NATO-Yugoslav Armed Forces-What if? [Archive]

View Full Version : NATO-Yugoslav Armed Forces-What if?

Killerkai1

10-04-2007, 08:31 AM

It's September 1999. The NATO bombing of Serbia has not broken the back of the Serbian security forces and the KLA can not make any headway against them either. NATO decide to move against the Yugoslav forces through a ground offensive into the Kosovo province. How will this happen and how will the Serb forces fight it...Its a question that has always intrigued me. I was reading General Jackson's book the other day on his mission to lead the Kosovo forces and he reveals that it would have been very easy for the Serb Forces to seal off any invasion routes from Albania or Macedonia. I heard a rumour at the time NATO had plans to seize Pristina Airport in an airborne assault, yeah right.p-)

Lokos

10-04-2007, 11:27 AM

I myself have read that concentrating the force necessary for an actual invasion would have been difficult.

My own opinion is that, had this event transpired, it would have been a bloody, protracted fight. And Serbia would have eventually lost it. Our own logistics were strained by the bombing campaign. Fuel, ammunition and the other necessities of modern warfare were not inexhaustible in supply. Our AT weapons were not suitable to fighting off NATO armoured spearheads. NATO CAS would have been a difficult obstacle to overcome.

The General is correct in stating that the likely invasion routes from Macedonia and Albania were not difficult to cover. But we could not concentrate our forces sufficiently to cover them. NATO ground forces would not have enjoyed the fighting, to say the least. In heavily wooded areas - many of them mountainous - many of their advantages evaporate. That said, we would have lost. They could concentrate their forces in the theater of operations quickly, fluidly and decisively. Their supply situation was better. Their general force proficiency was superior.

Don't get me wrong, our guys could fight. But the professional soldiers constituted no more than 30% of the total in the infantry (higher in the specialized branches).

It would have been an unequal contest.

Lokos

Killerkai1

10-04-2007, 02:21 PM

I think you are underselling yourself. I think a major factor would have been military technology, the Serbs had missed out on at least 10 years of it through sanctions, but most NATO studies of the Yugoslav forces after the conflict showed a grudging respect for the war they controlled they air defence systems, their defensive preparations etc. If the serbs had for example, access to the Tor missile system ( I think that is the one) they could battered off the KLA at Pastrik. I agre NATO would have ultimately prevailed but it would also depend on how the the quality of the Serbs defensive formations of which I know almost nothing about. I just think the 91 Gulf war gave rise to a myth of total western military superiority, it depends on the quality of the enemy as well. And NATO knew the Serbs would be a formidable nut to crack.

ting

10-04-2007, 03:23 PM

Sorry for butting in, I have no knowledge to add, only general questions to ask:-D

I`m curious about the moral of the serb forces.

- They had been constantly looking at what`s in the sky for months. Apart from a soar neck It cant be a moral booster.

- I would expect that soldiers in a dictatorship in this modern age would be less willing to put their life on the line for a dictator, especially in a conflict with "enlightened democracies".

- The supply situation must have been grave with all the bombing.

- Knowing that their enemy was infinetly more powefull.

On the pluss side:

- They might have had hope that russia might intervene. Hope is a good motivator.

- Some of the soldiers would perhaps have had combat experience, however there is a fine line between combat experience and combat fatigue.

As far as I understand the serbs would have had to deal with combined KLA and NATO special forces working behind the lines. Also the serbs positions would have been vulnerable to much more acurate airstrikes with troops on the ground guiding the bombs. Not to mention attack helicopters and artillery.
My thinking Is that the serbs soldiers would quickly surrender. And only a few fanatics would fight hard(enough). Im not a serb so I can`t judge the mood of the population at that time, but from the cold North my thoughts at the time were that the population did not seem as resolute as Milosevic to put it mildly.

Also remember that the bombing was very restrictive to avoid loss of pilots and civillians. With eyes on the ground, and soldiers on the ground at risk, the "gloves would have come of".

lightfire

10-04-2007, 04:28 PM

Interesting topic :)

First of all, having in mind everything that has been said here I just like to get things clear. NATO bombing, did it realy as you said " broken the back of the Serbian security forces"? It surelly affected heavily and forced Milosevic to stand down, however what exact moment did show, that enemy is defeated? From this question follows - what exact situation should have occured, that NATO would be forced to take actions on the ground? Just NOT backing down? Staying in Kosovo to the last man situation?

Then of cource, as mentioned you must ask of serbian morale. What was it? Lokos mentioned, that only 30 of ground forces were pros, others conscripts, except specialised units. However, you have combat experience of many units since 1991, though ith not state of art equipment, but still. Thus the morale - should we continue fighting?Can we? Motherland stands behind us, no step back? Was there smth like that?Or perhaps desperation..?

Another asset is the NATO readiness to conduct ground offencive. Surelly there must have been plans if air campaign fails. Ready for action could be rapid responce units. Were there any at the sceen? Marine Expeditionary Force or smth like that? To mass needed amount of troops and equipment takes time, and that is not in favour to NATO. Whereas serbs could use political points - motherland is under direct attack, it has been invaded! I remember serbs used the propoganda quite enough during the campaign, using media widely. From key NATO leaders mock up trial, to this video, where F-18s are flying in swastika formation - allusion to nazi offencive in 1941.

Sop then we have the third, one of the most important issues. The political one. How would Western public oppinion react to ground invasion (casualties, morale needs)? UN offcource could not do a damn thing about it, however it's players, liuke Russia could. Not to say,that Russia would start WWIII over Serbia (wait, didn't it happen before...?), but russian reaction was harsh. And it took realy much efforts to keep away as much as possible from the conflict, esspecialy for russian military. Afterwards we all remember russian paratroopers show of force in Mitrovica. Could this have happened earlier (if NATO goes on ground offencive) and in bigger scale?

I think, in military tearms, surelly NATO had many advantages over serbians, but that is not always the key. NATO was alays a bit divided, fractioned, esspecially during contravercial crisis moments. Air campaign,rapid speed is ok, but for instanc a Korea type battlefield..I think it could just simply cripple NATO, under such grounds as Kosovo.

Ordie

10-04-2007, 04:50 PM

Take a sheet of paper, crumple it up, extend it out a bit, then you have Yugoslavia.

Topography is one of the reason why the Balkans is considerd the faultline of civilizations. Empires cannot go any further because passes easily cut any advances.

The Eastern Romans, Venetians, Austrians, Turks and Nazis all had difficulty in moving armies through that region. NATO would not have been different.

shatro

10-04-2007, 07:02 PM

My thinking Is that the serbs soldiers would quickly surrender. And only a few fanatics would fight hard(enough). Im not a serb so I can`t judge the mood of the population at that time, but from the cold North my thoughts at the time were that the population did not seem as resolute as Milosevic to put it mildly.

I'll concentrate on this, but your whole post with all due respect is full of wrong assumptions.
Nobody in Serbia wanted to surrender, people were mad at Milosevic for ordering our troops to withdraw from Kosovo. That withdrawal even contributed to fall of Milosevic from power, but that is another story.
You can easily say that almost 95% of population were eager to fight till the end.
Speaking for my self i was one the people against Milosevic right from the beginning of his reign, and i still strongly detest his policies. I was active in all the protest against him, all the riots and clashes with police. But all that didn't play any role when my country was attacked, it was my country which was attacked not Milosevic. We all had the same feeling. My countrymen were lining up in front of recruiting places in such quantities that soon there were no place and need for more recruits and volunteers.

Labud

10-04-2007, 07:08 PM

- I would expect that soldiers in a dictatorship in this modern age would be less willing to put their life on the line for a dictator, especially in a conflict with "enlightened democracies".

I don't know what you guys have heard about us, but there wasn't any dictatorship. Serbian soldiers didn't go to war to fight for dictators. They went to war to defend their fatherland.

I think that it would have been very tough fight. At the and nato would win because of ruining Serbian "background", not because they are better fighters. But this victory would be paid with too much blood.

Ordie

10-04-2007, 07:36 PM

The opposition to Milosovic also opposed the NATO bombing.

I recall civilians holding hands across Belgrade's bridges acting as human shields.

But most importantly opposition wanted to kick out Milosovic on their terms, not NATO.

Lokos

10-04-2007, 08:42 PM

- They had been constantly looking at what`s in the sky for months. Apart from a soar neck It cant be a moral booster.

Our morale was high. First hand experience.

- I would expect that soldiers in a dictatorship in this modern age would be less willing to put their life on the line for a dictator, especially in a conflict with "enlightened democracies".

We weren't fighting for Milosevic.

- The supply situation must have been grave with all the bombing

True to an extent.

- Knowing that their enemy was infinetly more powefull

That didn't matter.

Also the serbs positions would have been vulnerable to much more acurate airstrikes with troops on the ground guiding the bombs.

Yes, NATO artillery observers would have been extremely dangerous.

