102. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 1:39 PM PT
Nobody answered my question earlier:
Is the Aurora a fighter or a recon plane? Stone said recon, but I thought it was our top-top-top secret nex gen fighter.
103. vonKreedon - March 26, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
Boba - The rumor that I heard is that Aurora refers to the pulse jet propulsion system, rather than to a specific role for a specific plane. This rumor is that "Aurora" is a testbed for the new propulsion technology.
104. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 1:48 PM PT
The Aurora is supposed, from what I understand, to be a recon bird. A field observer for Jane's supposedly saw one out over the North Sea, flanked by two fighters and with a bomber ahead of it (some of the rumours go that the Aurora is unmanned, because it is capable of speeds and Gs that will flat out kill). The only other hard evidence of the Aurora is that one line entry into a Congressional budget, and a recorded series of *ultra*-powerful sonic booms out West near the bases they used to test the 71 and the F-117.
According to the Jane's observer (who drew what he saw) the Aurora (unless it was some *other* top-secret stealth craft he saw) is wedge-shaped, with twin engines and almost no tail if any at all. It's black, too.
You hear a lot of craziness about the craft, though -- evidently a lot of talk about it floats around the armed forces. Some people claim that the technology used inside the Aurora came from a UFO crash site. Othersw say it can come to a complete stop mid-air, from *Mach* *5*, in a very short distance -- with stuff like this floating around, it's hard to say what's reliable information.
105. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
Message #103
That's one of the things floating around. The fringe just looks at such a claim as a red herring, but it seems as reasonable to me as anything I've heard.
106. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
"Some people claim that the technology used inside the Aurora came from a UFO crash site."
Well, of course! All Skunkworks projects utilize pieces of the UFO at Area 51. I thought that much was obvious.
107. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
BTW, I have a book on unmanned aircraft. It has a couple of chapters on Skunkworks. One of the pictures shows an engineer writing on a blackboard and at the end of the line he writes AREA 51 (underlined, exclamation point).
The caption is "Proof that Area 51 exists?"
Makes you think, ay?
PS: This is a joke. Do not tell me that Area 51 exists and this is widely known. Do not tell me that it is involved with the development and testing of experimental planes. I know. Joke.
108. cmboyce - March 26, 1999 - 2:52 PM PT
There does indeed seem to be very little on this thread about the putative question, "Should this be happening?" probably because it's difficult (if possible) to consider it amid the noise and smoke of battle, etc. One way of dealing with this is to focus on the hardware. But more important, I think, is that the basic groundwork for a decision has never been done. LThe question really is: should the developed countries, or the West, or the US, or whichever is politically and economically most capable, be policing the world? Milosevic is a thug; Saddam Hussein is a thug and a con man; etc.etc. And new instances will arise. In a hypothetical future world-confederation or some such, this would be a simple matter of criminal law and these guys wd be treated like drug lords—perhaps with no more success but without any questions arising about the legitimacy of the effoorts to control them. But there is no such confederacy, no such authority. Shall the authority be exercised avant la lettre? Perhaps the one-world state can evolve from such presumption. And the democratic west certainly seems the right outfit to undertake the job, and be the Wyatt Earp of the new frontier... But so far, we're not very good at; there exists no police academy. A consequence is that lots of Iraqi babies have malnutrition, lots of Kosovar civilians are taking it in the chops today and for the foreseeable future, etc.
I don't know if this tack—the bombing—will prove out or not. Catastrophe certainly seems more likely than unalloyed success, but probably something in between will obtain. I just hope that at the end (should there occur some interval that may be so designated) the question of international policing will get its proper attention. This ad hoc stuff is clearly unsatisfactory.
109. BTerry - March 26, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
All I know is, Clinton is probably thanking God that so many people in Kosovo are being slaughtered. What an excellent wagging opportunity he has. Ain't evil grand?!
110. Seguine - March 26, 1999 - 3:04 PM PT
"In a hypothetical future world-confederation or some such, this would be a simple matter of criminal law and these guys wd be treated like drug lords¶perhaps with no more success but without any questions arising about the legitimacy of the effoorts to control them."
Gee, it sounds so simple. I guess we can count on there being no disagreements in World Confederation Parliament about who is a "drug lord" and who is the leader of a persecuted minority with the right to see his people's nationalist dreams materialized. And, of course, in a World Confederation all decisions will be made objectively, as the national interests of confederates won't ever inflect their judgments. Thus, no legitimacy issues will arise.
111. cmboyce - March 26, 1999 - 3:43 PM PT
The hypothetical state is merely hypothetical. The real one will present that issue in some sort of formal terms, ie, legislation. But the qu "who is a "drug
lord" and who is the leader of a persecuted minority with the right to see his people's nationalist dreams materialized" is indeed just the one that is currently answered when we observe that Milosevic is a thug and the Serbs genocidal gangsters etc. So I guess NATO is taking on the role I was suggesting. As for "people's nationalist dreams", I hope that such notions will be as criminal—not a metaphor—as was South Carolina's secession.
112. ChristinO - March 26, 1999 - 3:45 PM PT
Seguine,
Easy, we set up the "World Council" on it's own island raise the members from eggs without nationalist ties so they can be impartial in their decisions and then have every nation sign a pact that if anyone moves against the WC the rest of the world can bomb the crap out of them in retaliation.
Next?
Okay, kidding aside I have a possibly irrelevant question about body counts. Possibly irrelevant because maybe the body count doesn't matter, but I don't really know.
