forces that was literally targeted by the Serbs?
    - VincentEvans 3y ago
      I don’t mean to say that UN is not capable of ANY action, but rather increasingly not capable of the scope of action that is meaningful in my view. Also, I think the impotence of the UN is a recent and progressing phenomenon. That is to say that its possible it was more capable and willing to act in the 90ies and progressively became less so since.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  If Rwanda hadn't happened, I would have believed this could be a feasible solution.
hulitu 4y ago
> Had NATO not intervened, we would have had another Middle East perennial war for decades And just like in Middle East the reason for unrest are to be find in Washington and London.

0dayz 4y ago

Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone). I've to this day not heard a single good argument from the "anti-imperialists" of what the world should have done after multiple attempts with large peace treaties being violated. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czQrU0OPIR8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czQrU0OPIR8 Here's a much better video showing the time line.

imiric 4y ago
> Just the title feels misleading, Yugoslavia didn't exist in practical terms when Nato bombed Serbia (Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia was de facto gone). That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of 6 Balkan countries, didn't exist anymore in 1999. But the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the union of Serbia and Montenegro, existed between 1992 and 2003. Colloquially, they're both referred to as Yugoslavia, and it's clear from the date and context which one is referenced. > Here's a much better video showing the time line. I haven't seen the video from the OP yet, but this one from Johnny Harris, while slick and well produced, refers to SFR Yugoslavia being communist. It was actually a more liberal form of socialism (the S in SFRY) than communist USSR countries ever enjoyed. Tito famously established the Non-Aligned Movement of countries that rejected both Western and Eastern influence. Overall, it gets many things right, but my history knowledge in the period isn't great to fact-check what else it got wrong.
- 0dayz 4y ago
  >That's needlessly pedantic, and wrong. I'm sorry but you don't see the irony of saying my point is "pedantic" and then you go well ashctually. And even if we skip past that I'm not wrong since I said de facto not de jure (which even then you are wrong, _socialist_ federal republic is not the same as federal republic, that's like saying USSR is the same as modern day Russia). The video is about the war not the state, since the war didn't happen during titos reign. Hence why I think you can gloss over the oversimplification.