Not to mention attack helicopters and artillery.

Attack helicopters would have gone down in numbers...

My thinking Is that the serbs soldiers would quickly surrender.

You are mistaken.

but from the cold North my thoughts at the time were that the population did not seem as resolute as Milosevic to put it mildly.

The population was more resolute.

Also remember that the bombing was very restrictive to avoid loss of pilots and civillians. With eyes on the ground, and soldiers on the ground at risk, the "gloves would have come of".

At what point were the gloves on when it came to targets in Kosovo?

I speak only from my own personal experience, as a former soldier of the VJ in Kosovo.

Lokos

INAT

10-04-2007, 09:07 PM

I don't know what you guys have heard about us, but there wasn't any dictatorship. Serbian soldiers didn't go to war to fight for dictators. They went to war to defend their fatherland.

I think that it would have been very tough fight. At the and nato would win because of ruining Serbian "background", not because they are better fighters. But this victory would be paid with too much blood.

Of course.Sloba was hated but when your country is attacked it is a galvinizing effect and the population united to fight the aggresor.
The same way the US united after Sept 11.You can see it in Iraq
Sunni, Shiite,Baathist,Former soldier,citizen etc are fighting each other
but they all seem to have a common goal of fighting the US and kicking them out.It is your duty as a citizen of any country to resist.And Serbs
living under the Ottoman boot for 5 centuries have become stubborn and intransigent.Serbs knowing full well what the result would be said no to Hitler so in regards to Serb morale I am sure for soldiers it was an honour to fight kla/NATO in 99.

There is no race which has shown a more heroic desire for freedom than the Serbs, or achieved it with less aid from others or at more sacrifice to itself-Temperly(British historian)

Here is a very good analysis of the logistics of invastion and the option that were available to NATO at the time.Good read

http://members.tripod.com/Balkania/resources/military/stratfor-ground_warfare.html

Oh the article was written during the bombing 1999

The difficulties of an invasion of Kosovo province include:
The invasion would have to be mounted from Albania or Macedonia. Neither of these countries are members of NATO. Macedonia provides the most direct route but it is unclear as to whether Macedonia will permit a multi-divisional force to deploy and attack from its soil.
There is little to no prepositioned equipment or supplies in this region. This will extend dramatically the time needed to build up an invasion force.
It is not clear that the Greek port of Thessaloniki will be available for the buildup. Albania lacks ports and infrastructure for the management of complex cargo operations.
Land transport from Italian ports will require the cooperation of the Slovenian, Bosnian and Croatian governments and movement along roads and railroads vulnerable to Serbian special operations interdiction.
Land transport from Italian ports will also require access to Montenegro, now part of Yugoslavia and occupied by the Yugoslav Second Army.
The Serbian Third Army has had months to dig in along the Albanian and Macedonian frontiers and will be difficult to dislodge.
The terrain makes high quality, high confidence, intelligence gathering extremely difficult. The climate limits the use of optical national technical means of intelligence.
The terrain in Kosovo is extremely rugged, making armored operations difficult and close air support difficult and dangerous.
Given the terrain, the likelihood of simultaneously destroying the Serbian Third Army and preventing the development of partisan resistance in the Kosovo countryside is extremely small. The development of guerrilla operations against the occupying NATO force is extremely high so long as the Serbian government maintains its legitimacy and operational control.
The logistical strains of operating on extended lines inside Kosovo will increase the difficulty of sustaining operational tempo over an extended period of time.
The probability of substantial casualties in what promises to be a light-infantry operation supported by mobile artillery is extremely high and politically unacceptable

Killerkai1

10-05-2007, 05:07 AM

themacedonian

10-05-2007, 07:48 AM

baddy3

10-05-2007, 08:11 AM

Its is said in the above exchange that the Serbs would have had to watch out for NATO artilery observers, yet we were told that NATO special forces were in Kosovo drawing NATO airpower onto Serb military during the bombardment. Their did not do a very good job did they?

they did to a certain extent, but with orders to stay clear off the enemy and mark only clear targets it proved to be difficult. As said before terrain, camouflaging techniques, frequent change of positions and a huge number of various decoys all were limiting factors that rendered SF guidance teams ineffective. in case of deployment of ground forces, no doubt NATO would have learned a bloody lesson, but the Serbs would have been sent back to the middle ages. The role of SF in such a conflict would be two-fold: to guide artillery and air strikes on vital command centers, supply lines, armor position, etc. and more importantly anti-partisan and anti-terrorist actions behind Serbian lines but also behind its own lines as no doubt the Serbs would use its old tactics from WWII and do the same they did to germans...

Labud

10-05-2007, 08:44 AM

I recall civilians holding hands across Belgrade's bridges acting as human shields.

Morale amongst all Serbian people was on very high level. I remember that at night we went outside and watched our AA artillery, then making the cakes for the Army by the women, on Easter we went to local school where was soldiers to give them eggs, helping the Army in all ways,...

Killerkai1

10-05-2007, 11:40 AM

INAT

10-05-2007, 05:22 PM

I think a key factor would have been the Serbian MUP, the extent to which their infantry fighting skills could buttress the efforts of the Serbian armour formations as well as conduct Special operations near the Albanian and Macedonian borders, a factor neglected quite often. From what I have heard (and its all anti Serb bollocks here in England) the MUP did not conduct Prekaz op as well as they could have done but i don't know about that.

Well the Yugoslav and in tern the Serbian Army ( and maybe Lokos could elaborate) operated on the doctrine that it would face
either Soviet invasion or NATO since these were the dominant powers
after WW2.So they operated on the assumption that faced with a much larger force the regular army would melt away and they would rely on heavily on infantry,the rugged interior of Serbia proper and south Serbia and guerilla warfare.

themacedonian

10-06-2007, 01:08 AM

Well the Yugoslav and in tern the Serbian Army ( and maybe Lokos could elaborate) operated on the doctrine that it would face
either Soviet invasion or NATO since these were the dominant powers
after WW2.So they operated on the assumption that faced with a much larger force the regular army would melt away and they would rely on heavily on infantry,the rugged interior of Serbia proper and south Serbia and guerilla warfare.

It would have been what Iraq is now. The ex-regular Yugoslav army (like Iraqi army) becoming a guerrilla force aka insurgents. Partisans in WWII were called terrorist by the Germans.

NATO also would have set up first an Administrator (as in Bosnia and then Iraq) then a friendly government with "monitored" elections, some parties like Milosevic Socialist Party (in Iraq being the Baath party) would have been banned as evil. Same Modus Operandi.

It would have been left on to the population to "resists" the new administration or to accept it.

The Serbs actually won because their structure (as opposed to type) of government was untouched. Belgrade was not looted like Baghdad was. Kosovo was not surrendered as NATO requested but its status is in limbo.

The Serbs played the military and political game. The military held off long enough for the politicians to make a deal on better terms. That is what a military force is about.

Killerkai1

10-06-2007, 05:32 AM

Excellent points made by Macedonian and Inat. Read the link from yesterday's contribution by Inat on Yugoslav military doctrine and compare it to that of the Iraqi insurgency strategy pursued by the iraqi Baathists and military and I can not believe it is a concidence, even down to the point of attacking ethnic proxies of the invader, (Sunni assaults against Shia and Kurdish supporters of US) The Serbian military, if you read Barry R. Posen, "The War for Kosovo: Serbia's Political-Military Strategy'' secured key concessions for the Milosevic government, these concessions seemed minor at the time but the reason the West can not obtain Kosovo independence is because the whole issue was placed under the control of the UN security council, a major shift from Rambillouet, not well understood at the time. The Yugoslav military by controlling the battlefield against the KLA meant Milosevic could hold Serbia's own in negoitations with NATO later on. If they had lost major control of the province (a key unstated objective of NATO) then Milosevic would have to make so many compromises Serbia could not have continued the political struggle for the region.

INAT

10-06-2007, 09:03 AM

It would have been what Iraq is now. The ex-regular Yugoslav army (like Iraqi army) becoming a guerrilla force aka insurgents. Partisans in WWII were called terrorist by the Germans.

NATO also would have set up first an Administrator (as in Bosnia and then Iraq) then a friendly government with "monitored" elections, some parties like Milosevic Socialist Party (in Iraq being the Baath party) would have been banned as evil. Same Modus Operandi.

It would have been left on to the population to "resists" the new administration or to accept it.

The Serbs actually won because their structure (as opposed to type) of government was untouched. Belgrade was not looted like Baghdad was. Kosovo was not surrendered as NATO requested but its status is in limbo.

The Serbs played the military and political game. The military held off long enough for the politicians to make a deal on better terms. That is what a military force is about.

Good point Mac Yugoslavia was certainly a test run for Iraq.Too bad they
are not done with us yet.