Anyway, I read somewhere that the death count for ethnic Albanians at the hands of the Serbs is at about 2000. In all of this bombing has there been a death toll? Is this at all important?
Somehow I know this isn't going to come out right and I know that the atrocities committed are not at all negligible even without death, but if 2000 people are dead and we are now bombing the perpetrators of that crime.....uhm, do we have a quota? Is this even a consideration?
113. cmboyce - March 26, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
Very droll, S & C. (## 110 & 112) I esp like the eggs. So: forget abt the World Council, an ill-considered image, intended only to stand beside my point for dramatic effect. The said point is: the bombing of Serbia is an instance of vigilante justice. This is not to say it should not be done. Nor that it should. Just wanted to see if the thread contained interest in it, as opposed to color commentary for the jet-jockey fans.
114. cmboyce - March 26, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
Seguine, the point you are getting at with yr question, or at least that I am taking from it, is just what I'm getting at. How to construct parameters that justify, or not, occasions such as this. Not that simple arithmetic does it, but quantification at least permits one to _look_ at the balance betw options without conceding all to "national interests".
115. ChristinO - March 26, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
cmboyce,
I apologize if I offended you. I truly didn't meant to. I like many aspects of the idea of a World Council, but I don't believe it is feasible and even if it were I don't know that it would be a good thing. It's a huge question. My flippancy was prompted by the vastness of the idea rather than by the concept itself.
116. cmboyce - March 26, 1999 - 5:30 PM PT
ChristinO,
No offense taken. I feel much the same way abt the prospect of a "World Council" (though were it feasible, I _wd_ think it a good thing; at least as good as, say, Tito's Yugoslavia, or maybe even Daley's Chicago) (or Earp's Dodge City). I just want to read Frayster opinion on the balance of ethical and practical issues that I take to be the subject matter of the thread. I've been lurking for a month or so now—since getting a modem and finding the vasty wastes of c-space—and reading all the archives etc. and I certainly did not expect to arrive late and not be sassed. Thank you for considering my response; I know this is not SOP.
But I figure I can converse here. And the morality (& _reliability_) of gunboat diplomacy in the 21st century, and the place of post-Yugo politics in anyone's consideration of internationalism and the way the nations are relating in the wake of 1989, seem better topics, at least given the circumstances on TV (and the ostensible purpose of this thread), than the payload capacity and administrative status of various airplanes. I thought I'd start contributing to the Fray by observing as much.
117. ChristinO - March 26, 1999 - 5:35 PM PT
cmboyce,
That's partly the reason I'm asking about body counts. If 2000 Albanians are dead and we bomb the Serbs over it are we then deserving of bombs once we reach a comparable body count? I have a feeling this is not so much about individual lives as it is about the idea of genocide.
118. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT
In 'civilian' policing operations we have come to accept that they can only be carried out with acceptance of those being policed.
A principle accepted in the distinction between a peacekeeping force and a peacemaking force.
Can anyone think of a peacemaking operation (even one carried out before the words were invented) which did not mean the occupation abd control by force of the area in which peace was being made?
This then creates an area in which a battle for hearts and minds can be carried out.
Do we have the conditions in yugoslovia were even if occupied we could hope to win a battle for hearts and minds?
If not all we are doing is adding killing by us to killing by all the others. Pehaps it will take place over a longer period of time, perhaps it will corrupt sections of us (Ireland/UK, Algeria/France, Lebanon?Israel etc etc).
The demoralising conclusion is we standby and wring our good intentions while several thousand people die.
119. cmboyce - March 26, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
Several thousand more are dying as we act on good intentions. Moreover, those intentions are pretty questionable anyway: were it not for "Greece and Turkey" I believe Clinton et al wd cluck cluck as though this were Rwanda. Some (more or less) universally accepted procedures need to be devised. Terrorize yr non-standard citizens with fire & sword? Anticipate having yr neighbors act _seriously_ to close yr borders, etc. Now this doesn't seem _altogether_ effective (thoiugh certainly Geo. Bush made no serious effort to try it in 1991), and too the non-standard citizens may not benefit in the short run, to say no more, but it avoids war while buying time to permit the Slobo in question to negotiate a plea bargain or something. If he doesn't, of course, then push may come to shove, but *it hasn't been tried*.
I rather liked Clinton's combo of little bitty steps and masterly inaction in this part of the world, for quite a while. I think that now he feels obliged to tough it out as much as he feels offended by genocide. Monica, or rather, Ken, has not been uninfluential here.
Wagging, indeed, BTerry.
120. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 6:16 PM PT
Was the masterful inaction Clinton's policy or european inability or realpolitic by both Europe and USA?
Kissinger's book 'Diplomacy' as I remember my intepretation of its thesis was the USA needed a moral purpose before it entered into realpolitcs. But that given that moral purpose it delivered the will to achieve its ends. (Trade negotiations were not addressed by Kissinger in his book,but the USA has pure self interest in this area.)
Are we seeing the USA working out the criteria for a moral purpose?
Somalia etc;
Iraq;
Kurds'
Breakup of Yugoslavia
121. xkennedy - March 26, 1999 - 6:17 PM PT
I would like the world to join me in saying one thing to the Wehrmacht that occupied Yugoslavia during WW2. Thank you! The World would be and will be a better place when there aren't any more Serbs.
Let us hasten that day.
122. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 6:25 PM PT
Xkennedy the problem with that sentiment is that we all belong to minorities about whom other groups are justified to hold your view about.
Perhaps you are deep green and want to see the end of the human species so that the world can get on with evolving without ethichs and morals.
