NATO Expands further

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Sherlock Holmes

NATO Expands further

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Well Finland and now Sweden have announced their desire and intention to apply for NATO membership.

That such a decisions is not made via a national referendum is a subversion of democracy, the consequences are potentially huge and every adult in the country should have had a voice in this.

The Western media constantly babble about Putin and Russia "want to reestablish the old Russian empire" while right under our noses the military force (dominated by the non-European USA) NATO continues its perverse growth.

There is nothing to stop any country from developing a treaty with other nations that guarantee military support if attacked, much as Poland had with Britain at the start of WW2.

It is simply not necessary to join NATO, there are other far less contentious options, all of this bodes ill IMHO.

So, should NATO continue to expand and continue to accept members from states bordering Russia?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Mon May 16, 2022 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #51

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Let's talk about the KLA shall we?

The KLA were in existence and known about years before the NATO bombing campaign, They are on record as being a terrorist organization, so says the US state dep't archives. They were involved in child prostitution, forced human organ theft, drug shipments through Albanian to Europe, weapons smuggling and numerous other crimes.

Their ranks included Mujahidin mercenaries from Iran, Albania and Saudi Arabia.

The threat posed by the KLA to Serbia was huge and is what led to vicious fighting between them and Serb security forces, often the KLA would bombs homes or police stations and when pursued, retreat into Albanian territory - making it all but logistically impossible for these criminals to be apprehended.

There was no violence directed at ethnic Albanians in Yugoslavia until the KLA began their violent incursions, the population has lived in peace along with Serbs, Jews and others for decades, since the close of WW2 and before.

Read:
"Mujahidin fighters have joined the Kosovo Liberation Army, dimming prospects of a peaceful solution to the conflict and fuelling fears of heightened violence next spring.. . . . Their arrival in Kosovo may force Washington to review its policy in the Serbian province and will deepen Western dismay with the KLA and its tactics. . . . 'Captain Dula', the local KLA commander, was clearly embarrassed at the unexpected presence of foreign journalists and said that he had little idea who was sending the Mujahidin or where they came from; only that it was neither Kosovo nor Albania. 'I've got no information about them,' Captain Dula said. 'We don't talk about it.' . . . American diplomats in the region, especially Robert Gelbard, the special envoy, have often expressed fears of an Islamic hardline infiltration into the Kosovo independence movement. . . . American intelligence has raised the possibility of a link between Osama bin Laden, the Saudi expatriate blamed for the bombing in August of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and the KLA. Several of Bin Laden's supporters were arrested in Tirana, the Albanian capital, and deported this summer, and the chaotic conditions in the country have allowed Muslim extremists to settle there, often under the guise of humanitarian workers. . . . 'I interviewed one guy from Saudi Arabia who said that it was his eighth jihad,' a Dutch journalist said." ["U.S. Alarmed as Mujahidin Join Kosovo Rebels," The Times (London), 11/26/98]
The Serbs attacked no nation, they defended their own nation from terrorism driven by outside extreme Islamic forces (see above, ever heard of Osama Bin Laden?) they acted just as we'd expect the US to act if a foreign terrorist group kept attacking police stations and people minding their own business.

The West saw the KLA as a means to an end, as a way to weaken even further the former Yugoslavia by causing in-fighting and eventual loss of territory. NATO provided military support to these maniacs, murderers, drug smugglers, pimps, arms smugglers, it was and is disgusting.

As I said before the Serbs were our allies in WW2. Albania was and is a largely feudal society and his some to all sorts of gangs and mafia. The KLA was a terrorist organization that the Western press and media portrayed as a well meaning political force working to improve the lot of ethnic Albanians, lies, all lies.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #52

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #50]

Again I must ask, have you read the UN resolution (UN 260 A(III)) that embodies the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide? I suspect not.

Here is a key article from that resolution:
Article VIII
Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Nowhere will you find a blanket preexisting authorization to use military force under any circumstances. All use of force is either self defense or under approval via a UN resolution to use force.

