From: L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Enforcing U.N. sanctions
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:48:12 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1jes0iINNpbm@transfer.stratus.com> <73828@cup.portal.com>
  <1993Jan21.000746.5315@Princeton.EDU>

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <73903@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>
>>>>	In case people have forgotten, there's also a 'no-fly' zone 
>>>>over Bosnia-Herzegovina as well.  But it's not being enforced at all,
>>>>despite the multiple violations from Serbian aircraft.
>
>>>The reason for not having shot down any Serbian (federal Yugoslav)
>>>aircraft is because United Nations personnel are a small number
>>>and thick in the middle of the crowd ... they'd be taken hostage
>>>or slaughtered brutally on-the-spot.
>
>>	This is a mere repetition of what our State Department has told us.
>
>No, it's what the UN personnel on the ground have told us.

	You missed the point.   The reference here is that a fact is 'true'
just because an 'official' body states it.  If you really do put such faith
in the U.N. and the State Department, then why should there ever have been
a need to protest involmement in Vietnam? (For the example-impaired, *this*
is an example.)  As a side note, does your contradiction imply that the
U.S. State Department never issued such a statement?

>> It is obvious that if enforcing a 'no-fly' zone were in the best interests
>>of the U.S., we would ensure the safety of the U.N. troops beforehand, or,
>>at the very least, pull them back strategically.  Want some 'thought food'
>>on this?  Access the facts concerning the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. 
>>When this zone was implemented, there certainly were a good number of U.S.
>>troops there.  And yes, now there happen to be U.N. troops (but only about
>>50 or so, last I read).  The Kurds there  (the reason for the no-fly zone,
>>in case anyone has forgotten) still receive aid.  Now, given your above
>>'fact' concerning Serbia, this should not be possible.  Conclusion?  :-)
>
>If the two situations had anything in common, there might be a
>conclusion you could come to.  But in one case, there were Kurds on the
>ground, who supported the no-fly zone, and in the other case, there are
>Serbs on the ground, which don't.

	I'm sorry to be the one to disillusion you on this, Dave, but the
no-flights zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina is *not* there to protect the
agressors, which have been proven to be the Serbs.  If I were to follow
your reasoning, then the no-flights zone over northern Iraq is there to
protect Hussein's Republican Guard from the Kurds! :-)

>>	Let's say that the facts I have in front of me are, at best, faulty
>>data.  
>
>Okay.

	Reasonable chap, aren't you?  :-)

>>      Given the nature of the Balkan conflict along the lines that your
>>above statement outlines, the very *existence* of the no-fly zone should
>>have been enough to compel the nationalist Serbs to strike out at the U.N.,
>>or any other foreign power, to proclaim their sovereignty over their
>>airspace.  Indeed, the U.N. is being treated with extreme hostility and
>>disregard now.  Observe that Britain is now sending over more troops to
>>reinforce their part of the U.N. battalions.
>
>Why should the existence of a no-fly zone which isn't being enforced,
>over disputed land, cause Serbs to attack the UN? 

	And again, you miss the point.  My above text does say "the very
*existence* of..."  I am not saying that Serbs should attack the U.N.
because of an unenforced no-flights zone.  I was making a point to the
person I was replying to about implied national sovereignty that the
Bosnian Serbs have self-proclaimed.

>-- 
>David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
>niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
>   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
>Baltimore Orioles 93 |

Regards,

--Louis