X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:21:48 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>        I've been arguing for intervention since the Serbs invaded Slovenia
>>many months ago.
>
>On this list?

        Heck no, I wasn't around on the list way back then :).
>
>>        I hope those who have been arguing that "it's too hard" or "we'll just
>>make it worse" are enjoying the harvest of the Muslims and Croats.
>
>I suspect if you are talking about those on this list who have held against
>unilateral US military intervention that you are at best misrepresenting
>their (and my) arguments. I suspect that noone condones the sort of
>awful things that are occurring in x-yugoslavia.

        Probably not anyone here, as I wasn't around to hear the arguments.

>>        We promised "never again".  It appears we meant "...if it's not too
>>hard" or "...as long as there aren't non-xians involved".
>
>There have been gaps in our foreign policy for years, we have sat by while
>enemies and allies alike have committed unspeakable acts of aggression,
>murder and torture; we have continued to arm purveyors of torture and
>death and turned a blind eye to the sale of illicit drugs in our own
>country in support of dictatorial regimes with unsavory records.

        But that's no reason to do it again.
>
>Within our own country, look at the treatment of Native Americans, it
>is a national shame, and ethnic cleansing is not an entirely inappropriate
>term for the trends of the past 150 years or so toward them.

        Antipathy for the last 50 years or so.  The really brutal stuff was in
the 1800s and early 1900s.

>Does all of this make what is going on in x-yugoslavia right, of course
>not. Should the world sit by while this goes on; no again. Should the
>US run in with guns blazing and "save the day;" I still don't think so.

        1) We were invited
        2) It doesn't have to be alone.

>We should be providing humanitarian aid; until UN negotiations start
>with the combattants our diplomats should be heavily involved in
>negotiating cease fires so that aid can get in and refugees can get
>out. We should be using our intelligence community to pinpoint
>arms, ammunition and other supplies necessary to warmaking and
>to provide that information to the appropriate government/agencies
>such that these shipments can be interdicted. We should be ready
>to send troops to supplement UN peacekeeping troops if needed,
>under UN command, into the area to help preserve whatever cease-
>fire can be arranged.
>
        I think we  should ask the Bosnians where the Serbs are, then proceed
to bomb heavily.  (A bit tongue in cheeck, but not to be funny.)
        Bosnians (and the Croats and Slovenians before them) asked for our
help.  A few F-15s and A-10s would stop the war in a matter of days.

>It is my feeling that the only way a lasting peace is going to be
>arranged in this area is going to be through diplomacy - not through
>bloodshed.

        Diplomacy will work about as well as it did in 1938.

>It is awful how long this process has dragged out, the loss of
>human life, the human tragedies are terrible. To blame these ill
>effects upon those who wish to see a lasting, peaceful solution
>to the problem is wrong headed though.

        The people who advocate a wait and see position should consider what is
happening to the locals while we wait.  Our "diplomacy" is letting the Serbs
genocide the Muslims.

>Around the world there are any number of situations where there
>are long standing conflicts based upon competing claims (often
>the claims of all parties have some merit) to land or resources.

        The borders are pretty clear cut.  Anyone who thinks the Serbs are not
being directed from Belgrade isn't thinking things through too well.  Local
militias don't end up with T-62 tanks and MiGs.

>Most of the time these claims are historical and the most virulent
>ones have religious/racial overtones. At some point the world is
>going to have to develop a criteria for considering these claims
>and the rights of the claimants, perhaps providing structures/
>criteria by which all parties can have the most rights at the
>least expense of the other claimants. This situation would
>certainly be a good place to start.

        Freeze all borders now.  It has to come down to an arbitrary position
someday.

>>        Sure some of us (Americans and Euros) will die saving the region from
>>the Serbs, but I hope people see the price of the alternative.
>
>Undoubtedly, but wouldn't it be better if the peace that they purchased
>with their lives would be more than a temporary break in the conflict
>that has been passed on for generations? It might be fitting to remember
>that today's actions by the Serbs are in reaction to the slaughter that
>was inflicted upon them not so long ago.

        Not really.  The "WWII slaughter of the Serbs" is part myth, part fact
and mostly propaganda.
        It was the Germans, and their puppets in Yugoslavia that carried out
the fight with Royalist and Communist rebels.  Not the Moslems in Bosnia, or
the Croats living in B-H, Croatia, and Slovenia today.
        I can't condone a Sister Souljah solution. ("Two wrongs don't make a
right, but it makes you equal.")

>Let me add lest anyone feel that I am somehow insensitive to the
>suffering of the Bosnians and the Croats, that I also personally
>am saddened, shocked, horrified and angered as well whenever I
>hear reports of these sorts of things occurring. If I thought
>that sending the Marines would put an end to these horrible
>events, I would not hesitate to advocate sending them. If I
>thought that sending the Marines would help create a permanent
>solution, even at the cost of a disproportionate number (compared
>to the rest of the world's forces) of my fellow countrymen's
>lives, I would not hesitatate to send them either. I do, however
>object to committing troops and risking their lives without
>some real hope that their efforts will obtain a meaningful
>end.

        A lot of people said that about the 'European' war in 1939.

Brett'