The CPPCG is not an authorization to use force but a statement about what is considered an illegal activity (genocide) clearly stipulating that any UN member state may or must seek UN action in cases of genocide or suspected genocide, with consequences for those participating in it.

As for Rwanda, no military bombing campaign took place, all that happened was a peacekeeping force of 2,500 was sent in under a UN resolution, read about that here:
From the beginning of his mission, UNAMIR Commander General Roméo Dallaire argued that UNAMIR needed heavier weapons, and a minimum of 4,500 troops, all of them well-trained and well- supplied, with a clear mandate giving them authority to forcefully stop the killing. That could have been written into U.N. Security Council resolution 872 that created UNAMIR. However, the U.S. and the U.K. opposed a robust mandate with the 4,500 troops recommended by General Dallaire because it would have been too expensive.
Hmm, that's a bit odd isn't it? The US and UK refused to intervene further because it was too expensive? how compassionate, people and children being dismembered and beheaded by the thousands and we don't have enough money yet today with rampant inflation and rising interest rates the US alone can afford 40 Billion dollars for Ukraine!

but, there's more:
In the meantime, as Hutu extremists murdered ten Belgian UNAMIR soldiers, Belgium announced that it would withdraw all of its troops from the UNAMIR mission. In the first week of the genocide, General Dallaire asked for a change in UNAMIR’s mandate that would authorize him to take action to stop as much killing as possible. Instead, on April 21, the Security Council, led by the U.S. and the U.K., ordered a reduction of UNAMIR to a token force of 270 troops.[47] The Security Council made this decision even though just two days earlier, on April 19th, the independent organization Human Rights Watch estimated that over 100,000 people had been killed in Rwanda and called on the Security Council to label the massacres as genocide.
Surely my eyes deceive me!, Belgium pulled all its troops out? the humanitarian western powers reduced the number of troops in Rwanda from 2,500 to just 270? a 90% reduction, despite HRW claiming evidence of 100,000 deaths? Belgian soldiers killed? Belgium is a NATO member, why was NATO not sent it?

The answer is geopolitics as I told you before, it was not useful to US, UK and EU to defend a documented true genocide in Rwanda but it was useful to bomb Serbia in 1999 despite the fact there WAS NO GENOCIDE of ethnic Albanians as I've repeatedly shown you, as the FBI said and as other international forensic investigators said as Carle Del Ponte said - NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE OF GENOCIDE.

This is the real world not the fairy stories we read in the papers or on FOX, CNN or the BBC.

Source: The Rwandan Genocide: Could it Have Been Prevented?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #53

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 1:40 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #50]

Again I must ask, have you read the UN resolution (UN 260 A(III)) that embodies the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide? I suspect not.
I've looked all though it, and nothing conflicts with the UN directive to intervene in cases of genocide and other war crimes.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to enforce its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention
As for Rwanda, no military bombing campaign took place
I'm puzzled as to why you think it's not a military intervention unless they do some bombing. Could you explain that?
From the beginning of his mission, UNAMIR Commander General Roméo Dallaire argued that UNAMIR needed heavier weapons, and a minimum of 4,500 troops, all of them well-trained and well- supplied, with a clear mandate giving them authority to forcefully stop the killing. That could have been written into U.N. Security Council resolution 872 that created UNAMIR. However, the U.S. and the U.K. opposed a robust mandate with the 4,500 troops recommended by General Dallaire because it would have been too expensive.

Hmm, that's a bit odd isn't it? The US and UK refused to intervene further because it was too expensive? how compassionate, people and children being dismembered and beheaded by the thousands
Turns out the African nations around Rwanda put together a very effective force that quickly ended the killings. I'm still wondering why you think that isn't as good as bombing stuff in Rwanda.

