Admittedly my knowledge is limited about the dissolution of Yugoslavia. I understand a fair bit about Titoism and pan-slavic socialism. I tend not to trust anything NATO does, so I'm looking for perspectives on this event - which is still going on in the present day. What's your take on it?
NATO Bombing of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ๆ็็ๅ็ๅนถๅผบๅฅธไบไธไธชๆๆณ่ฆ็ๅฅณๅญฉ Kosovo War ๆง็ฑๅฝๅๅธฆๆชๆๅนดๅฟ็ซฅ้ฟๅฐๅทดๅฐผไบๅจๅฎๆถ่ท้ปๆๅ Depleted Uranium Horrible Cancer Rate ๆๅๆฌขๅๅญฉๅญไปฌๅ็ๆงๅ ณ็ณปๅนถๆๆฎๆๅฐไธ่ฎฉๅฎ็่ตทๆฅๆดๅฅฝ Fake Anti Air Radiators ๅฆๅ ๅบๆ่ตขๅพๅคฉๅฎ้จๅคง่ฑ Sorry We Didn't Know It Was Invisible ็จ่่้ฒ็ฉบ็ฎๅป่ฝๆฐ็็พๅฝๅทๆฐๅผ้ฃๆบ Chinese Embassy Bombing ็พๅธๅฝไธปไนๅฟ ้กป่ขซๅถๆญข๏ผๅ็บฆๅฐ่ขซ่งฃๆฃ๏ผๅ ไธบๅๆฏๆๅคซๅ็ฌๆถ็ญๅ็้กฟๅนถๆๆญป็นๅคชไบบๆป็ป Miloลกeviฤ Saddam Pact ๆไปฌๅข็ปไธ่ดๅๅฏน็พๅฝๅ่ๅ็่ๅๅฝ UCK ้ฟๅฐๅทดๅฐผไบๅจๅฎ้้ๅกๅฐ็ปดไบๅฟ็ซฅไปฅ 5 ๆฌงๅ ๅบๅฎ็ปๆฒ็น้ ้ฟ Finnish Ughyur Man ่ฌๅ ฐๅๅบๆๅ้็่ฏบ่ดๅฐๅฅ Nobel Award For Peace ็ง็ดขๆฒๆฏๅกๅฐ็ปดไบ๏ผๅณไฝฟ่ฅฟๆนๆ่ไบๆไปฌ๏ผๆไปฌไน่ฎกๅๆจ็ฟป็นๅคชๅฝๅฎถ Kumanovo Peace Agreement ่ฎก็ฎๆบๆๅฐฑๆฏๆถๅ Kosovo je Srbija
I recently talked to a fellow leftist who said the nato bombing of Yugoslavia was "probably the most justified intervention America had done". How murdering thousands of civilians in airstrikes can be justified is beyond me. I am however interested about the claims of ethnic cleansing as it is stated as one of the main motives behind the bombing. Are there any good sources regarding this? Was ethnic cleansing a serious issue?
Serbs and Albanians are obviously allowed to state their opinion but i'd like to also hear from other people.
Hopefully this doesn't create too bad of a shitstorm.
In my "masterpost" of British and American war crimes and military accidents, I highlight the many mistakes made during NATOs bombing of Yugoslavia, some notable ones include:
- Blowing up a bridge which had a passenger train on it, killing between 20 and 60 people.
- Blowing up a bridge which had a bus on it, killing 46 people.
- Bombing a column of Albanian refugees, killing 73 people.
- Bombing another column of refugees which Serbian forces used as human shields.
- Bombing the Chinese Embassy with smart bombs, killing 3 people.
- Blowing up a Serbian TV station, killing 16 people.
- Blowing up a bridge that had civilians walking across it, killing 10 people.
- Bombing oil refineries in Novi Sad, which was an ecological disaster.