GIJOEJK

10-07-2007, 01:46 AM

As I remember the news at the time the NATO plan was to assemble a force of 200 000 troops with tanks and attack Serbia from Hungary. Therefore isolating Novi Sad and taking Vrsac, Subotica, Pancevo, and arriving near Belgrade in a week.

That would have put direct pressure on the Serb leadership and the population.
It would have ended in a peace deal with similar situation as now but with more casualties on the Serbian side.

I hate what ifs. It is done now.

I remember hearing the same thing. Also, Croatians were massing on Serbia's boarder, ready to invade if ordered by NATO.

So, this is what I think would have happened. Its quite grim...

1. Nato tries to invade Kosovo, but gets bagged down in heavy fighting.
2. Hungary along with Nato, invades northern Serbia.
3. Croatians also launch an invasion of Serbia.
4. Serb civilians fight alongside the Serbian army.
5. NATO, Croatia and Hungary claim they are justified for killing Serb civilians because the civilians were actually combatants. Many Serbian civilians die, both young and old...
6. Serbs fall back as the invaders gain more and more territory. The situation soon becomes a humanitarian disaster in the making.
7. Despite Nato's strict censorship of the fighting, some video footage manages to be smuggled out and the world sees what horrors are really happening.
8. Hungarian people learn of the heavy casualties that their army has sustained and demand an end to their participation of the invasion.
9. Hungarian government, under Nato pressure, says that it will continue with the invasion. Violent demonstrations erupt in the streets. Mothers want their sons back home, wives want their husbands back and so on.
10. The remaining Serb troops in Kosovo learn of the disaster in Serbia. Many try to leave Kosovo and go to the aid of their families. Nato propaganda soon exploits this and starts to turn the tide in the Kosovo fighting.
10. Milosevic government falls, and Milosevic is killed. Chaos and confusion ensue while the fighting intensifies for Belgrade.
11. Russia keeps screaming blood murder but does nothing. China does the same.
12. All Serbian organized resistance is over and Nato occupies Belgrade.
13. Nato declares victory while 1/3 of the Serbian population is dead or missing.
14. Kosovo Albanians run rampant, slaughtering, burning and destroying everything Serbian in sight. Nato troops do nothing to stop it.
15. Northern Serbia is split up and given to Croatia and Hungary. While the Albanians get Kosovo.
16. After seven days of intense fighting Belgrade along with all of Serbia looks like Berlin 1945.

Three months later;
17. The fourth puppet regime installed by Nato ends in failure.
18. Macedonia, under Nato pressure, is forced to cede 1/3 of its territory to the Albanian rebels.
19. Serbian Guerrilla attacks on Nato patrols are on the rise. Russia and China clandestine operations supply them with more and more sophisticated weapons.

Two years later;
20. The Nato occupation of Serbia is extremely unpopular with the European people. Nato casualties mount daily and Nato's power and prestige is weakened by it.
21. A new and militant leader takes power of Russia, while China prepares to invade Taiwan.

50 years later;
Serbia is given its independence along with most of its northern territories. European historians look back upon this shameful invasion as one of Europe's darkest hours. We Americans don't even remember it, while getting fatter and stupider...

Thank God this never happened!!! :)

Killerkai1

10-07-2007, 06:04 AM

Some of the above is a bit crazy but the point of the thread is to question western military power, it all depends on things like military technology and the combat quality of the opposition. The Serbs lacked military techology but the way they fought the war with resources it had sent a chilling message to NATO, if we had the latest state of art missile anti aircraft systems, nato losses would have more accurately reflected the Serbs anti aircraft operations. I agree that Northern Serbia is a military weakpoint for the Serb forces but the biggest fall out of this whole sorry saga will be the long term collapse of Macedonia, this will be an almost inevitable consequence of the current drives towards Albanian independence.

ting

10-07-2007, 12:54 PM

This is an eye opener for me, so sorry if I seem ignorant:-D
I have not had the time to read up on this subject, however I did read the article posted by INAT, and found it extremely interesting. Back to the issues:

MORALE
I explicitly neglected to mention national pride as a moral booster since I wanted to get a better insight into its effect. Some countries have more of a willingness to resist than others. The Serbs have a long history of fighting for their territory, and I guess the national pride overshadows political alignment.

Anyway I thought Milosevic was perceived as a dictator by the Serbs at the time. Was this not the case? Do Serbs currently view him as a dictator?

Air War
As far as I can remember there was criticism that Nato was to careful in the bombing. I think they were restricted to altitudes above 12-14000 feet(probably fear of manpadsp-)), hence the bombing would not have been as effective. In my view this would have changed had there been troops on the ground. The risks to the pilots/aircraft would be acceptable due to risks faced by ground forces as well as the greater possibility of pilots being recoverable if they ejected. As far as I remember there was a fear that captured personnel could be used as human shields.

Hence my use of the phrase "gloves coming of".

POLITICAL SITUATION
As far as I remember the US(Clinton) were the ones least willing to commit ground forces. After Nato saw that Milosevic would not give in to air power alone Clinton was persuaded by Blair to commit to a ground operation. I think most of Europe were more hawkish than the doves in the white house at that time:roll:

From a documentary I saw(not really related to the war) I think the number of ground troops to be used would have been around 150 000. As the plans were being drawn up, Milosevic gave in.

GROUND WARFARE OPTION
I think the article linked by INAT is superb. However I get the feeling it tends to inflate the problems faced by Nato as well as perhaps inflate the Serbian capabilities. Though the premises might be skewed, the logic in the arguments seem well founded, especially since It was written in such an early stage of the conflict.

I think Nato would go for a mix of Case 1 and Case 2. As far as I remember, the problems of Greece and Macedonia had been solved. I think Macedonia was given a security guarantee, while Greece succumbed to a mix of peer pressure, arm twisting and promise of great fortune:lol: Greece is after all a Nato country and would have found denying Nato access impossible.

However the infrastructure from the Albanian coast would have needed upgrading, while I think Albanian port facilities were deemed to be adequate.

I don`t think Montenegro would have been invaded.

Would there have been serious partisan problems in Kosovo? Wasn`t something like 90% of the population Albanian?

SPECIAL FORCES
Killerkai1, you mentioned they were told Nato special forces were used in Kosovo. I don`t think there were many, if any. I have only heard rumors that SAS were assisting KLA and that this was not a Nato operation. (Nato was suspicious of the KLA, with good reason as seen at the end of the war with their attempt to invade Macedonia.) For SF`s to be used for guiding bombs etc. effectively, there would have had to be a lot more of them. The Serbs would probably have caught or been in firefights with them a few times as well. p-)

LOKOS
How did you feel the effects of the air campaign? Was driving in the open restricted etc...
Or perhaps the pizza guy wouldn't deliver? War is not an easy matter so you don`t have to answer if you don`t feel like it;)

Killerkai1

10-07-2007, 03:13 PM

Maybe i have not read this properly, but is someone trying to wind Lokos up, a seriously bad move or maybe i have misunderstood?

Killerkai

Hyde

10-07-2007, 03:38 PM

- Knowing that their enemy was infinetly more powefull.

Call them crazy, but that's actually a moral booster for Serbs. They have been fighting more powerfull and better equipped enemys all of their history of a thousand years, never yielded in front of any superior force and attacker, and always picked up the fight.
Plus, they are getting attacked in their land and have to defend their homeland:
In a fight, anger is as good as courage.

CountZero

10-07-2007, 05:04 PM

ah finally back after a lengthy no internet period

another point to ponder is what would be the acceptable level of casualties for Nato?

eg a parallel with iraq a number of countries that had troops there pulled out after political pressure due to mounting casualties. A similiar thing might have happened in this hypotetical conflict

Nebelwerfer.

10-07-2007, 06:09 PM

3. Croatians also launch an invasion of Serbia.

:lol: This is beyond wildest dreams...

1. Croatia would never, and I mean NEVER, attack Serbia nor any other country.
2. Croatia in it's history never made an invasion of neighbouring country.
3. After having a war from '91. to '95. and after peacefull reintegration of east Slavonia in '98. croats definitely wouldn't invade if NATO said so...

Kitsune

10-07-2007, 08:26 PM

I have always thought that we should have gone into Kosovo with ground forces instead of this wretched bombing campaign that targeted Serbian infrastructure which was actually used. And I wouldn't have minded myself if German troops had taken the lead if need be.

And let's face it: NATO would have won quite readily. I have not the slightest doubt of it: quality and quantity of troops and equipment, God, the US Airforce and the overwhelming majority of the civilians in the area would have been on our side. How to begin? An straightforward might have actually worked best. Tell the Serbian military officially seven days in advance:
"We will be entering Kosovo in seven days. We strongly suggest that you use this timespan to make yourself scarce in the region - otherwise we will be doing it. This is your first, last and only chance to withdraw with at least some dignity. End of message."