Genocide against the Bosnians was well-documented. Even the Serbs openly admitted "ethnic cleansing" which involved mass killings of civilians and systematic rape as a means of intimidation and terror. No point in denying the fact.
and we don't have enough money yet today with rampant inflation and rising interest rates the US alone can afford 40 Billion dollars for Ukraine!
The world didn't act the first two military aggressions by Putin. Maybe it should have. But it became clear that this one was precisely what Hitler did in Czechoslovakia. He claimed to be protecting ethnic minorities, but his real goal was destruction of a sovereign nation. Unfortunately for Putin, there was no Neville Chamberlain to appease him. Now, he's in a huge fix as the Ukrainians, merely by using weapons supplied by other nations, are handily beating the Russian aggressors. It not only preserves the freedom of Ukrainians, it badly weakens the Russian military, which is running short of supplies, and with a declining economy, is ill-prepared to replace the mean and equipment it's lost. This is why Putin is having his trolls move out into social media in a desperate attempt to undermine the nations helping Ukraine.

Infamous Russian troll farm appears to be source of anti-Ukraine propaganda
Experts say a recent wave of pro-Putin disinformation is consistent with the work of Russia’s Internet Research Agency, a network of paid trolls who attempted to influence the 2016 presidential election.
https://www.nationofchange.org/2022/03/ ... ropaganda/

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #54

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #53]

You ignored:
Nowhere will you find a blanket preexisting authorization to use military force under any circumstances. All use of force is either self defense or under approval via a UN resolution to use force.

The CPPCG is not an authorization to use force but a statement about what is considered an illegal activity (genocide) clearly stipulating that any UN member state may or must seek UN action in cases of genocide or suspected genocide, with consequences for those participating in it.
Please show me where the CPPCG authorizes the use of military force against another nation without a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force? I've read the UN Charter many many times and I've also read the CPPCG several times and I cannot find anywhere where a country has automatic authority to use military force. There are two and only two situations permitted by the UN charter, where force may be used without a Security Council resolution. These are when a country is itself attacked then self defense is permitted, the other is when the UN Security Council votes for a resolution permitting the use of force.

Do you dispute the above?

You seem to be suggesting that "enforce its prohibition" in the Wikipedia article (a phrase incidentally not contained the CPPCG text) means that any country A can attack or militarily intervene in any other country B just because country A claims genocide is taking place in country B. Yet that is a misunderstanding of international law. Do not quote Wikipedia, quote an official UN resolution.

All you need to is simply quote the text of the UN Charter or one of the existing resolutions, to prove your point - so respectfully, may I see the text that you interpret as permitting military force/intervention? Show me the words themselves that you think support your position.

Any use of military force on any sovereign nation by any other nation is a crime, a war crime be it committed by Russia or the US or NATO members.

Any claims you make here must either be supported by facts or be dismissed as nothing more than personal opinion with the inherent risk of bias that carries with it.

The irony here is that if you do cling to the claim any country A can attack or militarily intervene in any other country B just because country A claims genocide is taking place in country B then Russia is acting legally if they have reason to believe genocide is taking place in Ukraine! You should - by your own reasoning - be supporting Russia's actions.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #55

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:32 amNowhere will you find a blanket preexisting authorization to use military force under any circumstances. All use of force is either self defense or under approval via a UN resolution to use force.
You ignored:

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to enforce its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

I get that you don't like it. Apparently, you object to using force in enforcement. Which doesn't really matter, does it?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #56

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:51 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:32 amNowhere will you find a blanket preexisting authorization to use military force under any circumstances. All use of force is either self defense or under approval via a UN resolution to use force.
You ignored:

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to enforce its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

I get that you don't like it. Apparently, you object to using force in enforcement. Which doesn't really matter, does it?
That's your interpretation of a sentence in the Wikipedia article which is itself a paraphrasing of the law. Please quote the CPPCG document which is ratified in this UN resolution 260 A (III) - before looking though it's fair to warn you that the word "enforce" does not appear in the text.

Moreover, would you agree that Russia is acting appropriately in Ukraine because they have reason to believe genocide is taking place against ethnic Russians? Surely Russia is acting as you claim a country should react to suspicions of genocide, or do you object to using force in enforcement!

