I was correct in that the discussion was not about Clinton's other misdeeds. As for the quote and the article it came from, that is his opinion. He didn't say why it wasn't genocide or what it was if it wasn't genocide that was going on there. He merely made the claim. I agree that war crimes apply to the U.S. as well. I just don't believe that they were committed by Clinton in pursuing the Serbian endeavor.
The distinctions you make are irrelevant. There was no genocide in Kosovo. There was still intervention without the UN, without danger. Bombing is war whether or not there was occupation - that's a silly line to draw. Faulty information blah blah blah - none of that is relevant to whether the action was a war crime. It is not a war crime to mislead you nation to going into war (if you could even prove Bush purposefully mislead Congress - which you can't). You're making my point - you come up with this laundry list of caveats that don't change the material facts that Clinton attacked another country in a war of aggression, violating the UN charter, 'breaking international law' in the same vein as people claim Bush did, attacked civilian targets, etc etc. No Worries, again I'm sorry buddy but you just are rewriting history. Your whole scenario about Germany and other European countries being concerned about spreading instability and refugees is a joke. It just didn't happen that way. Clinton and Blair had to literally threaten to go it alone before they could drag the rest of NATO into action. That simply disproves your assertion. It just isn't true. It is a bad attempt to distinguish the intervention from the intervention in Iraq. You'd be much better off going the FB route which is that there has been discussion in the last decade of humanitarian interventions being an exception to the self defense aspect of intervention. This stability argument is a non-starter AND you fail to deal (again) with my point that at the time there was a larger concern of pissing Russia off. Further, it is slightly amusing that you now propose it was great to circumvent the UN (in light of a Russian and Chinese veto) while continually castigating the 'Coalition of the Willing' in Iraq. Really - just stop.
they are very relevant. Bombing can be a military action. The UN, the United States and almost every country and organization in the world recognizes the difference between a limited military action, and a war. Clinton's move passes the muster of stopping an ongoing genocide. It is not an invasion and occupation. That is important because the Geneva convention has a whole other set of restrictions and rules regarding that. So for the Geneva convention to make that distinction would seem to insinuate that it is anything but irrelevant.
You're going to have to qualify this limited military action vs war distinction, FB. The UN Charter doesn't say you can attack but not occupy another state, lol. You can bomb but not land? C'mon.That's just silly. In addition there is no caveat in the charter for intervention to stop genocide, nor does the intervention in Kosovo meet that bar if it existed (although the intervention in Bosnia would). Further, there is are no set guidelines on intervention for genocide - if it IS an exception to the self defense 'rule.' There is no guideline that you have to intervene within 1, 3, 5, or 10 years of the genocide - no rule it has to be ongoing. As such the intervention in Iraq can also easily fit within this exception.
Laugh on you crazy dude ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War Europe was already finding it hard to cope with previous waves of refugees and asylum seekers from the Balkans, and a further wave of refugees could have dangerously destabilised southeastern Europe. It is arguable that the war in Kosovo was not initially in the direct interests of the NATO states, but the refugee crisis made it so.
The UN does have a rule about genocide which is the reason they didn't want to use it regarding Sudan for so long. The Geneva Convention does have special applications and listings concerning occupying territory. By your rationale Germany would be fair game at any point because of a past genocide.
Lol, nice try. Where to begin? This doesn't disprove or prove anything. It doesn't say anything about the previous intervention to stop genocide in Bosnia - does it? Clearly not a self defense justified intervention. It says that it was in the interest (in the author's opinion) of NATO states, not that it was an act of self defense nor that NATO states perceived it as such. It doesn't really say anything that affects our disagreement. There is a reason it is consistently referred to as a US led - NATO intervention. The reason is that the Europeans were NOT going to intervene absent US and UK pressure. Nothing in your unattributed editorial denies that. And he's the funny part - the kicker if you will: you taken the wikipedia quote completely out of context. The portion of the write up BEFORE your quote explains that AS A RESULT of the intervention there was a mass exodus of refugees. "On the ground, the ethnic cleansing campaign by the Serbians was stepped up and within a week of the war starting, over 300,000 Kosovo Albanians had fled into neighboring Albania and Macedonia, with many thousands more displaced within Kosovo. By April, the United Nations was reporting that 850,000 people — the vast majority of them Albanians — had fled their homes....It is quite clear that NATO achieved a considerable moral advantage by the flight, whether desired or not. If so, if desired it was a great success, as it convinced NATO's member states populations that they had to win the conflict. Europe was already finding it hard to cope with previous waves of refugees and asylum seekers from the Balkans, and a further wave of refugees could have dangerously destabilised southeastern Europe." The conclusion that it was in NATO member's interest to win becuase of stability came POST intervention, as a result apparently of Serbia purposefully causing a mass exodus - not PRE intervention as you claim, lol. Further, the actual justification used for the intervention is irrelevant to whether or not it was 'legal' under the UN Charter: "The prohibition against the use of force in the UN Charter can be found in article 2(4): All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." There are two specific exceptions against this prohibition provided for in the Charter. The first is in Chapter VII, where the Security Council has been given power in order to fulfil it's responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 42 states (emphasis added): Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. The second specific exception is found in article 51, regarding the right to self-defence (emphasis added): Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security . . ." That's also from Wiki. Now if you're going to claim Iraq was illegal because of its violates the UN Charter, there is little doubt the intervention in Kosovo was also.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you explain? It doesn't say it is ok to attack a country as long as you don't occupy it. My point is that there is no enumerated criteria for these kinds of intervention. Your are drawing lines that simply don't exist.
