Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben
View Post
Ukraine
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostThe bombing of Yugoslavia is one example.
A tough situation. I find it hard to single out NATO as a warmongering aggressor.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Unintended consequences...
Post Brexit regulations are causing major headaches for those handling donations in kind https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60619676 Paragraph headed "Red tape was horrendous" has details.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...-cash-suppliesTo ensure the donated items do not attract EU customs duties, the club is donating them all to the Polish arm of the charity Caritas, which is then going to distribute the items to the refugees arriving on the border.
Probably just as well that DEC is now asking for cash donations so that supplies can be provided that are what is actually needed.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostThat’ll be the one that the notorious warmonger Michael Foot lobbied for (quite rightly ) and that ended the conflict pronto and saved thousands of lives ?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostNot quite. The bombing of Belgrade lasted for 78 days and killed around 1 500 people. More importantly it didn't end the conflict, far from it - by forcing Milošević to withdraw his troops from Kosovo it created a space for the Kosovo Liberation Army to commit atrocities of its own against Serbs left there. From a USA Today article in 2002: “A desire to spread freedom does not automatically confer a license to kill…. Operation Allied Force in 1999 bombed Belgrade, Yugoslavia, into submission purportedly to liberate Kosovo. Though Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic raised the white flag, ethnic cleansing continued — with the minority Serbs being slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground in the same way the Serbs previously oppressed the ethnic Albanians.” And from a 2008 article by historian Gary Leupp: "After the glorious victory of NATO over Yugoslavia, it was discovered that as few as 2,108 people were actually killed in the province during 1998-9 before the bombardment began. Quite likely more Serbs have been killed by Albanians than vice versa since 1998."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostCounterpunch ? Gary Leupp ? Please don’t make me laugh . For further merriment try Peter Hitchens in Mail Online this evening.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostI'm not going to look at Mail Online under any circumstances. I take it that you don't contest any of the facts in my post then?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostI can’t take Counterpunch seriously to be honest
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostNot quite. The bombing of Belgrade lasted for 78 days and killed around 1 500 people. More importantly it didn't end the conflict, far from it - by forcing Milošević to withdraw his troops from Kosovo it created a space for the Kosovo Liberation Army to commit atrocities of its own against Serbs left there. From a USA Today article in 2002: “A desire to spread freedom does not automatically confer a license to kill…. Operation Allied Force in 1999 bombed Belgrade, Yugoslavia, into submission purportedly to liberate Kosovo. Though Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic raised the white flag, ethnic cleansing continued — with the minority Serbs being slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground in the same way the Serbs previously oppressed the ethnic Albanians.” And from a 2008 article by historian Gary Leupp: "After the glorious victory of NATO over Yugoslavia, it was discovered that as few as 2,108 people were actually killed in the province during 1998-9 before the bombardment began. Quite likely more Serbs have been killed by Albanians than vice versa since 1998."
I was going to mention Chomsky - but it seems one's sources get ridiculed in any case.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Jazzrook View Post
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Joseph K View PostI was going to mention Chomsky - but it seems one's sources get ridiculed in any case.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostI think that is a mistake. It publishes a broad variety of authors sometimes with quite contrasting views so I don't think a blanket dismissal of it is appropriate. But OK, how about Simon Jenkins: "[T]hree months of bombing of Belgrade in 1999 was supposed to force the Serb leader, Slobodan Milošević, to withdraw his forces from Kosovo. It spread from military to civilian targets, including power stations, Danube bridges and civic and historic buildings. Intelligence leaks to the New York Times admitted this “increased Serb recruits’ willingness to fight”, while merely hastening the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo."
As I’ve done you the courtesy of reading CP perhaps you could read (or re-read) Timothy Garton Ash in On Kosovo . I think he gets it right - the West shouldn’t have exulted (esp Clinton and Blair ) but it led to Milošević’s exit and it was the right thing to do .T G-A actually went there to ask the Serbs what they thought - unlike most commentators.
Despite your revulsion at the Mail you should read Hitchens today. It s the only piece I’ve read in any traditional newspaper which questions the West’s response to the Ukraine and though you might well feel he goes too far it seems to align with quite a few of your opinions if I have correctly interpreted them . I think it’s quite important to publish pieces which run against the overwhelming trend and though I don’t like a lot of Mail journalism good on them for doing it. Refusing to read the Mail is as wrong as refusing to read Counterpunch isn’t it ?
On a general point I’ve once or twice been asked questions on this strand which have been answered in earlier posts - to avoid wasting my time and more importantly boring people I haven’t responded.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostIt's a matter of facts rather than of individual perceptions of course, and it's sometimes amazing what gets through into the supposedly liberal mainstream media. I was looking earlier at a new article from the odious Nick Cohen, whose headline begins "Far right and far left alike admired Putin", and then goes on to give precisely zero evidence of any admiration for Putin on the "far left", apart from these few words: "In the UK, the Labour leadership ordered MPs from the rump of the Corbyn left to disassociate themselves from a letter blaming Putin’s war on Nato or lose the whip." (The STW letter of course did not "blame Putin's war on NATO" and it's quite shameful that Cohen is allowed blithely to trot out this lie.) This is the kind of reason why it's necessary to cast one's net wider than such outlets in order to get a more balanced view.
Odious indeed.
Comment
-
Comment