123. Seguine - March 26, 1999 - 7:46 PM PT
"So: forget abt the World Council, an ill-considered image, intended only to stand beside my point for dramatic effect. The said point is: the bombing of Serbia is an instance of vigilante justice."
So now you're saying NATO is *not* taking on the role you proposed your hypothetical WC shoulder? And what do you mean, exactly, by "vigilante justice"?
Look, there aren't going to be any international parameters established for dealing with all conflicts. Not now, not until there's one gigantic world government, and thus, not ever. The Balkans are in some ways like the Middle East--but Serbia isn't Israel, the KLA is not the PLO. The middle east is like South Africa, or Northern Ireland--but Israel is not white Johannesburg or London, and the Palestinians are not black S. Africans or Irish nationalists. The Hutus perpetrated a genocide on the Tutsis, but the Hutus were not Nazis. Pol Pot was not Stalin. And not one civil war in the world today or in the last ten years has anything substantial in common with the American one.
Each situation is different--even ethnic hatred in a place like Kosovo is not precisely what it is in, say, Brooklyn (and it's a different animal again in Mississippi). You'll pardon my impatience, but I think drawing spurious analogies is not helpful, and frankly I'm fed up with the glut of them in public discourse.
Here's the issue: if Milosevic is not the sole or even the primary catalyst for his people's dreams of a greater Serbia, then the question must be, What percentage of Serbs are rabid nationalists, how well armed and/or determined are they, and in the event they can be subdued by some means, can the Kosovo Liberation Army be controlled as well?
No one knows the answer to this.
124. 109109 - March 26, 1999 - 8:04 PM PT
Those appear to be broader questions. For purposes of American foreign poliyc, they need not be answered. Rather, the following will suffice:
Is it our aim to stop the wholesale killing and displacement of civilians in Yugoslavia? (if so, we will need to ante up and commit ground troops, troops who will necessarily need to sit and stand for a long period of time, much as troops sit in Korea).
This is the only identifiable aim. Our involvement emboldens the status quo, and mere bombing, rather than exhibiting resolve, will, in the end, demonstrate our weakness and lack of resolve. One the first one hits the nursery, watch the policy crumple.
Remember, our foreign policy team barely could handle a bunch of retread leftists at an Ohio college.
125. Pseudoerasmus - March 26, 1999 - 8:09 PM PT
Actually, in many ways it's the Kosovar Albanians' rabid nationalism that is to blame. Despite silly and irresponsible comparisons with Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, Serbia is not a totalitarian state. It's certainly not a democratic one, but it does provide room for peaceful opposition and resistance to the government. Indeed, there is a strong organised opposition to Milosevic in Belgrade. (Or there was until the bombing campaign.) And Serbian Serbs are not quite Bosnian Serbs or Kosovo Serbs (i.e., rural hicks insecure about their ethnicity). So the Kosovo Albanians could have agitated for autonomy through peaceful means. But, no, they just had to get their independence through any means, right away. Let's face it: the Serbian security forces weren't committing abuses in Kosovo until the KLA started its terrorist campaign. In this respect, Serbia's policy in Kosovo is very like Russia's in Chechnya: a counterinsurgency campagin against an insurgency group turned brutal itself.
126. Pseudoerasmus - March 26, 1999 - 8:12 PM PT
The problem is that U.S. foreign policy is always driven by the last failure: in Korea, it was Munich; in Vietnam, it was Korea; in Kosovo, it's Bosnia. Well, Kosovo is not Bosnia. Bosnians were truly innocent; Kosovo Albanians are not quite.
127. 109109 - March 26, 1999 - 8:22 PM PT
PE
I agree with your analysis about U.S. foreign policy and the last failure, but woudl revise it just a little. It has mutated to undue influence by any failure because everything has been sold as no cost. The amount of civilians we might save in this operation (if any) pales in comparison to our last humanitarian venture - Somalia. But one dustup, an operational nightmare actually (I recommend David Hackworth's last book "Hazardous Duty" and the chapter on what went wrong with the Somalian operation) and a dragged body through the streets of Mogadishu, and we are out, gone, finished. Forget the hundreds of thousands being fed, that's a naked American body.
128. xkennedy - March 26, 1999 - 8:45 PM PT
If the Serbians can't get beyond something that was done to them 500 or 600 years ago, then the world is much better off without Serbs. I am quite serious. I think it would be better for all if we just expunged Serbs from Earth. I don't give one shit for what the Turks or the Germans did to them. All the eveidence is that they deserved it. I don't need one goddam serb to make my life complete. Let's kill them all and get on with our lives.
129. AuNaturel - March 26, 1999 - 8:52 PM PT
Methinks "xkennedy" is making a very poor attempt at a flame.
130. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 8:53 PM PT
What happens when you set out to draw attention to yourself by making calculatedly outrageous and offensive statements, but then everybody ignores you without a comment nor a ripple?
What do you do then?
131. 109109 - March 26, 1999 - 8:54 PM PT
Au
No. That's just the Old Milwaukee talking.
132. AuNaturel - March 26, 1999 - 8:55 PM PT
PE
Isn't much of the Kosovo enmmity towards Serbs due to a previously existing autonomy having been taken away by SM? I believe they then boycotted elections with the result that Serbs took control of everything. Then a passive resistance developed, then local Serbs responded with repression, then KLA and then everything escalated rather rapidly....
133. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 8:56 PM PT
Drudge red alert...