However, when pointing these mistakes and the violation of international law that was the bombing, people will use consequentialist arguments about stopping a potential genocide from unfolding in Kosovo. While what the KLA did was wrong and did carry out smaller scale ethnic cleansing of its own, I cannot see it as a justification for the persecution of Muslims and Albanians in Serbia.
So, how does one argue against it from a purely consequentialist POV?
If you sympathise with Serbia's persecution and oppression of people in Kosovo fuck off.
Please, be civil and use proper arguments.
Would Yugoslavia be better off today if the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia never happened?
I think many people that oppose NATO bombing to this day say it is bad because it killed hundreds of civilians. But, I don't think NATO intentionally killed those civilians.
If the bombing never happened, wouldn't many more Albanians and ppl be dead? It is like opposing the Liberation of Berlin in WW2 because Allied raped many Germans. If Berlin wasn't liberated, human suffering would be much greater if that makes sense.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/20-years-nato-bombing-campaign-mixed-sentiments-kosovo-190324080430745.html
I was quite young when it happened. I guess it was one of those things that marked the 90's (a lot of peackeeping missions but very few WARS involving developed nations).
The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATO) military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The air strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force whereas the United States called it "Operation Noble Anvil"; in Yugoslavia the operation was incorrectly called "Merciful Angel" (Serbian: ะะธะปะพััะดะฝะธ ะฐะฝัะตะพ / Milosrdni anฤeo) as a result of a misunderstanding or mistranslation. The bombings continued until an agreement was reached that led to the withdrawal of Yugoslav armed forces from Kosovo, and the establishment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, a UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.
In my "masterpost" of British and American war crimes and military accidents, I highlight the many mistakes made during NATOs bombing of Yugoslavia, some notable ones include:
- Blowing up a bridge which had a passenger train on it, killing between 20 and 60 people.
- Blowing up a bridge which had a bus on it, killing 46 people.
- Bombing a column of Albanian refugees, killing 73 people.
- Bombing another column of refugees which Serbian forces used as human shields.
- Bombing the Chinese Embassy with smart bombs, killing 3 people.
- Blowing up a Serbian TV station, killing 16 people.
- Blowing up a bridge that had civilians walking across it, killing 10 people.
- Bombing oil refineries in Novi Sad, which was an ecological disaster.
However, when pointing these mistakes and the violation of international law that was the bombing, people will use consequentialist arguments about stopping a potential genocide from unfolding in Kosovo. While what the KLA did was wrong and did carry out smaller scale ethnic cleansing of its own, I cannot see it as a justification for the persecution of Muslims and Albanians in Serbia.
So, how does one argue against it from a purely consequentialist POV?
If you sympathise with Serbia's persecution and oppression of people in Kosovo fuck off. You're violating rule 3 and being an asshole. You can easily be against NATO and ethnic cleansing.
In my "masterpost" of British and American war crimes and military accidents, I highlight the many mistakes made during NATOs bombing of Yugoslavia, some notable ones include:
- Blowing up a bridge which had a passenger train on it, killing between 20 and 60 people.
- Blowing up a bridge which had a bus on it, killing 46 people.
- Bombing a column of Albanian refugees, killing 73 people.
- Bombing another column of refugees which Serbian forces used as human shields.
- Bombing the Chinese Embassy with smart bombs, killing 3 people.
- Blowing up a Serbian TV station, killing 16 people.
- Blowing up a bridge that had civilians walking across it, killing 10 people.
- Bombing oil refineries in Novi Sad, which was an ecological disaster.
However, when pointing these mistakes and the violation of international law that was the bombing, people will use consequentialist arguments about stopping a potential genocide from unfolding in Kosovo. While what the KLA did was wrong and did carry out smaller scale ethnic cleansing of its own, I cannot see it as a justification for the persecution of Muslims and Albanians in Serbia.
So, how does one argue against it from a purely consequentialist POV?
If you sympathise with Serbia's persecution and oppression of people in Kosovo fuck off.