:D

PS I'm going to actually edit that Wikipedia article because I think using the phrase "enforce" is incorrect, misleading.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #57

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:04 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:51 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:32 amNowhere will you find a blanket preexisting authorization to use military force under any circumstances. All use of force is either self defense or under approval via a UN resolution to use force.
You ignored:

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to enforce its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

I get that you don't like it. Apparently, you object to using force in enforcement. Which doesn't really matter, does it?
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Moreover, would you agree that Russia is acting appropriately in Ukraine because they have reason to believe genocide is taking place against ethnic Russians?
Ethnic cleansing is genocide, not a way to stop it. As you know, Putin had no reason at all to imagine genocide is taking place against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Few people were gullible enough to believe that. That was the same story Hitler peddled to take over Czechoslovakia.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #58

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 7:28 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:04 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:51 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:32 amNowhere will you find a blanket preexisting authorization to use military force under any circumstances. All use of force is either self defense or under approval via a UN resolution to use force.
You ignored:

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to enforce its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime, and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1948,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

I get that you don't like it. Apparently, you object to using force in enforcement. Which doesn't really matter, does it?
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Moreover, would you agree that Russia is acting appropriately in Ukraine because they have reason to believe genocide is taking place against ethnic Russians?
Ethnic cleansing is genocide, not a way to stop it. As you know, Putin had no reason at all to imagine genocide is taking place against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Few people were gullible enough to believe that. That was the same story Hitler peddled to take over Czechoslovakia.
And likewise NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999. The FBI and war crimes forensic teams and Carla Del Ponte all agree, there was no evidence of genocide, yet NATO bombed for two months on the claim there was genocide. Did you know that more ethnic Albanians were killed by that bombing than by Serb forces?

If NATO can just claim there's genocide when there really wasn't and start dropping bombs then why can't Russia?

Finally NATO actually did not start bombing because of "genocide" - exercise for you, why did NATO start bombing Serbia? what triggered NATO to begin the campaign?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #59

Post by The Barbarian »

Ethnic cleansing is genocide, not a way to stop it. As you know, Putin had no reason at all to imagine genocide is taking place against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Few people were gullible enough to believe that. That was the same story Hitler peddled to take over Czechoslovakia.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:26 am And likewise NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999. The FBI and war crimes forensic teams and Carla Del Ponte all agree, there was no evidence of genocide, yet NATO bombed for two months on the claim there was genocide.
Well, let's take a look...
Kosovo:
https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/global/ ... ument.html

Bosnia
With skin hanging limp across broken skeletons, these grisly remains are yet more evidence of the bloodlust that gripped the former Yugoslavia in the early-Nineties.

Two decades after Serb soldiers carried out house-to-house searches in a campaign of ethnic killings in Bosnia, investigators are digging up what could turn out to be the largest mass grave from the war.

The remains of 360 people have so far been found at the Tomasica mass grave, which was discovered last month near the town of Prijedor, 162 miles north-west of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo.

That number, already far more than authorities expected, is expected to rise and could even one day surpass the 629 bodies found at Crni Vrh in Srebrenica

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... grave.html
Did you know that more ethnic Albanians were killed by that bombing than by Serb forces?
Show us your evidence.

The number of victims whose bodies have been burned or destroyed may never be known, but enough evidence has emerged to conclude that probably around 10,000 Kosovar Albanians were killed by Serbian forces.
https://1997-2001.state.gov/global/huma ... epage.html
If NATO can just claim there's genocide when there really wasn't and start dropping bombs then why can't Russia?
Once you start assuming things not in reality, any story is equally plausible.
Finally NATO actually did not start bombing because of "genocide"
Sounds like a testable assumption. Let's take a look...
On 24 March 1999, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) launched air campaign Operation Allied Force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to stop the humanitarian catastrophe that was then unfolding in Kosovo. The campaign was launched after all diplomatic avenues had failed. Operation Allied Force was suspended by NATO on 10 June 1999 — lasting just 78 days — once it had a Military Technical Agreement that included Yugoslavia’s immediate end to violence and withdrawal of its military, police and paramilitary forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bomb ... Yugoslavia