The conclusion that it was in NATO member's interest to win becuase of stability came POST intervention, as a result apparently of Serbia purposefully causing a mass exodus - not PRE intervention as you claim, lol. You are really effing warped. You twisted a lot I 'said' by putting a bunch of words into my mouth, based on what you assumed my opinion must have been. That is very Republican of you, in a sick sorta wing nuttella way. I said regional instability; you say no way; I rebut yes way. I said that the refugee wave mattered; you said that was a *joke* of an opinion; I rebut yes way; you rebutted that it is now not a joke but still the wrong opinion. I swear this wil be my last reply ... 1.3 million refuges 'invaded' Europe during the Bosnian War (it is there in the wikipedia. go find it.) You want all of our gentle readers to believe that Europe did not think that there would a refugee problem in Kosovo UNTIL AFTER there was a a refugee problem in Kosovo. This defies common sense and is what you base your rebuttal on. Carry on you crazy dude ...
Actually the lines are drawn. They are there to prevent genocide. If no genocide is going on, then what is there to prevent? Anyway moving in 10 years after the fact definitely would not be allowed by this provision. The fourth Geneva convention article 1 section B is written specifically to deal with occupied territories, so there are different rules for that than for other military actions such as bombing etc.
Hmmm...so now your argument is that it was Bosnian refugees that caused the intervention? The quote you provided was talking about the Kosovo intervention. I'm afraid you're wrong on this count too. The intervention in Bosnia was to stop genocide, not because of a concern for instability. You seem to be blurring the timeline of the two actions which were almost five years apart. Uh, no. My point is pretty simple: Europe was not intervening in either Bosnia nor Kosovo until pushed to do so by Blair and Clinton. That is purely and undeniably a fact. That fact belies your assertion that the interventions were because of a concern for stability. If they were truly concerned about stability as a threat to their own nation states then they wouldn't have needed a push from Clinton and Blair (neither of which's country was threatened by said instability). Your own quote shows the underlying basis for this claim when it suggests the Europeans realized it was a war they must win (the realization happening post intervention) because once the action was started in Kosovo a massive wave of refugees was unleashed on neighboring countries. A wave that dwarfed what the levels previously had been as a result of the NATO action. Regardless of all of this NONE of it excepts Clinton from our obligations under the UN Charter. Keeping NATO obligations (in your warped version of history) is not an excuse to violate the UN Charter. The US was not threatened by your alleged instability. Hence it cannot possibly use a self defense exception - that's absurd. The funny thing is that you're running a series of different events and different excuses together in an attempt to avoid the realization that the US couldn't use that defense. THAT, my friend, sounds like a Republican tactic (I'm not sure if you're assuming I'm Republican - I'm not, btw).
Hayes, could you do me a favor? Can you replace each occurrence of intervention/intervene with invasion/invade in your posts please? I am having a headache too.
What provision are you talking about? There is NO provision - it is just a loosely discussed doctrinal exception. As such how can you possibly conclude what is and is not allowed by the 'provision,' lol. Yes, there are added burdens. IF you occupy a country then you must follow X rules. That does not mean it is legal to bomb another country and illegal to occupy another country, lol.
That's almost exactly the point I've been trying to make to you in Bush War Criminal thread regarding a doctrine of humanitarian intervention. Anyone I actually agree with your overall point in this debate. Clinton is as guilty as Bush when it comes to violating the UN Charter and a stric reading of the UN Charter the Balkans action is illegal. Like I said though in the other thread since no votes were taken specifically condeming it no official determination was made regarding the legitimacy of the Balkans action.
