In article <C5vBnv.CJ@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes... >In article <22APR199300374349@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes: >> [I complained about the US taking the point in Bosnia, when the Europeans >>  should be doing it] >  [Ken says the Bosnians are morally superior to the Serbians...]   >This implies both sides are equal.  True, it may sometimes be difficult or >impossible to determine which side is the victim, but that does not mean that >victims do not exist.    Yes, victims exist.  There are a staggering number of victims in the world and more each day.  I think on balance, intervention would create more victims, including American ones.  Since the first responsibility of the US government is to protect Americans, I think they serve that role best by staying away from Bosnia and other regional conflicts.  >Would you, in WWII have said that there were atrocities >on the sides of both the Jews and the Germans?  Of course not.  The Jews were not trying to carve a territory out of Germany either, and except for small-scale resistance and a few larger uprisings, did not have an army or a government.  >>These people have been butchering each other for centuries.  When one >>side wins and gets what it wants, it will stop. >  >Yes, but both sides want different things.  The Muslims chiefly want to not >be "ethnic cleansed".  The Serbians want to "ethnic cleanse" the Muslims.  It >is indeed true that each side will stop when it gets what it wants, but the >things that the two sides want are not equivalent.  I see the pattern of atrocities as a fairly often practiced tactic of a colonizing power - driving away and/or eliminating the population of an area they want to control.  The US tried basically that in Vietnam, the Iraqis in Kuwait, the Israelis in Palestine, South Africa, etc, etc, etc.  It sucks, it's ugly, and it's saddening.  But it is not genocide.  It is not my impression that the Serbs want to eliminate every Muslim in Yugoslavia.  I still say the Bosnians are getting their asses kicked; they should surrender and evacuate the areas they can't hold.  > [I said the fixation on Bosnia is due to it being in a European country, >  rather than the third world] >  >I recall, before we did anything for Somalia, (apparent) left-wingers saying >that the reason everyone was more willing to send troops to Bosnia than to >Somalia was because the Somalis are third-worlders who Americans consider >unworthy of help.  They suddenly shut up when the US decided to send troops to >the opposite place than that predicted by the theory.  I am a staunch Republican, BTW.  The irony of arguing against military intervention with arguments based on Vietnam has not escaped me.  I was opposed to US intervention in Somalia for the same reasons, although clearly it was not nearly as risky.  >For that matter, this theory of yours suggests that Americans should want to >help the Serbs.  After all, they're Christian, and the Muslims are not.  If >the desire to intervene in Bosnia is based on racism against people that are >less like us, why does everyone _want_ to help the side that _is_ less like us? >Especially if both of the sides are equal as you seem to think?  Well, one thing you have to remember is, the press likes a good story.   Good for business, don't you know.  And BTW, not "everyone" wants to help the side that is less like us.  I never said the two sides were morally equivalent, I said neither one is innocent.  There are just too many good reasons to stay away:  1) The Europeans are perfectly able to deal with this dispute on their borders    in any way we do it.  Put another way, we have no assistance to offer the    Europeans which they do not already possess themselves.  It is not good to    promote the idea in anyone's mind that the United States is responsible    for cleaning up every bloody mess in the world.  2) Clinton is not the man to lead this country into a military adventure.  Full    stop.