4 ms·

Your analysis makes a lot of sense. But do NATO air forces other than the USAF have AWACS aircraft? I am not taking sides here, but do note that a soldier does

by TriinT 17y ago

Your analysis makes a lot of sense. But do NATO air forces other than the USAF have AWACS aircraft? I am not taking sides here, but do note that a soldier does what he is told. As far as I know, Zoltan did not murder any civilians. He was simply defending his country against an act of aggression. Given the atrocities committed by the Serbs, the aggression initiated by NATO may or may not have been justified. I will abstain from moral issues here. Last but not least: do note that Zoltan is of Hungarian (not Serbian) ethnicity, and Hungarians are not Slavs. I doubt he was ideologically aligned with Milosevic.

miked 17y ago
But do NATO air forces other than the USAF have AWACS aircraft? Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Cont... ...do note that a soldier does what he is told. As far as I know, Zoltan did not murder any civilians. US military personnel needn't obey all orders, only lawful orders. Zoltan wasn't just obeying orders, he was working overtime to support human slaughter. He was simply defending his country against an act of aggression. I really don't know what to say to that. If someone breaks into your home and begins killing and raping your family, and you fight back, is the attacker "defending himself against an act of aggression?"
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  " If someone breaks into your home and begins killing and raping your family, and you fight back, is the attacker "defending himself against an act of aggression?"" Your analogy is confusing. The Serbs didn't break into American homes and rape/kill anyone. So how exactly was the US "fighting back"? From the Serbian viewpoint, the USA could be seen as the party "breaking in" and killing civilians from the air (sure "collateral damage", but when it is your family beneath the rubble, I am sure it is a fine distinction) and the Serbs as the ones "fighting back". " he was working overtime to support human slaughter." A lot of non Americans believe this is precisely what US soldiers did (Vietnam) and do (Iraq / Afghanistan). I am not taking positions on who is "right", but this is why politics should be avoided on HN if possible - arguments on politics and religion can circle endlessly with no useful conclusion.
- TriinT 17y ago
  Following that line of thought, any grad student whose research is funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) is working overtime to support human slaughter, too. Or is kosher to kill civilians just as long as it's the USAF doing it? Do you want me to go search how many Vietnamese civilians were killed by U.S. military personnel who were merely following "lawful orders"? What is a "lawful order to kill"? One that is according to the ROE? Justified or not, NATO's attack was an act of aggression, by definition of aggression. No need to play semantics here. Go tell the civilians in Novi Sad (which is ethnically Hungarian) that destroying their city was justified because of what ethnical Serbs were doing in Kosovo. Go read a bit about the rich and convoluted history of the Balkans, because your black & white view of the world is a bit fuzzy.
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    > Or is kosher to kill civilians just as long as it's the USAF doing it? Sadly, that describes the NATO position very well. There are "worthy victims" and "unworthy victims." Victims of our allies are "unworthy": if Isreal, Turkey, or some banana owned by the CIA is killing, then we never hear about it who died, we don't know their names, we don't see interviews on CNN with grieving relatives. If it is our enemies' killing anyone, then the victims become automatically "martirs" and we hear their personal stories, we know their names and watch the grieving families on TV. > No need to play semantics here. Propaganda is all about redefinition of words and skewing of semantics. Clinton administration did a remarcable job with propagnda during the war in Bosnia. All the little pseudo-intellectual lapdogs at the time were writing in their little foreign policy journals how we entered into a new era, where US is a beacon of freedom and hope, and from now on we'll only have wars with pure humanitarian reasons.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  According to that link you posted, there are two meanings to AWACS, one to indicate the general principle and one to indicate the Boeing/Westinghouse system which is exclusively deployed by America and Japan. I doubt that it was a Japanese plane in use there (though theoretically it could be). The F117 is exclusively operated by the US air force.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    NATO operates AWACS as Joint participants. It's the exact same aircraft. The UK also operates the exact same aircraft.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Flown by pilots other than Americans ? Under anything other than American chain of command ?
      - run4yourlives 17y ago
        Yes. France and Saudi too. Wikipedia is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry
        jacquesm 17y ago
        Interesting, I never knew that. The Geilenkirchen airforce base is about 3 Km from my house, I can see the AWACS planes take off with some regularity, all of them have American markings.
        run4yourlives 17y ago
        The NATO ones based there shouldn't have American markings, they should look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nato_awacs.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nato_awacs.jpg I went for a walk in a British one at the Abbotsford Airshow this summer (all UK crew), and I know the NATO ones can have Canadian pilots and Radar ops. The US does operate the E-3's as a part of their Air Force as well, but the NATO ones are not American.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  US military personnel needn't obey all orders, only lawful orders. Zoltan wasn't just obeying orders, he was working overtime to support human slaughter Seriously? You've basically vilified every soldier that has ever served in the history of any army ever.
- igrekel 17y ago
  Anthropomorphism of regions, nationalities of states in a conflict is a very very bad way to look at things clearly. Thee is not always a clear line between all these groups. Not everyone in these groups thought the same, not everyone in these groups had the same information or perception. It may be simple, its often used for political or manipulation purposes because it is emotionally charged but it is never an accurate way to assess the situation. And it annoys me very much.