WASHINGTON POST SHOCKER: NATO MAY SEND IN GROUND TROOPS
The WASHINGTON POST is reporting that the deteriorating situation in Kosovo has prompted discussions among senior NATO and U.S. officials about the possibility of introducing U.S. and allied ground forces into the three-day-old air campaign against the Yugoslav military...
Courtesy of the drudge report.
134. 109109 - March 26, 1999 - 8:59 PM PT
Boba
Wrong thread, but I direct you to the Post story on the grand jury forewoman who "loves" Clinton but stated that she would have indicted for perjury. In the midst of the Dershowitzian byzantia over the President's grand jury testimony, it was refreshing to hear a regular grand juror say, "Yea. That was perjury."
135. 109109 - March 26, 1999 - 9:00 PM PT
Riggs
Reply, if you desire, in Politics.
136. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:02 PM PT
You're sayin I posted in the wrong thread? This is a story about Kosovo.
137. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:03 PM PT
Oh. *You're* posting in the wrong thread.
Who cares about the right thread?
138. 109109 - March 26, 1999 - 9:05 PM PT
The good cop. Remember? Rules, regulations, all that.
139. Seguine - March 26, 1999 - 9:05 PM PT
"Well, Kosovo is not Bosnia. Bosnians were truly innocent; Kosovo
Albanians are not quite."
Exactly. Which is why I doubt that Milosevic is the aforementioned sole catalyst. There's virtually NO attention paid in the US to the fact that Serbs in Kosovo might have a shred of a reason for regarding Kosovo Albanians as terrorists. Obviously, that's a poor excuse for dragging people out of their homes, executing school teachers & human rights lawyers, etc., but it puts the conflict in some kind of context that makes a modicum of sense.
I don't know whether there's been a story worth telling about the KLA for some time, and no one has done it, but if so that might have something to do with why the KLA was considered relatively insignificant as of a year ago, and now--SURPRISE.
140. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:06 PM PT
I go on my instincts. It's kept me alive so far.
That and my 92FS Berreta. One in the pipe, fifteen in the clip.
And my magic flute.
141. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:14 PM PT
Confirmed. The Washington Post is indeed NATO is considering the "possibility" of inserting US troops.
This is going to be a goddamned nightmare.
Bush prepared Iraq with what, twenty, thirty days of sustained bombing? Plus they had a whole goddamn plan drawn up months beforehand.
This dipshit's going to get people dead.
142. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 9:17 PM PT
Is the context which led to the abuse of human rights important criteria as to whether or not unacceptable human rights are occuring?
Is the context important as a criteria as to whether or not intervention will work?
An aside to BobaFett. My money would be on the 101st and their magic weed against you and your magic pipe.
143. 109109 - March 26, 1999 - 9:23 PM PT
Boba
As I said, the idea that bombing would make Miloslovic (sp?) a kinder, gentler fella is absurd. The sad fact is, I feel awful for these fucking guys if they actually have to go in under Clinton's command. The upside - he doesn't have the guts. He won't do it. Berger and Co. will drop a few more payloads, Holbrooke will have them sign a promise to fart at an accord in 9 months, and bingo . . . Albright will declare victory.
144. 109109 - March 26, 1999 - 9:24 PM PT
taust
Who cares the context? There are no strategic aims, thus, our normal manner of pegging a good guy or bad guy is lost to us. Moreover, I think it universally accepted that if the oppressed had the upper hand in Kosovo, they'd be knocking off the oppressors village by village as well.
145. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 9:29 PM PT
I would imagine intervention by ground troops has been wargamed extensively in all of the right places. Anyone know enough about the geopolitics to know whether a land invasion is on or would it have to be from the sea. Any reports of the gulf fleet units on the move?
146. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:31 PM PT
"An aside to BobaFett. My money would be on the 101st and their magic weed against you and your magic pipe."
People keep saying things to me I don't understand.
147. AuNaturel - March 26, 1999 - 9:33 PM PT
"This dipshit's going to get people dead."
Look on the bright side Boba. If they send in US troops to another Vietnam, Al Gore will have to defend these actions in the next election.
148. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 9:35 PM PT
Agreed no strategic aims ie USA existence is not at risk. But is US 'moral existence' at risk? ie US as world policeman. In which case do the police interfere in a 'domestic' dispute?
We can enforce a good economic order by money flow.
How do we enforce a good use of power by others ? By a flow of power?
149. 109109 - March 26, 1999 - 9:39 PM PT
taust
A point. Then, I sleep. The greatest laugh of all of this is the bait-and-switch as follows:
Okay, Kosovo isn't a major strategic or geopolitical interest, not is this area, nor do we know whether intervention will help or hurt.
But we must act.
Wht?
Because NATO credibility is at stake?
Who put it at stake?
We did.
Why?
See paragraph 2.
150. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 9:48 PM PT
I wish I was confident it does not boil down to NATO's credibility is at risk. I prefer to treat this as the 'back the team approach' to decisions to action and that the decision takers do have better reasons.
151. AuNaturel - March 26, 1999 - 9:48 PM PT
taust1:
Wargaming something like this thoroughly would take weeks if not months. My bet is they don't have the foggiest notion yet which countries will even allow their ground forces to send in or what effect the bombing has had. Bush spent a whole month softening up the Iraqis. The Serbs are in a much better defensive situation offering limited use for our adavantges in air and armor.
If Clinton sends in American troops while there is still real contention going on, it will guarentee a Republican sweep of Congress and the White House in 2000.
