PrimateDevilled Beef Sir Fry 😀 😀 Anna
Now what the hell is that?! 😀
PrimateNato wasn’t present there as some sort of impartial party, enforcing UN resolutions, but as an instrument of US policy. The only side that Nato was “preventing” was the serb side.
The UN wanted NATO to prevent the use of air power against ground targets in BiH. As far as I know, the primary air threat came from the Serb factions. The UN also wanted NATO to provide air support to UNPROFOR units. Why did the UN focus so much on the Bosnian Serbs? Ask them.
US policy? The Americans didn’t want to be there in the first place, right Garry?
It was quiet happy to allow covert flights into Tuzla with weapons and supplies
The former UNPROFOR/IFOR members mentioned that too. I know very little about it, but I guess it was done in order to help increase the pressure on the Serb factions.
PrimateNato wasn’t present there as some sort of impartial party, enforcing UN resolutions, but as an instrument of US policy. The only side that Nato was “preventing” was the serb side.
The UN wanted NATO to prevent the use of air power against ground targets in BiH. As far as I know, the primary air threat came from the Serb factions. The UN also wanted NATO to provide air support to UNPROFOR units. Why did the UN focus so much on the Bosnian Serbs? Ask them.
US policy? The Americans didn’t want to be there in the first place, right Garry?
It was quiet happy to allow covert flights into Tuzla with weapons and supplies
The former UNPROFOR/IFOR members mentioned that too. I know very little about it, but I guess it was done in order to help increase the pressure on the Serb factions.
PrimateYou are assuming UN and NATO interference made a positive difference. What evidence do yuo have to support that?
Statements from former UNPROFOR and later IFOR personnel. They say that the situation from 1991 to 1995 was pretty shifty and that many things could have been done better, but that their presence did improve the situation for many people in the region. They also say that DELIBERATE FORCE added to the pressure which already lay heavy on the Bosnian Serbs (almost goes without saying). The rest is history.
Amusing that NATO had to violate its own charter to do it… which NATO country was attacked to warrant NATO intervention?
The UN requested NATO to provide air support to UNPROFOR ground operations. NATO responded by deploying air assets which could provide CAS to UNPROFOR units on the ground and monitor and enforce the UN-mandated no-fly zone over BiH (Operation DENY FLIGHT).
NATO was more or less successful in preventing any of the parties from using fighters and attack aircraft over BiH, especially in the Bihac area. However, due to UN regulations, NATO aircraft were not allowed to engage helicopters (probably in order to minimise the risk of blue-on-blue incidents with UNPROFOR helicopters). NATO pilots would frequently attempt to force down any non-UN helicopters detected in the air above BiH, often without results. Naturally, this added to the frustration felt by many aircrews.
PrimateYou are assuming UN and NATO interference made a positive difference. What evidence do yuo have to support that?
Statements from former UNPROFOR and later IFOR personnel. They say that the situation from 1991 to 1995 was pretty shifty and that many things could have been done better, but that their presence did improve the situation for many people in the region. They also say that DELIBERATE FORCE added to the pressure which already lay heavy on the Bosnian Serbs (almost goes without saying). The rest is history.
Amusing that NATO had to violate its own charter to do it… which NATO country was attacked to warrant NATO intervention?
The UN requested NATO to provide air support to UNPROFOR ground operations. NATO responded by deploying air assets which could provide CAS to UNPROFOR units on the ground and monitor and enforce the UN-mandated no-fly zone over BiH (Operation DENY FLIGHT).
NATO was more or less successful in preventing any of the parties from using fighters and attack aircraft over BiH, especially in the Bihac area. However, due to UN regulations, NATO aircraft were not allowed to engage helicopters (probably in order to minimise the risk of blue-on-blue incidents with UNPROFOR helicopters). NATO pilots would frequently attempt to force down any non-UN helicopters detected in the air above BiH, often without results. Naturally, this added to the frustration felt by many aircrews.
PrimatePrimatePrimateSouth Park is a great show. Shame about Isaac Hayes quitting the show.
Indeed. Wasn’t he offended by all the fuss about Scientology or something?
PrimateSouth Park is a great show. Shame about Isaac Hayes quitting the show.
Indeed. Wasn’t he offended by all the fuss about Scientology or something?
Primatehow the Flag can blown if there is no air in the moon?
PrimateThe problem I have is when you exagerate the crimes of 1 side and ignore or even deny the crimes of the other parties involved.
Nasar Oric, the Bosnian Muslim military leader in Srebrenica, is currently on trial in The Hague for war crimes committed during his “defense” of the town. Evidence to date suggests that he was responsible for killing as many Serb civilians outside Srebrenica as the Bosnian Serb army was for massacring Bosnian Muslims inside the town.
—-
less than 100 000
And how many more lives could have been lost if it hadn’t been for UN and NATO efforts? How many deaths could have been avoided if the use of NATO air power had been extended at an earlier stage? Some wishful and highly hypothetical thinking here, perhaps, but at best that could also have limited Croatian and Bosnian Muslim incentives to conduct offensive operations against the Serbs, and thus reduced the total number of casualties on all sides, don’t you think?