On March 24, 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) commences air strikes against Yugoslavia with the bombing of Serbian military positions in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo. The NATO offensive came in response to a new wave of ethnic cleansing launched by Serbian forces against the Kosovar Albanians on March 20.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... yugoslavia

Led by the United States, warplanes from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on this day in 1999 began a bombing campaign against Serbian military targets in the former Yugoslavia. The air raids, President Bill Clinton said, were aimed at halting widespread evidence of urban cleansing — the worst such outbreak in Europe since World War II — being perpetrated by Serbian forces against ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. They ended after 10 weeks when the Serbians agreed to a peace accord that called for the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo and their replacement by NATO peacekeeping troops.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... 24-1231269
exercise for you, why did NATO start bombing Serbia?
See above. You could have looked this up for yourself, you know.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: NATO Expands further

Post #60

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:36 pm Ethnic cleansing is genocide, not a way to stop it. As you know, Putin had no reason at all to imagine genocide is taking place against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Few people were gullible enough to believe that. That was the same story Hitler peddled to take over Czechoslovakia.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:26 am And likewise NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999. The FBI and war crimes forensic teams and Carla Del Ponte all agree, there was no evidence of genocide, yet NATO bombed for two months on the claim there was genocide.
Well, let's take a look...
Kosovo:
https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/global/ ... ument.html

Bosnia
With skin hanging limp across broken skeletons, these grisly remains are yet more evidence of the bloodlust that gripped the former Yugoslavia in the early-Nineties.

Two decades after Serb soldiers carried out house-to-house searches in a campaign of ethnic killings in Bosnia, investigators are digging up what could turn out to be the largest mass grave from the war.

The remains of 360 people have so far been found at the Tomasica mass grave, which was discovered last month near the town of Prijedor, 162 miles north-west of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo.

That number, already far more than authorities expected, is expected to rise and could even one day surpass the 629 bodies found at Crni Vrh in Srebrenica

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... grave.html
Did you know that more ethnic Albanians were killed by that bombing than by Serb forces?
Show us your evidence.

The number of victims whose bodies have been burned or destroyed may never be known, but enough evidence has emerged to conclude that probably around 10,000 Kosovar Albanians were killed by Serbian forces.
https://1997-2001.state.gov/global/huma ... epage.html
If NATO can just claim there's genocide when there really wasn't and start dropping bombs then why can't Russia?
Once you start assuming things not in reality, any story is equally plausible.
Finally NATO actually did not start bombing because of "genocide"
Sounds like a testable assumption. Let's take a look...
On 24 March 1999, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) launched air campaign Operation Allied Force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to stop the humanitarian catastrophe that was then unfolding in Kosovo. The campaign was launched after all diplomatic avenues had failed. Operation Allied Force was suspended by NATO on 10 June 1999 — lasting just 78 days — once it had a Military Technical Agreement that included Yugoslavia’s immediate end to violence and withdrawal of its military, police and paramilitary forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bomb ... Yugoslavia

On March 24, 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) commences air strikes against Yugoslavia with the bombing of Serbian military positions in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo. The NATO offensive came in response to a new wave of ethnic cleansing launched by Serbian forces against the Kosovar Albanians on March 20.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... yugoslavia

Led by the United States, warplanes from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on this day in 1999 began a bombing campaign against Serbian military targets in the former Yugoslavia. The air raids, President Bill Clinton said, were aimed at halting widespread evidence of urban cleansing — the worst such outbreak in Europe since World War II — being perpetrated by Serbian forces against ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. They ended after 10 weeks when the Serbians agreed to a peace accord that called for the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo and their replacement by NATO peacekeeping troops.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... 24-1231269
exercise for you, why did NATO start bombing Serbia?
See above. You could have looked this up for yourself, you know.
I refer you to my earlier post which I assume you have not read.

This explained that there was in fact no evidence of genocide, or ethnic cleansing (in fact the first true ethnic cleansing in FRY was Croats cleansing Serbs from Krajina). Do you dispute what Carla Del Ponte says? She was sitting as a prosecutor during the campaign.