152. aldavis - March 26, 1999 - 9:52 PM PT
It's the same old story; wars occur when there is an imbalance of power. We would not be screwing around if USSR was extant and able to make us think twice. Now we are the only real world power, so we can do as we please. Oh yeah, we have a policy of not going after the head of a country, just the toes, feet, ankles, and all the rest, guts and all. Hell, I say, let the leaders of the countries work at knocking each other off and leave the poor feet alone.
153. Seguine - March 26, 1999 - 9:52 PM PT
"Those appear to be broader questions. For purposes of American foreign poliyc, they need not be answered. Rather, the following will suffice: Is it our aim to stop the wholesale killing and displacement of civilians in Yugoslavia? (if so, we will need to ante up and commit
ground troops, troops who will necessarily need to sit and stand for a
long period of time, much as troops sit in Korea)."
But who says that will work? The purposes of American foreign policy require that the "broader" questions be answered--and they're not really that broad.
The answer to your question--do we want to stop the wholesale slaughter--is, obviously, yes. But the salient question is: at what cost? How many Americans/much money/much time are we prepared to sacrifice in exchange for accomplishing a humanitarian goal?
There's no way you can estimate how many troops will be needed in the first place, let alone for how long, until you at least get a handle on whether the majority or a minority of a population is committed to aggression. I simply don't think the US has that figured out yet.
US military goals are heavily influenced by the potential for loss of American life. But that issue was at stake in the Gulf War, too, and Saddam's vaunted Republican Guard turned out to be a collection of half-trained slobs more interested in looting than fighting. I've heard that Serbian troops are also unwilling to fight, that commanders have had to resort to shelling their own units to get them to engage the Kosovar Albanian enemy (which is similarly beset with pacifism). That will change now that we're bombing their asses; and the KLA will be emboldened.
If we have no idea what the potential for (something like) peace is or was in the first place, but if our entry into the situation was guaranteed to galvanize the parties' desire for conflict, then your simple questions become intractable ones because there can be no basis for determi
154. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:55 PM PT
You know what's REALLY funny?
Clinton gave this speech informing us that the last two world wars were begun in the balkans (well, the second one didn't, but you know, it was a battleground).
So what does he suggest we do, with the Russians warning us of "extreme retalliation" if we bombed Serbia?
He starts a fucking war. A war which involves half of Western Eurpope and is vigorously opposed by Russia.
Now, fucking correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't WW2 start because the Austro-Hungarian empire was supporting one Balkans faction against the Serbs who were supported by Russia?
And didn't that fucking bring in Germany, France, and Britain, and then the USA?
And this is this Rhodes Scholar's plan to *avoid* another conflagration in Europe?
While the fucking Russians are meanwhile asking Belorus if they can move their tactical nuclear missiles there?
155. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:57 PM PT
Sorry, I meant, Didn't WWI start because...
Not WW2.
156. Seguine - March 26, 1999 - 9:57 PM PT
...for determining whether intervention will help or hurt more in the long run, no way to assess the potential success of a mission, no way to know what it might cost, and so there's no solid basis for policy whether you approve in the abstract of sending in ground troops or not.
157. aldavis - March 26, 1999 - 10:02 PM PT
Boba
The problem is that Clinton does not take Russia as a viable threat, although that is probably a mistake. We have no business messing in this civil war and will pay a big price for it, but who is going to take clinton on. the Dems won't and the Republicans are too afraid to go against military conflict, especially once it has started.
WWI,WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War were all started while Democrats controlled the government, and they are the party of peace. God help us if they were war like like the Republicans.
158. AuNaturel - March 26, 1999 - 10:03 PM PT
"We would not be screwing around if USSR was extant and able to make us think twice."
Yes. It is obvious we would never contemplate getting involved in a Vietnam-like quagmire if we had the USSR to worry about.
159. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 10:03 PM PT
What was that quote about those who do not read history are bound to repeat it.
So the cost is too high The US gets out It will not interfere in the domestic dispute even a European domestic dispute. History may have something to say about this approach to.
160. aldavis - March 26, 1999 - 10:09 PM PT
AuNatuaral
Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your voice?
161. AuNaturel - March 26, 1999 - 10:13 PM PT
"The problem is that Clinton does not take Russia as a viable threat."
At least he has that right. Russian troops are starving to death. The Russian government desparately needs western aid to avoid complete disintegration. Already they've backed off from Yeltsin's overreaction. The negotiations for more western loans will go on without interruption.
162. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 10:15 PM PT
Sequine I think you are too pessimistic. Provided you have on some basis for deciding in principle 'I want to become involved'; there are ways of planning the cost etc.
Still some problems the Powell response of 'it will need the whole USA armed forces' will be backed up by all the other military leaders in NATO (then if it goes wrong the civilains are the ones at fault they didnt commit enough early enough.... this latest would have turned out right if only ground forces had been commited from the start).
There is an obvious feedback between policy objective and cost. I suspect that's not the problem here; its getting consensus on whether there is a valid policy objective.
163. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 10:15 PM PT
You're quite right, Au. Desperate, chaotic countries are always peaceable and pliable.
164. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 10:22 PM PT
BobaFett. Now your Berratta and Magic flute are playing the right tune.
Russia remains a wild card in this situation. How many rounds do you need to down an incoming missile over Alaska; or is that what the magic flute is for?
165. AuNaturel - March 26, 1999 - 10:26 PM PT
"So the cost is too high The US gets out It will not interfere in the domestic dispute even a European domestic dispute."
Damned right we shouldn't There are far more Europeans than Americans. The EU has a larger economy than the US. Their combined military forces outnumber us on the land and in the air. Why do we end up putting in the majority of the firepower to separate a dog fight in *their* back yard?