by TriinT 17y ago

miked 17y ago

But do NATO air forces other than the USAF have AWACS aircraft? Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Cont... ...do note that a soldier does what he is told. As far as I know, Zoltan did not murder any civilians. US military personnel needn't obey all orders, only lawful orders. Zoltan wasn't just obeying orders, he was working overtime to support human slaughter. He was simply defending his country against an act of aggression. I really don't know what to say to that. If someone breaks into your home and begins killing and raping your family, and you fight back, is the attacker "defending himself against an act of aggression?"

plinkplonk 17y ago
" If someone breaks into your home and begins killing and raping your family, and you fight back, is the attacker "defending himself against an act of aggression?"" Your analogy is confusing. The Serbs didn't break into American homes and rape/kill anyone. So how exactly was the US "fighting back"? From the Serbian viewpoint, the USA could be seen as the party "breaking in" and killing civilians from the air (sure "collateral damage", but when it is your family beneath the rubble, I am sure it is a fine distinction) and the Serbs as the ones "fighting back". " he was working overtime to support human slaughter." A lot of non Americans believe this is precisely what US soldiers did (Vietnam) and do (Iraq / Afghanistan). I am not taking positions on who is "right", but this is why politics should be avoided on HN if possible - arguments on politics and religion can circle endlessly with no useful conclusion.
TriinT 17y ago
Following that line of thought, any grad student whose research is funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) is working overtime to support human slaughter, too. Or is kosher to kill civilians just as long as it's the USAF doing it? Do you want me to go search how many Vietnamese civilians were killed by U.S. military personnel who were merely following "lawful orders"? What is a "lawful order to kill"? One that is according to the ROE? Justified or not, NATO's attack was an act of aggression, by definition of aggression. No need to play semantics here. Go tell the civilians in Novi Sad (which is ethnically Hungarian) that destroying their city was justified because of what ethnical Serbs were doing in Kosovo. Go read a bit about the rich and convoluted history of the Balkans, because your black & white view of the world is a bit fuzzy.
- rdtsc 17y ago
  > Or is kosher to kill civilians just as long as it's the USAF doing it? Sadly, that describes the NATO position very well. There are "worthy victims" and "unworthy victims." Victims of our allies are "unworthy": if Isreal, Turkey, or some banana owned by the CIA is killing, then we never hear about it who died, we don't know their names, we don't see interviews on CNN with grieving relatives. If it is our enemies' killing anyone, then the victims become automatically "martirs" and we hear their personal stories, we know their names and watch the grieving families on TV. > No need to play semantics here. Propaganda is all about redefinition of words and skewing of semantics. Clinton administration did a remarcable job with propagnda during the war in Bosnia. All the little pseudo-intellectual lapdogs at the time were writing in their little foreign policy journals how we entered into a new era, where US is a beacon of freedom and hope, and from now on we'll only have wars with pure humanitarian reasons.
jacquesm 17y ago
According to that link you posted, there are two meanings to AWACS, one to indicate the general principle and one to indicate the Boeing/Westinghouse system which is exclusively deployed by America and Japan. I doubt that it was a Japanese plane in use there (though theoretically it could be). The F117 is exclusively operated by the US air force.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  NATO operates AWACS as Joint participants. It's the exact same aircraft. The UK also operates the exact same aircraft.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Flown by pilots other than Americans ? Under anything other than American chain of command ?
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      Yes. France and Saudi too. Wikipedia is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        Interesting, I never knew that. The Geilenkirchen airforce base is about 3 Km from my house, I can see the AWACS planes take off with some regularity, all of them have American markings.
        run4yourlives 17y ago
        The NATO ones based there shouldn't have American markings, they should look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nato_awacs.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nato_awacs.jpg I went for a walk in a British one at the Abbotsford Airshow this summer (all UK crew), and I know the NATO ones can have Canadian pilots and Radar ops. The US does operate the E-3's as a part of their Air Force as well, but the NATO ones are not American.
run4yourlives 17y ago
US military personnel needn't obey all orders, only lawful orders. Zoltan wasn't just obeying orders, he was working overtime to support human slaughter Seriously? You've basically vilified every soldier that has ever served in the history of any army ever.
igrekel 17y ago
Anthropomorphism of regions, nationalities of states in a conflict is a very very bad way to look at things clearly. Thee is not always a clear line between all these groups. Not everyone in these groups thought the same, not everyone in these groups had the same information or perception. It may be simple, its often used for political or manipulation purposes because it is emotionally charged but it is never an accurate way to assess the situation. And it annoys me very much.