You also failed to answer my question about why NATO decided to bomb, so I'll tell you. The decision to bomb came after Serbia's government refused to sign the Rambouillet Accord. The Serbian government had already proposed that an international team of observers be sent in to Serbia, this was point blank refused by the NATO powers.

The Rambouillet document (if you take the trouble to read it, I read it in 1999 when it was first leaked) actually called for NATO to occupy the sovereign state of Serbia.

Here is that document, I encourage you to scroll to page 79, the infamous "Appendix B", here is Appendix B (emphasis - bold - mine)

Appendix B: Status of Multi-National Military Implementation Force
1. For the purposes of this Appendix, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them:

a. "NATO" means the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), its subsidiary bodies, its military Headquarters, the NATO-led KFOR, and any elements/units forming any part of KFOR or supporting KFOR, whether or not they are from a NATO member country and whether or not they are under NATO or national command and control, when acting in furtherance of this Agreement.

b. "Authorities in the FRY" means appropriate authorities, whether Federal, Republic, Kosovo or other.

c. "NATO personnel" means the military, civilian, and contractor personnel assigned or attached to or employed by NATO, including the military, civilian, and contractor personnel from non-NATO states participating in the Operation, with the exception of personnel locally hired.

d. "the Operation" means the support, implementation, preparation, and participation by NATO and NATO personnel in furtherance of this Chapter.

e. "Military Headquarters" means any entity, whatever its denomination, consisting of or constituted in part by NATO military personnel established in order to fulfill the Operation.

f. "Authorities" means the appropriate responsible individual, agency, or organization of the Parties.

g. "Contractor personnel" means the technical experts or functional specialists whose services are required by NATO and who are in the territory of the FRY exclusively to serve NATO either in an advisory capacity in technical matters, or for the setting up, operation, or maintenance of equipment, unless they are:

(1) nationals of the FRY; or

(2) persons ordinarily resident in the FRY.

h. "Official use" means any use of goods purchased, or of the services received and intended for the performance of any function as required by the operation of the Headquarters.

i. "Facilities" means all buildings, structures, premises, and land required for conducting the operational, training, and administrative activities by NATO for the Operation as well as for accommodation of NATO personnel.

2. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities under this Appendix, all NATO personnel shall respect the laws applicable in the FRY, whether Federal, Republic, Kosovo, or other, insofar as compliance with those laws is compatible with the entrusted tasks/mandate and shall refrain from activities not compatible with the nature of the Operation.

3. The Parties recognize the need for expeditious departure and entry procedures for NATO personnel. Such personnel shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations and the registration requirements applicable to aliens. At all entry and exit points to/from the FRY, NATO personnel shall be permitted to enter/exit the FRY on production of a national identification (ID) card. NATO personnel shall carry identification which they may be requested to produce for the authorities in the FRY, but operations, training, and movement shall not be allowed to be impeded or delayed by such requests.

4. NATO military personnel shall normally wear uniforms, and NATO personnel may possess and carry arms if authorized to do so by their orders. The Parties shall accept as valid, without tax or fee, drivers' licenses and permits issued to NATO personnel by their respective national authorities.

5. NATO shall be permitted to display the NATO flag and/or national flags of its constituent national elements/units on any NATO uniform, means of transport, or facility.

6. a. NATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal.

b. NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties' jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal, or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the FRY. The Parties shall assist States participating in the Operation in the exercise of their jurisdiction over their own nationals.

c. Notwithstanding the above, and with the NATO Commander's express agreement in each case, the authorities in the FRY may exceptionally exercise jurisdiction in such matters, but only in respect of Contractor personnel who are not subject to the jurisdiction of their nation of citizenship.

7. NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY. NATO personnel erroneously arrested or detained shall immediately be turned over to NATO authorities.

8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.

9. NATO shall be exempt from duties, taxes, and other charges and inspections and custom regulations including providing inventories or other routine customs documentation, for personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, supplies, and provisions entering, exiting, or transiting the territory of the FRY in support of the Operation.