I realise that Operation DELIBERATE FORCE was not the only reason why Republika Srpska chose to go along after the events of August and September 1995. Nearly four years of warfare had taken its toll on the Bosnian Serbs, and the Bosnian Muslims along with the Croatians had seized a substantial momentum on the ground. Still, there is little doubt that the pressure from NATO air operations was of significant help in putting an end to the fighting.
Srebrenica was left undefended with the strategic thought that, if the Serbs attacked an undefended town, surely that would cause NATO and the UN to agree that NATO air strikes against the Serbs were justified.
The tragedy in Srebrenica was not the only reason why the UN chose to sanction more sustained air operations. Attacks on Sarajevo, Zepa and Bihac were also part of the issue.
PrimateThe problem I have is when you exagerate the crimes of 1 side and ignore or even deny the crimes of the other parties involved.
Nasar Oric, the Bosnian Muslim military leader in Srebrenica, is currently on trial in The Hague for war crimes committed during his “defense” of the town. Evidence to date suggests that he was responsible for killing as many Serb civilians outside Srebrenica as the Bosnian Serb army was for massacring Bosnian Muslims inside the town.
—-
less than 100 000
And how many more lives could have been lost if it hadn’t been for UN and NATO efforts? How many deaths could have been avoided if the use of NATO air power had been extended at an earlier stage? Some wishful and highly hypothetical thinking here, perhaps, but at best that could also have limited Croatian and Bosnian Muslim incentives to conduct offensive operations against the Serbs, and thus reduced the total number of casualties on all sides, don’t you think?
I realise that Operation DELIBERATE FORCE was not the only reason why Republika Srpska chose to go along after the events of August and September 1995. Nearly four years of warfare had taken its toll on the Bosnian Serbs, and the Bosnian Muslims along with the Croatians had seized a substantial momentum on the ground. Still, there is little doubt that the pressure from NATO air operations was of significant help in putting an end to the fighting.
Srebrenica was left undefended with the strategic thought that, if the Serbs attacked an undefended town, surely that would cause NATO and the UN to agree that NATO air strikes against the Serbs were justified.
The tragedy in Srebrenica was not the only reason why the UN chose to sanction more sustained air operations. Attacks on Sarajevo, Zepa and Bihac were also part of the issue.
PrimateWest knew exactly that the real ethnical purifications would begun if they would push Serbia to do it, But they still werent thinking of solutions in the negotation procces, only to give their warmachine time to injust to the situation.
This doesn’t make much sense to me.
One of the greatest stubidity of West is that they think that any Balkan crisis could be easily solved by siding unanimous to one side of the conflict and claim the other as total monster…
NATO personnel stated that the situation was very complex and perplexive and that they did not single out the Bosnian Serbs or the Croatian Serbs as the only troublemakers in the region. However, the extent of Republika Srpska’s aggression, strategic potential and momentum (Bihac, Sarajevo, Srebrenica etc.) lead the UNSC, including certain non-Western member countries, to authorise military action against Croatian Serb and Bosnian Serb targets.
Then the all other participants had to be good and West could simply close their eyes on their ‘favorites’ warcrimes…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,,1665631,00.html
Like I said before world isent balck and white
You’re absolutely right. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot.
PrimateWest knew exactly that the real ethnical purifications would begun if they would push Serbia to do it, But they still werent thinking of solutions in the negotation procces, only to give their warmachine time to injust to the situation.
This doesn’t make much sense to me.
One of the greatest stubidity of West is that they think that any Balkan crisis could be easily solved by siding unanimous to one side of the conflict and claim the other as total monster…
NATO personnel stated that the situation was very complex and perplexive and that they did not single out the Bosnian Serbs or the Croatian Serbs as the only troublemakers in the region. However, the extent of Republika Srpska’s aggression, strategic potential and momentum (Bihac, Sarajevo, Srebrenica etc.) lead the UNSC, including certain non-Western member countries, to authorise military action against Croatian Serb and Bosnian Serb targets.
Then the all other participants had to be good and West could simply close their eyes on their ‘favorites’ warcrimes…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,,1665631,00.html
Like I said before world isent balck and white
You’re absolutely right. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot.
PrimateClinton (the one who bombed Serbia)
NATO Update – Week of 19-23 March 1999 – Kosovo:
As a result of the mounting humanitarian catastrophe and of Belgrade’s continued failure to comply with the demands of the international community, the Secretary General of NATO consulted with all Allies in accordance with the authority delegated to him by the North Atlantic Council on 30 January, about the launching of air operations. On 22 March, the Council, in view of the evolution of the situation on the ground in Kosovo, also authorised the Secretary General to decide, subject to further consultations, on a broader range of air operations if necessary. He announced on 23 March that he had directed SACEUR to initiate air operations in FRY aimed at halting the violence and bringing to an end the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo, preventing the spread of instability in the region and securing a political settlement.
Sign In