I still think that this would have been the best, most upright and also most decent way to deal with the matter. Especially if the Serbs had taken the not-so-subtle hint and had withdrawn (probably with a lot of fuzz and V-signs and all - by all means let them) no one needed to have died - and more, the Serbian civilians in Kosovo would not have been without protection for many days as it actually happened. All in all much better than to start bombing Belgrad, just because the Kosovo centered air-only bombing campaign did not cut it (NATO tried its best to hide that of course). But of course: it is essential that this thing would have been pulled through even if the Serbian military had decided to make its stand - one can't just bluster with nothing behind it and while the whole affair then would have ended with bloodshed it would have at least set an example of resolve that would have been a lesson to NATO's next conflict partner.

As the Kosovo conflict was resolved "in our reality" is in my opinion one of the more recent examples of how an pussy attitude on the parts of the political leadership can lead to mendacity and and outcome which was quite immoral. That goes for Clinton, but we Germans were even worse.

INAT

10-07-2007, 08:56 PM

Hyde

10-07-2007, 09:01 PM

AK-Lover

10-07-2007, 09:25 PM

Vuk1389

10-07-2007, 09:37 PM

Very interesting opinions I think there would be guerrilla activities in the mountains, and NATO wouldn't dare enter them. I think Russia would drop weapons, food, supplies...etc. for the resistance.p-)

Kitsune

10-07-2007, 10:42 PM

You Germans are the Top-Propaganda hitted guys when it comes to Ex-Yugoslavia. Just continuing what Hitler didn'T achieve, everything in you policy about Ex-Yugoslavia goes the same whay as in the second world war.
I am pretty sure that Hitler would have handled the Kososvo Crisis rather differently than the Federal Republic did - and I am also sure that especially the Serbs would have noticed the difference. So do not say such things. But I guess your most important point is to have mentioned Hitler once again. Good Job in any case.
Or should you allude to Germany's often critisiced early recognition of Croatia? That would then be more a continuation of a policy which is older than WWI, then again, this had not much to do with the Kosovo crisis.

Otherwise, I would agree that there was propaganda involved from the NATO side, this includes Germany with Scharpings (German Minister of Defense back then) "Hufeisenplan". I am not proud of it either. The comparision of Serbian doings with the Holocaust was certainly over the top, still, the basic idea was essentially something Serbians did and do themselves (see above): to besmirch the reputation of your enemy, just compare him with Hitler.
However, not everything was a lie, the Serbs did commit their share of actual crimes in Kosovo. In any case, for them to solve the situation by military force, as they tried to, was unacceptable for most of the western Nations, therefore, I find nothing wrong with the idea of a NATO military intervention, only the kind how it was done was deplorable in my opinion. I agree that back then some countries like France or Britain had some second thoughts wether to do anything because of some longstanding connections with Serbia, but that did not go so much USA nor Germany. And as far as Britain is concerned, Blair fastly overcame any doubts because of his apparent general inclination to fight for freedom and democracy. Plus, excuse my mentioning this, for both France and Britain there were more important things than Serbia.

Very interesting opinions I think there would be guerrilla activities in the mountains, and NATO wouldn't dare enter them. I think Russia would drop weapons, food, supplies...etc. for the resistance.

I must say that I doubt this very much. Any "Serbian resistance in the mountains" would have been confronted by UCK fighters - which are probably knew the terrain far better than then Serbian forces and who could have been supplied and supported far easier by NATO than any Serb soldiers by Russia (if that should have even been necessary). I am sorry, but the truth of the matter is that simply everything would have been arrayed against the Serbian military in Kosovo, on ground or in the air, in the higher or in the lower regions and that goes especially for the longer term. Keep in mind that in most of Kosovo the Serbian soldiers were factually the foreigners whereas the NATO troops would have been considered liberators. If that thought hurts some feelings among the Serbs here on the board, that is too bad, but such was the situation.

AK-Lover

10-08-2007, 12:31 AM

I am pretty sure that Hitler would have handled the Kososvo Crisis rather differently than the Federal Republic did - and I am also sure that especially the Serbs would have noticed the difference. So do not say such things. But I guess your most important point is to have mentioned Hitler once again. Good Job in any case.
Or should you allude to Germany's often critisiced early recognition of Croatia? That would then be more a continuation of a policy which is older than WWI, then again, this had not much to do with the Kosovo crisis.

Otherwise, I would agree that there was propaganda involved from the NATO side, this includes Germany with Scharpings (German Minister of Defense back then) "Hufeisenplan". I am not proud of it either. The comparision of Serbian doings with the Holocaust was certainly over the top, still, the basic idea was essentially something Serbians did and do themselves (see above): to besmirch the reputation of your enemy, just compare him with Hitler.
However, not everything was a lie, the Serbs did commit their share of actual crimes in Kosovo. In any case, for them to solve the situation by military force, as they tried to, was unacceptable for most of the western Nations, therefore, I find nothing wrong with the idea of a NATO military intervention, only the kind how it was done was deplorable in my opinion. I agree that back then some countries like France or Britain had some second thoughts wether to do anything because of some longstanding connections with Serbia, but that did not go so much USA nor Germany. And as far as Britain is concerned, Blair fastly overcame any doubts because of his apparent general inclination to fight for freedom and democracy. Plus, excuse my mentioning this, for both France and Britain there were more important things than Serbia.

I must say that I doubt this very much. Any "Serbian resistance in the mountains" would have been confronted by UCK fighters - which are probably knew the terrain far better than then Serbian forces and who could have been supplied and supported far easier by NATO than any Serb soldiers by Russia (if that should have even been necessary). I am sorry, but the truth of the matter is that simply everything would have been arrayed against the Serbian military in Kosovo, on ground or in the air, in the higher or in the lower regions and that goes especially for the longer term. Keep in mind that in most of Kosovo the Serbian soldiers were factually the foreigners whereas the NATO troops would have been considered liberators. If that thought hurts some feelings among the Serbs here on the board, that is too bad, but such was the situation.

Yes it's wrong when the Serbs try to fight terrorism in their own country. We should have probably let them keep shooting police officers and throwing hand grenades into cafes. I wonder how "Western Countries" would have responded to such things in their own countries.

As for your comment about UCK "fighters" confronting the Serbian army and police, you should have a little chat with some people who were in MUP or VJ in Drenica region 1998, needless to say UCK didn't have a fun time.

GIJOEJK

10-08-2007, 02:51 AM

ah finally back after a lengthy no internet period

another point to ponder is what would be the acceptable level of casualties for Nato?

I believe that Nato was willing to take massive casualties, especially with the KLA and Hungarians....

Lokos

10-08-2007, 07:05 AM

And I wouldn't have minded myself if German troops had taken the lead if need be

It is a good thing the vast, vast majority of your countrymen don't share your wretched attitude, Kitsune.

And let's face it: NATO would have won quite readily.

If by 'readily' you mean bloodily, and with difficulty, we are in total agreement.

God,

A good thing I was an atheist back then, too, otherwise God's choices may have offended me!

"We will be entering Kosovo in seven days. We strongly suggest that you use this timespan to make yourself scarce in the region - otherwise we will be doing it. This is your first, last and only chance to withdraw with at least some dignity. End of message."

This message would mean that your foreign ministry is a house of debacle. It is, practically speaking, a guarantee for a vicious, bloody conflict. If you honestly think the VJ was afraid of engaging NATO troops... brother, you have another thing coming.

least set an example of resolve that would have been a lesson to NATO's next conflict partner.

Well, I'm glad you've got your priorities straight.

and and outcome which was quite immoral.

Yes, indeed, it was immoral, though I have a feeling our moral imperatives may be somewhat differing, here.

for them to solve the situation by military force, as they tried to, was unacceptable for most of the western Nations, therefore, I find nothing wrong with the idea of a NATO military intervention,

The awesome circularity of your logic does not fail to amuse and bewilder. Well, next time bombs start flying into German cafes on German territory, thrown by nationalist extremists with the sole intention to kill as many Germans as possible, I will be sure to point out that military force is unacceptable. Unless, of course, it is military force used to stop the use of mili- uhh, wait...

Keep in mind that in most of Kosovo the Serbian soldiers were factually the foreigners

You imagine the hinterlands of Kosovo as UCK controlled havens, where only they knew the terrain, and we were the invading army of criminals leaving nothing but death and destruction in our wake. This is a strange and decreipt interpretation of the actual situation. We controlled those hinterlands, and knew the terrain more than adequately. All the CAS support in the world didn't do much to help the UCK budge our positions at Mt. Pastrik, for example.

If that thought hurts some feelings among the Serbs here on the board, that is too bad, but such was the situation.

What is 'too bad' is that you speak arrogantly out of willful ignorance.

Lokos

ting

10-08-2007, 07:39 AM

Maybe i have not read this properly, but is someone trying to wind Lokos up, a seriously bad move or maybe i have misunderstood?