Because we're suckers.
Maybe they should lead and we should follow. There's about as much chance of this becoming another continent spanning war as of Clinton taking a vow of chastity. There was a much better case for intervening in Bosnia. We didn't and feel guilty. Oh well.
The solution is to be sure both sides are adequately armed and let them have at it.
166. taust1 - March 26, 1999 - 11:18 PM PT
The USA, gets out arms the Europeans, making a lot of money in the process, then what ? I believe that while history never repeats itself we can learn from it and the USA has tried that approach before. Its problem is that it is a country with ideals. Are you going to give up your ideals orr only give them up as regards foreign countries ?
167. Trialshark - March 27, 1999 - 12:26 AM PT
I hear the Marine Corps has returned Capt Richard Ashby to flight status.
He's now flying missions over Yugoslavia, killing off-duty Serbian soldiers in groups of twenty.
168. pellenilsson - March 27, 1999 - 12:41 AM PT
PE Message #126
"Bosnians were truly innocent".
Come now. How can there be a civil war if everybody is innocent? Maybe you meant to write "Bosniaks" which is what the Bosnian Muslims call themselves.
169. rustlerpike - March 27, 1999 - 12:48 AM PT
And I say: if Clinton managed to survive Kenneth Starr, I trust his senses when it comes to Milosevic and Yeltsin.
I'm serious, you know: these things ultimately come down to what one senses, and to psychological warfare. Clinton seems like a darn smooth manipulator to me, and I figure he knows how to 'read' the situation and keep it under control. He seems to be the kind of person who acts on instinct (witness his amazing refusal to come in Monica Lewinsky's mouth; a sixth sense was telling him - 'don't do it, Bill!!! You can't control where the jism goes!!! Sperm contains DNA!!!'), and for some reason I trust he's got things sussed here, and the US will come out OK.
170. taust1 - March 27, 1999 - 1:03 AM PT
there are plenty of us who have shown more good sense than Bill in sexual matters who I would not trust with my future.
171. rustlerpike - March 27, 1999 - 2:06 AM PT
Taustl:
Well yes, I guess you're right. But that is a taustlology.
172. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 8:28 AM PT
UR Tax $ At Work - Defense Link Special "Operation Allied Force"
Send in the Turks!
173. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 8:30 AM PT
"Why do we end up putting in the
majority of the firepower to separate a dog fight in *their*
back yard?
Because we're suckers."
Because we're smart. We don't want to lose control over Europe, to leave them to their own devices only to bail them out later.
174. resonance - March 27, 1999 - 8:36 AM PT
Oh, excuse me, but the frickin' Russians aren't going to send a missile over the pole. Let's bring a note of reality into this. Rhetoric is rhetoric. Consider the American House of Representatives and some of the polemicists that have inhabited that building over the last fifty years.
And there's no reasonable way someone can construct a comparison between the Balkans in 1914 and the Balkans today, WRT the chances of initiating a world war. How is Russia to maintain combat against NATO? What does Russia have to gain by going to war with NATO? How many Russian generals are going to want to follow up on orders to engage the US and NATO, given the current morale of their troops?
And, what's more, why in the fucking world would Yeltsin want to put himself, his nation, and his leadership in that position?
175. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 8:39 AM PT
"Now, fucking correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't WW2
start because the Austro-Hungarian empire was supporting
one Balkans faction against the Serbs who were supported
by Russia?"
Not exactly but close. The Serbs were agitating in Bosnia, conducting terror ops against the Austrians. Austria didn't care about Balkan factions. They wanted to wipe out fanatical Serbian nationalism.
Further, an horrendous number of factors can be cited as immediate contributors to the start of WWI not the least of which are the intrigues of Amb Maurice Paleologue (sp) in Petersberg.
176. wardog - March 27, 1999 - 10:05 AM PT
So far no one has adequately explained just what we will do once the bombing is over. How does the US policy define success or failure? That question needs to be asked repeatedly, because until it is answered fully then we are just wasting our mlitary power. The NATO commander said we will keep bombing until there is no more military capabilit left, if necessary. OK, then what? Have we succeeded then, or is there still something left to do? If so, what? What does the US, NAT), the UN etc, want to see happen in the Balkans? And don't just answer with Peace! Peace is a dangerous concept, because it means different things to too many different people to have an relevancy. What government do we want in power? Who do we want to run it? What resources are we willing to put forward to make this happen? How will we know when we have succeeded, and how will we know if we have failed? At what point will we say it is too hard (as we did in Viet Nam) and back off?
Another point to consider: this is a Civil War. Why are we involved at all. We had our own Civil War to finally resolve the inherent inconsitencies in our Constitution. Would we have been very happy if another country had intervened and said stop fighting? Would we have the US that we do today? Was the pain and suffering of our Civil War any less than the one in the Balkans? Is it worse now because ours was in the 19th century and this is happening now? But sometimes wars do settle problems, even if you do not like the endstate. Outsiders will not be able to resolve the internal conflicts of a region by the very fact that they are outsiders.
177. pellenilsson - March 27, 1999 - 10:49 AM PT
jexter <masg num=173><BR><BR>"Because we're smart. We don't want to lose control over<BR> Europe, to leave them to their own devices only to bail them out later."<BR><BR>That's the best observation you've made so far.<BR><BR>"Amb Maurice Paleologue"? Please expand.
178. robertjayb - March 27, 1999 - 11:00 AM PT
jexster,
Thanks for the link inMessage #172.
