Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: world
Date: Tuesday, 11 Aug 1992 23:09:36 EST
From: <ADMN8686@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Hats off to Meggy
 <1992Aug10.173949.12192@gvl.unisys.com>
 <1992Aug10.190243.13837@walter.bellcore.com> <5896@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com>

In article <5896@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com>, yzarn@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com
(Philip Yzarn de Louraille) says:
>
>
>I do not think that delivering weapons is a solution. If anything we
>should make them disappear from that part of the world.

Yes, ideally weapons should be made to disappear from the whole world. But
it is clearly not an arguement that can be minimized down to that.

You are overlooking some very important facts. The situation in Bosnia must
be analized as it exists in it's present form - and in terms of the way
the situation exists on the ground and in terms of who has what kind of
military might, it is clear that the Serbs are multitudes of times
mightier than the defenders of Bosnia's for its integrity as one state.

The Serbs have fighter planes. They are using them to currently drop
bombs on cities in both Bosnia and Croatia. These bombs can weigh
500 kilograms (1000 pounds). The Bosnians have nothing
of this sort. Are you aware of this?

The Serbs have inherited the entire fighting power of the former
Yugoslav Army. After the mini-scirmishes in Slovenia, they dragged
everything into Bosnia. After pulling out of 2/3's of Croatia, they
dragged it all into Bosnia. Massive armoured divisions have been
transported from Serbia proper into Bosnia. And all of this is under
the control of the Serb agressors of Bosnia. Every tank, every
multiple rocket lancher, every grenade launcher, and every other
piece of military might that made up this army once ranked 3rd in Europe.

It should be clear to you that not to arm the Bosnian defenders implies
the following:
 1) The Serbs will continue to take over any remaining territories over
    and above the 70% that they currently control - they got the 70% that
    they so far have by superior military strength, and there is no reason
    they will not be able to get control of the remaining 30%. Given this
    scenario, you have kept arms out of Bosnia, and the Serbs have
    grabbed all the land they like.
 2) Since the entire Republic is in effect under their control, they will,
    in time, join it to Serbia, and achieve their goals of a Greater Serbian
    state. Thus their superior military strength has reaped a great reward.
 3) By not arming Bosnians, you give the Serbs a 100% success rate for
    ethnically cleansing their newly acquired republic of all non-Serbs,
    as they have done so far with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people, and as
    they are currently carrying out in the predominantly Muslim populated
    area around Bihac (The UNHCR today confirmed that 28,000 residents had
    been expelled from that area recently.)

The above is the minimum guaranteed mid-point result of a policy where
there is no military intervention against the Republic of Serbia, the
Serbian agressors in Bosnia, or even an attempt to give arms to the Bosnians
to defend themselves.

In practical terms, you have kept additional arms out of Bosnia, but by
sticking to your cherished ideal of not allowing in "more arms, no matter
to who they go," you have displaced millions of people. Hundreds of
thousands of homes will have been burned. Those millions of displaced
people will now have no where to go. They have no homes, no furniture, no
savings, no insurance, no capital, no dignity, no ambitions. What
happens now?

This is what happens. The Serbs land grab has paid off in the best of ways.
They'll have an ethnically pure republic and millions of people will
have paid for it with their lives. But that's not a Serbian concern, only
their desire.

>If you had a fire going, would you throw some black powder into it to stop
>it? Only an idiot would (yes, this is a flame.)

This is an ultra-simplistic, inapplicable, and foolish comparison.


>How many times has the western world "enflammed" in the past touchy
>situations by pouring weapons in? We just don't learn our lessons. Or is
>it that we don't want to learn any lessons but make money off these
>weapons sales?

Each situation is different. Why was it OK for the U.S. to go and save
Kuwait from their agressors. Had the  theory of not involving military
rebuttle or arming the Kuwaitis been invoked there, I think you know
what the situation would be like.

>  Philip Yzarn de Louraille                 Internet: yzarn@chevron.com

I have not meant to be flamatory in any way, but am simply questioning
your simplistic (and many others) approach of not sending in arms to Bosnians.
You need to learn much about the happenings in Bosnia, as do many
a statesman.

Tom Grgic (admn8686@ryevm.ryerson.ca)