Killerkai

If your thinking about my post, the answers is NO. I am more interested in learning about the conflict than having a my mountain is bigger than yours argument.

ting

10-08-2007, 07:53 AM

I believe that Nato was willing to take massive casualties, especially with the KLA and Hungarians....

rofl

Anyway I doubt the Hungarians would be envolved.

I think high cassualties could be tolerated for about a month, but after that, heads would start rolling and the media would stop looking at refugees and show returning coffins instead.

After what I understand from INAT`s link, high intensity warfare would be over quite quickly(enough time for the infantry to retreat). As for possible guerilla ops, I don`t think the losses the serbs could inflict would be high enough for Nato to get cold feet.

Killerkai1

10-08-2007, 08:05 AM

I'am just interpreted the comment about the Pizza driver as ever so slightly cheeky!

ting

10-08-2007, 10:32 AM

I'am just interpreted the comment about the Pizza driver as ever so slightly cheeky!

Humor is difficult on a forum. :) It`s to adjust for the extreemes. If only the pizzaguy is not delivering then that would equal very little threat from the air, while general driving restrictions would mean a more severe threat...

Kitsune

10-08-2007, 03:37 PM

@Lokos:

If by 'readily' you mean bloodily, and with difficulty, we are in total agreement.

How do you assume that the Serbians would have conducted this defense of Kosovo then? By, let's say, blocking the whole area with one mighty frontline which somehow manages to deflects attacks by NATO troops again and again? At worst with a slow and dignified withdrawal to Serbia? You cannot possibly believe something like this. It may have been one thing to keep the UCK under control while one has the only real military in the conflict at ones disposal and one is even eble to impress the insurgents with a couple of T-72 tanks now and then. But this is precisely what would have changed once NATO forces had intervened - they would have been the ones with the bigger and better tanks in that situation. What is more: the US Air Force may have been unable to effectively engage the Serbian Forces, including their tanks and vehicles, as long as they were hidden, cooled down and well camouflaged. But once the engines start running and those vehicles would have started to move, they would have become targets which are much easier to locate and to take out. No questions: the result would have been bloody. But more for the Serbians, I am afraid.

Or do you earnestly consider some sort of taking to the heights of Kosovo in smaller groups, to hide successfully there and then suddenly striking at the bewildered NATO invaders who somehow fail to handle this situation? Sorry, I don't buy it for a minute. Not with the civilians practically on bloc siding with NATO troops. Besides, Kosovo ain't exactly Afghanistan. I am of course not saying that the Serbians could not have attempted such a thing. But with NATO very soon controlling any of the more accessible parts of Kosovo, including most roads (and I fail to see what in the world could have prevented them from doing so) any pockets of Serbian resistance would have run out of supplies soon enough. In the meantime they would have been harrassed by UCK and could have been strafed, bombed and shelled by NATO airforces and artillery whenever they are located. Hard to imagine that the Serbian forces would have lasted very long.

It is a good thing the vast, vast majority of your countrymen don't share your wretched attitude, Kitsune.

My attitude may be less wretched than you think.The problem at the time was, that, while all western nations agreed that something had to be done, even something militarily, nobody among the politicians wanted to actually do it and risk any casualties. That goes for Germany of course, but more important was that the USA at the time was thinking the same way. The Clinton administration actually wanted to resolve the situation without losing so much as a single soldier. It was this attitude that, in the end, did more harm then good. This was the reason why, after the aerial campaign over Kosovo failed to bring results, Serbia itself was bombed and why later there was too long a timespan between the withdrawal of Serbian troops and the arrival of NATO forces in Kosovo itself - something quite a few Serbian civilians had to pay for with their lives. But of course you know this since you, according to his own words, had part in "controlling" Kosovo at the time. In your case probably from Australia.

A ground offensive of Kosovo (and, to make myself clear, only of Kosovo, preferably sans the two greater Serbian settled regions) would have been better. And it would have been do-able. Even if the Serbians would have decided to fight they would have been beaten, quickly and thoroughly, like it or not (apparently the mere notion of this happening against the whole military might of the Western World seems to be regarded as an offense against the Serbian honor of arms, man are you guys sensitive...), and while NATO's losses would most probably not have been zero, they would have stayed on a low level. But what is more: a decisive attitude of NATO from the start (quite similiar to this wretched way of thinking of mine) could have possibly prevented any bloodshed - namely if the Serbians had withdrawn without a fight beforehand (which would have been the smartest thing to do in any case). That would have been the better outcome (compared to what actually happened) for all: for NATO, for Kosovo and, if you consider it, probably even for Serbia itself. You might consider this the next time you pass something around Belgrad that has been blown to smithereens by NATO aircraft back then and has still not been rebuild by now. On your next tourist trip to Serbia, I mean.

Killerkai1

10-08-2007, 03:39 PM

God, that is Bitchy, Lokos give this fellow a hiding, your reputation is at stake!

GIJOEJK

10-08-2007, 03:59 PM

rofl

Anyway I doubt the Hungarians would be envolved.

Well, never say "never". I found this article.

Vojvodina - The Hungarian Kosovo
http://samvak.tripod.com/vojvodina.html

I think that in the right circumstances, Hungary would indeed have invaded and and occupied Vojvodina.

INAT

10-08-2007, 07:42 PM

Well, never say "never". I found this article.

Vojvodina - The Hungarian Kosovo
http://samvak.tripod.com/vojvodina.html

I think that in the right circumstances, Hungary would indeed have invaded and and occupied Vojvodina.

The article is pro-Hungarian bs just like Kosovo before it there is money being poured into pro-Hungarian groups that are funded by NGOs and "pro-democray" pro-US groups that want Vojvodina to be the next Kosovo in terms of seperating from Serbia and being aggresive towards the Serbian people .The "Human rights" situation in Vojvodina
is much better than say West Romania with a large Hungarian minority
or even Hungary itself.In 99 a large group of Vojvodina Hungarians
went to Hungary to escape the bombing and were not very welcomed by
their mother country.Serbia believe it or not is one of if not the most truly multiethnic countries in the Balkans.The government is supportive of the minorities.You can go to school from kindergarten to medical school in Vojvodina in the Hungarian language.As some Americans feel minorities have more rights than regualr Americans some Serbs feel this way in Vojvodina and especially when it was still Yugoslavia.I really am amazed but not surprised by some of the ignorant comments on this "What if" scenario thread. And Killerkai1 I do not think Lokos needs to prove anything to kitsune.Kitsune clearly does not know what he is talking about regarding this subject yet he continues to write paragraph after paragraph on the subject which is just well funny.

BW2

10-08-2007, 08:36 PM

X2 INAT

Hungarians have trouble with their own government let alone their minorities abroad. Rest assured Vojvodina will never become independent or go to Hungry.

Laworkerbee

10-08-2007, 09:15 PM

And let's face it: NATO would have won quite readily. I have not the slightest doubt of it: quality and quantity of troops and equipment, God, the US Airforce and the overwhelming majority of the civilians in the area would have been on our side. How to begin? An straightforward might have actually worked best. Tell the Serbian military officially seven days in advance:
"We will be entering Kosovo in seven days. We strongly suggest that you use this timespan to make yourself scarce in the region - otherwise we will be doing it. This is your first, last and only chance to withdraw with at least some dignity. End of message."

The Germans made rapid progress against the Yugoslav's in WWII at the height of their power and still were not able to subdue the country by wars end despite the vicious treatment handed out by German troops.

What makes you think NATO would do any better, your scenario also has the Russians sitting on their hands as their Orthodox kinsman get beaten down which is highly unlikely.

little icebear

10-08-2007, 09:22 PM

What makes you think NATO would do any better, your scenario also has the Russians sitting on their hands as their Orthodox kinsman get beaten down which is highly unlikely.

Do you really believe the Russians whould have risked a war against Nato?

Laworkerbee

10-08-2007, 09:29 PM

Do you really believe the Russians whould have risked a war against Nato?

Who said they would have needed to declare war?

The Russians would have supplied their brethren with arms and munitions just like Iran is doing in Iraq, the Greeks would have posed trouble for NATO as well.

NATO had no stomach for a protracted war in Yugoslavia and had push came to shove would have backed off.

INAT

10-08-2007, 09:32 PM

Do you really believe the Russians whould have risked a war against Nato?

At the time no because Yeltsin was finishing up.Later on support yes.
I know that Wesley Clark wanted NATO to bomb the Russians
who were to beat NATO soldiers to the airport in Pristina and this (British general I think) Said no .He said something like you are not going to get me to start WWIII.If NATO bombed and attacked the Russians then things would have escalated who knows to what degree.

little icebear

10-08-2007, 09:42 PM

NATO had no stomach for a protracted war in Yugoslavia and had push came to shove would have backed off.

That´s clear.

The Russians would have supplied their brethren with arms and munitions just like Iran is doing in Iraq, the Greeks would have posed trouble for NATO as well.