179. BobaFett - March 27, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
I'm sure this couldn't possiby lead to a standoff or horrible accident:
Russia will render humanitarian aid to Yugoslavia.
MOSCOW, March 27 (Itar-Tass) - The Russian leadership "has decided to render humanitarian aid to Yugoslavia and its deliveries can be expected to begin shorly," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov stated here on Friday.
He noted that peaceful civilians were suffering from the NATO missile strikes and bombing raids on Yugoslavia, that hospitals were being destroyed and many people were wounded. All this calls for large quantities of medicines, field hospitals, and other aid.
"As to the problem of flying to Yugoslavia, we believe that there will be no country in Europe that will prevent aircraft with humanitarian aid on board from flying over its territory," the minister stated.
"I think," Ivanov added, "that it would be right if the other European countries and international organisation were to join this initiative to render such humanitarian aid. The Yugoslavian people are in plight, and we must help them.".
180. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 12:36 PM PT
HOORAY for the 509th Bomb Wing out of Whitman AFB!
2 B-2's with a total of 4 crew men in aircraft costing 4.4 million (including ground support) and delivering 30, 2000# GPS smart bombs produce comparable power to
15 aircraft (F15,16, Mirage, Tornado) plus suppression craft) with 45 crew costing 15 Billion.
181. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 12:41 PM PT
"So far no one has adequately explained just what we will
do once the bombing is over. How does the US policy
define success or failure?"
Sucess = just doing what we are doing right now.
Lagniappe (Cajun for something for nothing)
- Slob M. defeated
- No planes shot down
- NATO forces support KLA to guarantee autonomy of Kosovo
182. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
Confirming my prior geopolitical analyses re: the CIS, Robin Cook, UK foreign secty., reports that the UKRAINE is snubbing Yeltsin and doing all it can to persuade fellow Slav Slob M to sign Rambouillet accord.
Nuff said.
183. jadeGOLD - March 27, 1999 - 12:49 PM PT
Uh, Jex, I wouldn't want to rain on the B-2 parade, but the fact that they were deployed from Whitman points out an unmistable weakness. The fact that these aircraft weren't forward-deployed strongly indicates that they have lousy availabilty (reliability) numbers.
184. Pseudoerasmus - March 27, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
Message #132
"Isn't much of the Kosovo enmmity towards Serbs due to a previously existing autonomy having been taken away by SM?"
Kosovo's autonomy was removed in 1989, but time and time again Serbia has said that it had no permanent wish to rule Kosovo directly from Belgrade. All it wants is the control of security in Kosovo. This was the offer made in 1992 when Serbian leaders met with Ibrahim Rugova.
"I believe they then boycotted elections with the result that Serbs took control of everything."
You have it completely backward. The Kosovar Albanians staged a "shadow election" in 1992 and elected Rugova president, in defiance of Serbian authority. (In the previous year, I believe, some local assemblies in Kosovo had declared independence, acts subsequently recognised by Albania.)
"Then a passive resistance developed, then local Serbs responded with repression, then KLA and then everything escalated rather rapidly...."
Well, Serbian military presence in Kosovo had certainly increased before the KLA emerged, but the Serbs had reached some kind of accomodation with the local Kosovar Albanian leaders by 1996, when it was agreed that the ethnic Albanian boycott of schools and education would come to an end. It was THEN that essentially a radical element of Kosovo separatists formed the KLA and began a rather bloody terrorist campaign, the first act of which was the bombing and attempted assassination of the rector of Pristina University, a Serb.
I really don't have that much sympathy for the Kosovar Albanians, except now that Serbia is being bombed, the most radical Serbs will start cracking down on ALL ethnic Albanians, innocent and guilty alike. And if Kosovo does go independent, it's the end of the lovely little Macedonia, because radical ethnic Albanians will duplicate their tactics in that country.
185. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 12:55 PM PT
Mister P,
"jexter <masg num=173><BR><BR>"Because we're<BR> smart. We don't want to lose control over<BR> Europe, to<BR> leave them to their own devices only to bail them out<BR> later.""<BR><BR>Winston Churchill during the Battle of Britain - "the time has come for the New World to rescue the Old"<BR><BR>Pat Buchannan running for President - "The Germans are rich, they have 80-90 million people and a very good armed force, let them do it and we'll provide logistical support"<BR><BR>Right. Unleash the Germans on Yugoslavia. Unleash the Brits?!?!??!?<BR><BR>Why not unleash Napoleon IV and give all of the above a couple B-2's and a couple squadrons of Stealth Fighters, 3 Aegis Cruisers etc.
186. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 1:00 PM PT
DUMB Jade...
Nothing U said contradicts what I said, so I suppose U agree.
BTW my Dad sez that USNA is not the only Federal Academy to be allowed to fly WWII battle standard.
I can only assume that U went either to the Coast Guard Academy or the Merchant Marine Academy.
Ergo U know about as much about National Security matters as you do about law schools.
:=)
HOORAY FOR THE 509 Bomber Wing.
BTW...If the B-2 was forward deployed in GB, their effectiveness would be 3 times what I previously reported because more sorties could be executed.
187. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 1:03 PM PT
Thanks, in part to the Killer 509th Bomb Wing, PHASE II has just begun.
SEND IN THE TURKS!!!!!!!!!
188. jadeGOLD - March 27, 1999 - 1:06 PM PT
Jex;
Suffice to say that your daddy is wrong.
189. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
To be fair to Jade, the advantage that the B-2 enjoys is not due entirely to the plane itself but rather to the ordnance.