10. The authorities in the FRY shall facilitate, on a priority basis and with all appropriate means, all movement of personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, or supplies, through or in the airspace, ports, airports, or roads used. No charges may be assessed against NATO for air navigation, landing, or takeoff of aircraft, whether government-owned or chartered. Similarly, no duties, dues, tolls or charges may be assessed against NATO ships, whether government-owned or chartered, for the mere entry and exit of ports. Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft used in support of the Operation shall not be subject to licensing or registration requirements, nor commercial insurance.

11. NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use. NATO shall not, however, claim exemption from reasonable charges for specific services requested and received, but operations/movement and access shall not be allowed to be impeded pending payment for such services.

12. NATO personnel shall be exempt from taxation by the Parties on the salaries and emoluments received from NATO and on any income received from outside the FRY.

13. NATO personnel and their tangible moveable property imported into, acquired in, or exported from the FRY shall be exempt from all duties, taxes, and other charges and inspections and custom regulations.

14. NATO shall be allowed to import and to export, free of duty, taxes and other charges, such equipment, provisions, and supplies as NATO shall require for the Operation, provided such goods are for the official use of NATO or for sale to NATO personnel. Goods sold shall be solely for the use of NATO personnel and not transferable to unauthorized persons.

15. The Parties recognize that the use of communications channels is necessary for the Operation. NATO shall be allowed to operate its own internal mail services. The Parties shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for the Operation, as determined by NATO. This shall include the right to utilize such means and services as required to assure full ability to communicate, and the right to use all of the electro-magnetic spectrum for this purpose, free of cost. In implementing this right, NATO shall make every reasonable effort to coordinate with and take into account the needs and requirements of appropriate authorities in the FRY.

16. The Parties shall provide, free of cost, such public facilities as NATO shall require to prepare for and execute the Operation. The Parties shall assist NATO in obtaining, at the lowest rate, the necessary utilities, such as electricity, water, gas and other resources, as NATO shall require for the Operation.

17. NATO and NATO personnel shall be immune from claims of any sort which arise out of activities in pursuance of the Operation; however, NATO will entertain claims on an ex gratia basis.

18. NATO shall be allowed to contract directly for the acquisition of goods, services, and construction from any source within and outside the FRY. Such contracts, goods, services, and construction shall not be subject to the payment of duties, taxes, or other charges. NATO may also carry out construction works with their own personnel.

19. Commercial undertakings operating in the FRY only in the service of NATO shall be exempt from local laws and regulations with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment and licensing and registration of employees, businesses, and corporations.

20. NATO may hire local personnel who on an individual basis shall remain subject to local laws and regulations with the exception of labor/employment laws. However, local personnel hired by NATO shall:

a. be immune from legal process in respect of words
spoken or written and all acts performed by them in
their official capacity;
b. be immune from national services and/or national
military service obligations;
c. be subject only to employment terms and
conditions established by NATO
; and
d. be exempt from taxation on the salaries and
emoluments paid to them by NATO.
21. In carrying out its authorities under this Chapter, NATO is authorized to detain individuals and, as quickly as possible, turn them over to appropriate officials.

22. NATO may, in the conduct of the Operation, have need to make improvements or modifications to certain infrastructure in the FRY, such as roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems. Any such improvements or modifications of a non-temporary nature shall become part of and in the same ownership as that infrastructure. Temporary improvements or modifications may be removed at the discretion of the NATO Commander, and the infrastructure returned to as near its original condition as possible, fair wear and tear excepted.

23. Failing any prior settlement, disputes with the regard to the interpretation or application of this Appendix shall be settled between NATO and the appropriate authorities in the FRY.

24. Supplementary arrangements with any of the Parties may be concluded to facilitate any details connected with the Operation.

25. The provisions of this Appendix shall remain in force until completion of the Operation or as the Parties and NATO otherwise agree.
Those terms amount to an occupation of Serbia by NATO, no government be it Serbia, Ukraine or USA would sign such an agreement, that is why NATO started bombing and that's why NATO is seen as a threat by Russia and a great many people in this country and the rest of the world.

Post Reply