Well, Russia does not have a border with Serbia... I imagine that it would have been anything but easy to get weapons into the country. Am I wrong?

I know that Wesley Clark wanted NATO to bomb the Russians
who were to beat NATO soldiers to the airport in Pristina and this (British general I think) Said no .He said something like you are not going to get me to start WWIII.If NATO bombed and attacked the Russians then things would have escalated who knows to what degree.

I remember, there was such a story. Has it been confirmed to be true or was it a rumor?

INAT

10-08-2007, 09:53 PM

That´s clear.

Well, Russia does not have a border with Serbia... I imagine that it would have been anything but easy to get weapons into the country. Am I wrong?

I remember, there was such a story. Has it been confirmed to be true or was it a rumor?

Well what sort of confirmation? Are you asking has NATO admitted this?Considering the fact that1. NATO cut all communication coming out of Serbia in 99(except internet and some phone lines) and was the lone source of news and 2.They already bombed
the Chinese and where openly targeting civilian areas and areas of no military or economic value I would lean toward YES.NATO started attacking the civilian population in hopes that they would blame Milosevic
for innocent lives lost rather then(and this was very foolish of NATO to think if in fact that was the true reason) the people doing the actual bombing.

Kilgor

10-08-2007, 10:08 PM

NATO had no stomach for a protracted war in Yugoslavia and had push came to shove would have backed off.

Would you have said the same about Afghanistan ?

little icebear

10-08-2007, 10:13 PM

Laworkerbee

10-08-2007, 10:42 PM

Would you have said the same about Afghanistan ?

No because the people of the United States have a clear national interest at stake in Afghanistan which Americans understand, and are are willing to fight for.

Well, Russia does not have a border with Serbia... I imagine that it would have been anything but easy to get weapons into the country. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong.There is this body of water called the Black Sea that connects to another named the Adriatic; weapons could be brought in from the sea through Montenegro from Russia. Greek's and other sources sympathetic to the Serbs could bring it in through Macedonia or by sea as well.

INAT

10-08-2007, 10:43 PM

NATO bombing the Russians sounds crazy enough but the idea that NATO bombed civilians on purpose is off the hook. Sorry, I´m not buying this.
I think quite the contrary is true.
Now we can blame each other of believing the Serbian/Western propaganda.

You do not need to believe in Serbian propoganda.Read up on this yourself
and then make a informed decision on what you believe to be true and what you believe false.That is really the best way to investigate and come to informed conclusions.Here I will note four non-Serb sources on the subject.Read from Scott Taylor a Canadian who was in Serbia during the bombing Gen Lewis Mackenzie.French newpaper Le Monde and Michael Parenti.I personally can say that Novi Sad where I am from was pounded
very badly.How do you justify using a cluster bomb in a purely civilan
area?And bombing areas that have no military, economic or infrastructure targets.NATO during the bombing gave the public all sorts of lies and propaganda and no one called them on it or when they did Jamie Shea simply changed his tune.

Here is an excrpt from an article Maj-Gen Lewis MacKenzie wrote-
"Five years ago our television screens were dominated by pictures of
Kosovo-Albanian refugees escaping across Kosovo's borders to the
sanctuaries of Macedonia and Albania. Shrill reports indicated that
Slobodan Milosevic's security forces were conducting a campaign of
genocide and that at least 100,000 Kosovo-Albanians had been
exterminated and buried in mass graves throughout the Serbian province.
NATO sprung into action and, in spite of the fact no member nation of the
alliance was threatened, commenced bombing not only Kosovo, but the
infrastructure and population of Serbia itself -- without the authorizing
United Nations resolution so revered by Canadian leadership, past and
present.Source Kosovo.net

Laworkerbee

10-08-2007, 10:54 PM

Do any of you think NATO could have sustained an occupation of Serbia without cracking, without Russian backing or acceptance?

Clinton was in no position politically to get the United States into a ground war, I don't recall what the newspapers were saying about the mood in the street in Europe but I do remember some protests at Aviano Air Base.

INAT

10-08-2007, 11:01 PM

Laworkerbee

10-08-2007, 11:16 PM

In what terms do you mean could NATO have sustained an occupation of Serbia.Public opinion or Militarily?

Politically I think it would have been a nightmare, it would have crumbled in my opinion because the United States had no clear national interest and the Russians would have never gone along with the program.

clean

10-08-2007, 11:29 PM

Well, Russia does not have a border with Serbia... I imagine that it would have been anything but easy to get weapons into the country. Am I wrong?

Could've sent them through Bulgaria, a historical ally of Russia who would've at least allowed weapons through their country.

INAT

10-08-2007, 11:35 PM

Politically I think it would have been a nightmare, it would have crumbled in my opinion because the United States had no clear national interest and the Russians would have never gone along with the program.

No the US/NATO had no interests, and no UN resolution
and they went against Geneva conventions as well as UN and NATO
charter not to mention US law yet they still for 78 days bombed and bombed and then occupied Kosovo-Metohija and now have plans
to take this land away.It is the forgotten foreign policy disaster.
Compared with Iraq this is seen as a success and US law makers still
see Kosovo-Metohija and Bosnia as a job well done.

Kilgor

10-08-2007, 11:42 PM

No because the people of the United States have a clear national interest at stake in Afghanistan which Americans understand, and are are willing to fight for.

There are many European countries in Afghanistan, and Im sure they would be willing to stop atrocities on their doorstep.

clean

10-08-2007, 11:55 PM

The Germans made rapid progress against the Yugoslav's in WWII at the height of their power and still were not able to subdue the country by wars end despite the vicious treatment handed out by German troops.

True, Yugoslavia fell in eleven days and then Tito kept them tied down for the rest of the war. Raising an army of almost 250,000 and taking Belgrade in Oct of 1944.

INAT

10-09-2007, 12:01 AM

True, Yugoslavia fell in eleven days and then Tito kept them tied down for the rest of the war. Raising an army of almost 250,000 and taking Belgrade in Oct of 1944.

I am going off topic a little but one of the reasons Yugoslavia fell quickly
besides the blitz was that Croatian army troops in some places
laid down arms and in other places assisted the Nazis by attacking the Yugoslav army from the rear ensuring a quick fall.There are a good number of similarities between WWII and what happened in the 90s.

clean

10-09-2007, 12:34 AM

Well, yeah. Yugoslav fell so quick because there were so many different groups with so many different agendas. Much like the 90s. But they never gave up.

Laworkerbee

10-09-2007, 02:34 AM

There are many European countries in Afghanistan, and Im sure they would be willing to stop atrocities on their doorstep.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Afghanistan as an example of some sorts, it is a completely different situation.

Did Europe prepare to assemble it's own forces to intervene in Kosovo if NATO or the UN would not, when?

How did becoming Albania's air force and and bombing a country who had never done us harm serve the long term interests of the United States?

Richard Holbrooke posed with the KLA for Christ sakes!

clean

10-09-2007, 02:52 AM

The US accidentally bombed a house in Bulgaria during the Kosovo campaign and, luckily no one was home. The US paid to rebuild it, however. I saw it in 2001. Nice work we did. However, all the neighbors blamed the US for not bombing their houses.

Fear I'm veering offtopic, though.

INAT

10-09-2007, 04:35 AM

http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2004/April_13/files/1093523621_yqfbpqns00c_uck3.jpghttp://www.mbruce.addr.com/clark.jpg

What a cute couple. Left- Thaci Ceku- second from right and Clark.

http://www.kosovo.net/images/holbrooke_uckm.jpg
Here is Holbrooke with kla weapons smuggler Florin Krasniqi who can be seen in "the Brooklyn connection".

ting

10-09-2007, 07:13 AM

As far as I can remember/deduce the political situation in NATO was as follows:

USA
They were in post Mogadishu mode and were in no way eager to commit ground troops. This was a problem since they were the super power(biggest power in Nato).

Canada
Probably similar to the US.

European Nato countries
Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway were as far as I know eager to stop the Serbian ethnic cleansing. I`m only from one of those countries so i might be wrong. The problem was in supplying troops of adequate quality on short notice.

Spain: I don`t know about their willingness, but I think they would supply troops.

Italy: More reluctant however would also contribute.

The axis of hawks with guns were France, Germany and Especially the UK.

Turkey: I don`t know.

Greece: Reluctant, and would perhaps not commit troops.

Sorry for not mentioning Iceland and Luxembourg.

What everyone has to remember is that Nato was the core element in the Nato countries individual security policy for 50 years for some of these countries. Some said Nato was no longer relevant since the Warsaw pact was gone. The Kosovo war was seen as a test of the Nato alliance. There was no way any of the Nato countries wanted Nato to become irrelevant. Any political disagreements would be muted when the shooting starts.

The US was the essential partner and when Blair convinced Clinton of the need to start a ground war, it was a done deal. (this was done a few days before Milosevic gave in).