What the B-2 is able to do is rather unprecedented. It performs a tactical bombing mission even though it is a strategic bomber. It accomplishes this by 1) Stealth technology 2) GPS precision ordnance.
190. jadeGOLD - March 27, 1999 - 1:13 PM PT
Jex;
The Stealth technology is disappointing.
Other aircraft can utilize GPS technologies.
191. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 1:17 PM PT
Operation Allied Force, dedicated to the Blessed Memory of
Chief of the Austrian General Staff, Field Marshall Franz Conrad von Hotzendorff, was a true "war hawk" when it came to his political stance. One might say he suffered from "Serbophobia", with constant pleas to "crush the Serb skull" preventative strikes against Serbia). He had a major falling out with Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1912 over this policy - a falling out that was never mended. They had once been close friends, with the Archduke saving the hot tempered commander's career on more than one occasion. Regardless of his feelings toward the Archduke, he and Count von Berchtold were determined to use the assassination as a pretense for the long awaited invasion of Serbia.
Aside from his hawkish tendencies, he was generally regarded as strong military leader and strategist. One of his military shortcomings, however, was overestimating the abilities of the army he commanded. The feeble Austrian army of 1914 was not capable of executing Conrad's intricate plans. He was dismissed in 1917 due to his opposition to
Emperor Charles I's peace initiatives. A hawk to the end."
Conrad we are here!!!
192. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT
Jade -
A rust picker unmasked!!!
Apologies for my dad, NROTC and OCS only.
193. pellenilsson - March 27, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT
jexter Message #185
Incomprehensible. And not because of the BR:s
194. pellenilsson - March 27, 1999 - 1:43 PM PT
Obviously most people posting to this thread are Americans. I think that you, through no fault of your own, are quite unfamiliar with the parochial, national sentiments that prevail in some corners of Europe. I shall use two articles from Thursday's International Herald Tribune to illustrate my point.
In the first one an official "close to Milosovic" is quoted:
"The person who signs a document giving up Kosovo will have the stamp of traitor on himself and his children forever."
"If it is lost we keep the right to reconquer it, even 100 years from now. If we give it away it is lost forever."
The other article deals initially with a Milanko Zablacanski a former well-known TV personality who quit state TV because he couldn't stand Milosevic's politics leading to "ethnic conflicts, gangster economics and deepening poverty".
But, says the article, he now feels that he is "honour-bound to support the leader he loathes".
The article goes on to say that this view is shared by "many well-educated and accomplished Serbs who have struggled for years in an effort to try to end Mr Milosovic's control of what remains of Yugoslavia".
Irrational? Yes.
Real and has to taken into account? Yes.
195. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
"Amb Maurice Paleologue"? Please expand."
A long story. Let me try to summarize.
- The Russians didn't want to aid Serbia and in fact, never did in 3 years of involvement
- Slav nationalism in Russia was played as a fiddle for French Revanchism
- The problem for Russia was Austrian Mobilization, ie., if Austria were to mobilize to crush Serbia, their entire force would have to be mobilized, but the army was so weak that it could only pursue one of Plan A or Plan B, A being attack Serbia.
- The Russians appreciated this and Foreign Minister Samsonov (sp) had doubts as to whether Russia should even partially mobilize against Austria.
- Paleologue (sp) gave him some backbone and also violated the consultation provisions of the FR/Russian Entente by not disclosing French mobilization and attack plans.
IMO the French were most to blame for WWI, followed by Kaiser Bill's blank check, the British "discovery" of their Beligian neutrality obligations, Tsar Nickie's wimpiness, Conrad's games at the Hapsburg Court, and lastly Serbian nutiness.
196. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
Winston Churchill during the Battle of Britain - "the time has come for the New World to rescue the Old"
Further explanation, as if one were needed - Don't leave Europe to its own devices
Pat Buchannan running for President - "The Germans are rich, they have 80-90 million people and a very good armed force, let them do it and we'll provide logistical support"
Right. Unleash the Germans on Yugoslavia. Unleash the Brits?!?!??!? Why not unleash Napoleon IV and give all of the above a couple
B-2's and a couple squadrons of Stealth Fighters, 3 Aegis
Cruisers etc."
Making the unintelligble accessible to those of limited intelligence:
- WC had it right circa 1940. The only alternative today is to rely on the Germans to invade Yugoslavia and give them all of our advanced tech. Or perhaps it would make more sense to recreate the British Raj or reincarnate a Napoleon.
Understand now????
197. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 1:50 PM PT
If you still do not understand, perhaps I should spend some time on the combat history of 2d SS Pz Division, "Das Reich" in Yugo and the adventures of Marshall Tito.
198. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 2:02 PM PT
That's right Jade...GPS is what makes the diff. but my point still holds.
Due to Stealth and GPS, the B-2, a strategic not a tactical bomber, can do more at a cheaper cost than non-Stealth technology.
I'm just playing U know, the B-52 still costs only 32 million per nto 2.2 billion and are about as Stealthy as a B-2 when it rains.
199. jexster - March 27, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
Penne...
Not to be outdone, Waffen SS 1st Pz Division, Die Liebstandarte Adolph Hitler, also did a tour of Serbia in the Spring of '41.
Do you and Pat Buchannan wish a reprise?
Maybe we should rename "Allied Force", "Springtime for Hitler in Germany"????
200. pellenilsson - March 27, 1999 - 2:31 PM PT
jexster Message #195
Thanks.
A thread on the origins of WWI would be intersting, but too few participants I fear. Your observations about Conrad agree with my own.