CASUALTIES
With the aid of propaganda, and a general belief in the morality of the cause casualties would be tolerable for a time as I stated earlier. In the US there would perhaps be problems, but as the recent past has shown, only the president and his dog is needed to keep the country in an unpopular war.:roll:

SCENARIO
I don't see the scenario in this thread as an occupation of all of Serbia. Anything more that Kosovo is in my view too far fetched. It`s an interesting scenario, however when thinking of weather Nato was willing and able to commit to a ground offensive into Kosovo, thinking of an occupation of all of Serbia pollutes the discussion. An invasion of Kosovo was close to happening, while an invasion of the rest of Serbia was at the time a worst case scenario and extremely unlikely.

PROPAGANDA
Both sides used propaganda, however I doubt the Serb journalists were as free and critical as their counterparts. If someone believes the opposite they will find it extremely difficult to convince me.

Ordie

10-09-2007, 07:20 AM

What facinated me the most about this war was the images of NATO aircraft blowing up Yugoslavian tanks and APC repetedly.

Yet when the cease fire was agreed, there were columns of tanks coming out of hiding returning to Serbia.

Either they were good at hiding their tanks, or hired a Hollywood prop department to set up decoys.

Killerkai1

10-09-2007, 08:00 AM

The pictures tell you alot about the utter hypcorisy of the US state and especially Holbrooke and Clark, two figures i hate with a vengence. Holbrooke is extremely pro-isreali and would not squat down in a billion years with members of Hamas/Hezbollah and would not allow himself to be pictured with any of them, no probs with the KLA though!, Clark, virulently anti Serb according to General Jackson's new book shaking hands with Ceku, unreal! As for Jackson his book revealed that he revealed tried to be evenhanded but its a shocking picture. Jackson says Ceku became a peace man, that's easy after your orgaisation has just fought a war for them and removed the military presence they were fighting against! after just 10 weeks. Gerry Adams took decades to change from a IRA man to a man commited to peace, that was real transistion. Ceku and Thaci are not guerilla leaders in the same breadth. Holbrooke was not doing this by accident he was sending a message to Serbia we support the Kosovo Albanian insurgency.

Lokos

10-09-2007, 08:18 AM

How do you assume that the Serbians would have conducted this defense of Kosovo then?

You're the NATO commander. There is one (read: one) favourable stretch of land for a ground invasion of Kosovo; where the Morava flows into Macedonia. This stretch of land accounts for roughly a quarter of the border territory, and is in turn surrounded by hilly regions followed by mountainous terrain. On the Albanian border, sheer mountains covered by forest are the norm. You tell me, how do you think we would have defended that land?

I'm going to go on a limb and say that we'd dig in, ambush NATO forces wherever possible, bring supplies over the Montenegrin border at night, without using motor vehicles and lure NATO into a fight for Pristina and the mountains. Kosovo is one of the world's most tank-unfriendly pieces of land. We brought armour in as direct-fire artillery support, because we lacked the SPGs.

Wow me with your plan for a cheap and easy victory in this sort of scenario. Please.

By, let's say, blocking the whole area with one mighty frontline which somehow manages to deflects attacks by NATO troops again and again?

I'm going to refrain from laughing.

It may have been one thing to keep the UCK under control while one has the only real military in the conflict at ones disposal and one is even eble to impress the insurgents with a couple of T-72 tanks now and then.

Again, the laughter threatens. You believe that by calling the KLA (English language version of 'UCK') by its lesser known moniker I'm going to buy into you having any sort of knowledge about this conflict or the militaries fighting it? Hah!

they would have been the ones with the bigger and better tanks in that situation

That's wonderful.

as long as they were hidden, cooled down and well camouflaged.

We still moved them at night by leapfrogging.

But more for the Serbians, I am afraid.

I bet you would have shed crocodile tears.

Not with the civilians practically on bloc siding with NATO troops.

Civilians, eh? Which ones? The ones hiding in Macedonia? Or the ones in Albania? By the second week of NATO bombardment, Kosovo's Albanian population had taken to the roads, for the most part...

And there were not many civilians in the border zones. What are you suggesting these civilians would do, exactly?

But with NATO very soon controlling any of the more accessible parts of Kosovo

Which are?

(and I fail to see what in the world could have prevented them from doing so)

The need to control more than a five meter wide road?

any pockets of Serbian resistance would have run out of supplies soon enough.

And why do you assume that? What's 'soon enough'?

In the meantime they would have been harrassed by UCK and could have been strafed, bombed and shelled by NATO airforces and artillery whenever they are located. Hard to imagine that the Serbian forces would have lasted very long.

This happened. And we lasted 'very long'.

But of course you know this since you, according to his own words, had part in "controlling" Kosovo at the time. In your case probably from Australia.

From Australia? Dear Kitsune, don't let the door hit you on your way out of this thread. I participated in the ground campaign known as Operation Horseshoe and its predecessors. From late '98 until after the conclusion of the war, I was a member of an inorganic recon detachment in Taskforce Timok. How did I accomplish this from Australia? Why, I took a plane to the country of my birth, that's how.

Even if the Serbians would have decided to fight they would have been beaten, quickly and thoroughly

Well, no one can accuse you of being a cynic.

(apparently the mere notion of this happening against the whole military might of the Western World seems to be regarded as an offense against the Serbian honor of arms, man are you guys sensitive...),

If NATO was able to supply more than 60,000 men using Albanian ports (the Greeks would have drawn a line somewhere, what with 97% of the population being against any sort of action against what was then Yugoslavia), I'd be very much so surprised. Especially if any of the units were mechanized or armoured.

It is you who assumes that the 'whole military might of the Western World (L-O-L)' would have fallen upon Kosovo...

namely if the Serbians had withdrawn without a fight beforehand (which would have been the smartest thing to do in any case).

After Rambouillet? That was impossible.

You might consider this the next time you pass something around Belgrad that has been blown to smithereens by NATO aircraft back then and has still not been rebuild by now.

Yes, and maybe those Germans should have surrendered when the going got bad in 1942. After all, we all like our cities untouched.

Greece: Reluctant, and would perhaps not commit troops

You are the master of understatement. Do you know of the Greek response to the war? Or are you pulling facts out of thin air?

The problem was in supplying troops of adequate quality on short notice.

You can't think of any other potential snags? Seriously?

There are many European countries in Afghanistan, and Im sure they would be willing to stop atrocities on their doorstep.

Which atrocity in particular, Kilgor?

Ordie:

Both.

Read:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1351/MR1351.ch7.pdf

Lokos

Eoin666

10-09-2007, 08:27 AM

At the time no because Yeltsin was finishing up.Later on support yes.
I know that Wesley Clark wanted NATO to bomb the Russians
who were to beat NATO soldiers to the airport in Pristina and this (British general I think) Said no .He said something like you are not going to get me to start WWIII.If NATO bombed and attacked the Russians then things would have escalated who knows to what degree.

as far as I remember, Britsh paras were racing to seize Pristina airport when the Russians landed in a battalion of airborne troops, so there was a bit of a stand off, and the thing about the British commander saying "you are not going to get me to start WWIII" etc....

Yes unfortunately the press and media here in the UK did stoke a lot of anti-Serb feeling, which strangely a lot of people bought into, even though I think Serbia was traditionally a strong ally of the UK and France, people were seeing it as some sort of war of Kosovan liberation, even more so than for the wars in Iraq and A'stan. Creating the whole Serbia is the evil of europe crap, the whole conflict in the whole Balkans was terrible for all concerned, lets be glad Serbia/Nato didn't escalate further, though unfortunately the West led by the US still seems to want to punish Serbia over Kosovo

zg18

10-09-2007, 10:00 AM

though unfortunately the West led by the US still seems to want to punish Serbia over Kosovo

That`s for the press,historicaly whoever controled central (and Kosovo is in the middle point ) Balkans had domination over strategic passes towards central and eastern Europe and towards Little Asia (todays Turkey) and Middle East,that`s why the Turks attacked first Serbia,Macedonia and western Bulgaria nearly 60 years before they conquered Konstantinopol.

Today a large U.S. base have a job to control 25 billions$ worth mineral resources in Kosovo and to secure a new Russian free oil-gas pipeline through Bulgaria,Macedonia and Albania,Russians on the other hand are expanding their network also and that`s why will they return very soon to their traditional base to protect their pipelines and other investments.

Killerkai1

10-09-2007, 12:25 PM

Miranda Vickers makes the point in ref to zg18 that Serbia's control of Kosovo was motivated by stratgtic issues, the natural barriers of the mountains (a point well made in this thread) stopping any attack from Albania and macedonia, Albania being allied to Turkey for obvious reasons might one day try to extend Instanbul's influence in the Western Balkans, the only thing preventing this was Serbia's control of the province and Pristina airport giving communication mobility to the Yugoslav military. A Serbia with a Kosovo under strong Belgrade control would have been a powerful military player in the balkans, a point rarely made or understood. It's not an accident that the US now control Camp Bondsteel that gives it massive stratgetic leverage in the area.

Labud

10-09-2007, 05:57 PM

PROPAGANDA
Both sides used propaganda, however I doubt the Serb journalists were as free and critical as their counterparts. If someone believes the opposite they will find it extremely difficult to convince me.

Well, I watched "NATO" televisions during the bombing. It was not just propaganda, it was stories for little children.

Kowakian ML

10-09-2007, 09:15 PM

My guess?

NATO would, with KLA support, fought against YA in border area of Kosovo, just enough to make Serbs busy, while during that time main parts of the invasion force are transfered to Croatia and Hungary from where they would launch invasion of Vojvodina, taking it, besieging Novi Sad and Belgrade and bringing pressure to FRY government. I doubt they would launch ground assault on Belgrade, but they would pound it with artillery and guided missiles. Heck, I don't believe they would even have to reach Belgrade, Milošević would have surrender the moment NATO enters country from north.

Then what?

*NATO puts new government in charge, who disbands "old" army and form "new" one (with NATO weapons and uniforms).
*Some "old army" units remain in isolated pockets, and continue to resist, while, quite ironically, Serbs from "new army" fight against them. Either way, Serbs die, while NATO is rubbing it's hands happily.
*Montenegro, as well as Kosovo, secedes.
*Country is in ruins, mutilated and destroyed, while Serbian blood for the fifth time in past century serves as fertilizer for this cursed Balkan mountains.
*NATO gets out easily, with light casualties and reputation of "defender of innocent", while that "innocent folks" take Kosovo and areas of southern Serbia (when I come to think about it, they could even try to take some parts of central Serbia and Raška), killing and burning everything in site.
*Serbia settles
*Serbia invents new laser-like antimatter weapons and conquer entire world
*Serbia colonize Alpha Centauri

Dammit, I've gone to far with all this "what if", right?

It all depends on commanding officer. If intelligent, bright and determined officer is in command, victory could be easily achieved for NATO, especially if we take in to account technological and air superiority, as well as the fact that Serbia was/is surrounded with want to be/NATO members, and no friend in sight. Heck, they could have just sealed of entire country and just simply, plainly - starve us to death.

If some idiotic pecker is in command, then all the numbers and advantages doesn't mean a thing... And I do believe that Clark was just a show clown.

Kowakian ML

10-09-2007, 09:39 PM

Well, I watched "NATO" televisions during the bombing. It was not just propaganda, it was stories for little children.
Hehe, I remember watching on SKY entry of British troops in to Priština. Man, that was hilarious. The most, but the most, funnier part was when the were showing "Serbian death cells".

Yup, that's right. It was one old, windowless room with surgery table in the middle, with straps tied on, with, believe it or not, maces (yup), hatchets (aha), helberd (they were standard YU army issue back then), pole axe (I kid you not), Rambo-like knives (bigger the better), Longswords (King Arthur has returned... with vengance... Must... kill... Lancelot...) etc... What were they trying? Maybe to convince west that motto of YU army was "straight outta medieval"...

Funnest part was table itself. It had gigantic U (yup, the U) painted with white spray on it, and reporter described it as old "Serbian Nazi" symbol. :cantbeli:

My guess is that they looted some monastery or museum... found old room with old table (could be in old monk cell), put that weapons around room and call it "Serbian death cells"... chilling... suprisingly, there were no traces of blood in the room, but hey, that's just minor detail, like anyone pays attention...

GIJOEJK

10-09-2007, 10:26 PM

Liri

10-09-2007, 10:29 PM

Albania being allied to Turkey for obvious reasons might one day try to extend Instanbul's influence in the Western Balkans,

Umm what? Are you high?

INAT

10-09-2007, 11:57 PM

NATO'S CLAIM OF ETHNIC CLEANSING CHALLENGED
by
Michel Chossudovsky

Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and author of The Globalization of Poverty, Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms, Third World Network, Penang and Zed Books, London, 1997.
Member of the Canadian antiwar movement.
Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, February 2000

NATO's two main justifications for bombing Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds have been refuted by the Western alliance's own official figures and documentary evidence. These justifications rest on two central premises:

the alleged indiscriminate mass killings of Albanian civilians (premise number one);
the implementation of a deliberate policy of mass deportations or "ethnic cleansing" (premise number two)."Premise number one" has been invalidated by the FBI and European forensic teams working under the auspices of the Hague Tribunal (ICTY). The forensic and police investigators have uncovered several hundred bodies in grave sites in Kosovo as opposed to the 10,000 to 100,000 civilian massacres claimed by NATO and Western governments as a pretext for waging the War. British Prime Minister Tony Blair had announced that President Milosevic was "set on a Hitler style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during World war II".1 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a1) "We've now seen about 100,000 military aged men missing... They may have been murdered", echoed US Defense Secretary William Cohen. 2 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a2) "Genocide is starting," stated German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping.3 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a3)...
The Hague Tribunal (ICTY) (while upholding the war crimes indictment against members of the Yugoslav government), has acknowledged the exhumation of 2,108 bodies in Kosovo from grave sites in Kosovo.4 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a4) This figure includes the deaths of ethnic Albanians, Serbs, Romani and other ethnic groups who died during the war (23 March 9 June 1999) from all known causes (including politically motivated executions and massacres of civilians, NATO air strikes, the groundwar between the KLA and the Yugoslav Armed Forces and natural causes).
NO REMAINING LEG TO STAND ON

"The allegations of indiscriminate mass murder, rape camps, crematoriums have not been borne out" by the police investigations and forensic evidence. 5 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a5) In the absence of "premise number one", the policy of mass deportations directed against ethnic Albanians (premise number two) is being upheld by NATO and the Western media as "a sufficient justification" for launching the war. In the words of Madeleine Albright "opposing ethnic cleansing is central to our values... We are reaffirming NATO's core purpose as a defender of democracy, stability and human decency on European soil."6 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a6)
Yet the recently released Report entitled "As Seen, As Told: Analysis of the Human Rights Findings of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission" suggests that the allegation of mass deportations is also a fabrication. 7 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a7) Although heavily slanted in its main conclusions, OSCE figures suggest that there were proportionately more Serbs (as a percentage of population) fleeing Kosovo than ethnic Albanians which puts an obvious question mark on NATO's assertion that organized mass expulsions of ethnic Albanians were taking place.
According to OSCE numbers and Kosovar Albanian sources on population size and distribution, an estimated 45.7 percent of the Albanian population and 59.5 percent of the Serb population had fled Kosovo during the bombings (i.e. from 23 March to 9 June 1999).8 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a8)
The OSCE report summarises the balancesheet of ethnic Albanian refugees as numbering 862,979. In a secluded footnote at the bottom of the main table, the report nonetheless acknowledges that: "In addition [to the 862,979 ethnic Albanian refugees], more than 100,000 Serb IDPs [Internally displaced persons] are estimated to have left Kosovo and to have been registered in Serbia and Montenegro". 9 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a9) Whereas ethnic Albanians (including those who fled to Montenegro) are categorized as "refugees", Serbs who fled Kosovo during the same period are casually identified as "Internally Displaced Persons". The figures for ethnic Albanians are very precise in contrast to those indicated for the Serbs in the footnote. The number of refugees belonging to other ethnic groups who fled the province during the bombings is not even acknowledged.
According to Kosovo Albanian sources, the Province had a total population of 2.1 million of which 90 percent are ethnic Albanians, 8 percent Serbs and 2 percent are other ethnic groups.10 Based on these figures (which are accepted both by NATO and the postconflict KLA provisional government) there were an estimated 1.89 million ethnic Albanians and 168,000 Serbs in Kosovo.10 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a10)
In accordance with the above population breakdown, the exodus of Serbs (as a percentage of population) was larger than that of the ethnic Albanian population. According to OSCE numbers (from UNHCR sources), it is estimated that 45.7 percent of the Albanian population and more than 59.5 percent of the Serb population fled Kosovo during the bombings (i.e. from 23 March to 9 June 1999).
In other words, Serbs who ostensibly were not the target of "ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Serbs" had also fled the theatre of the war in Kosovo. If there had been a deliberate and cohesive policy of ethnic cleansing and massacres directed against ethnic Albanians, the percentages would have been markedly different and this is something which NATO was cautious not to reveal to public opinion while the bombings were ongoing.
The above estimates depend on the veracity of the OSCEUNHCR refugee figures as well as on the reliability of the data on population size and distribution. In estimating these percentages, we have accepted official OSCE UNHCR refugee numbers at face value, namely that the OSCE Report had not artificially "inflated" the number of ethnic Albanian refugees nor had it "deflated" the number of Serbs who fled Kosovo during the bombings with a view to vindicating NATO's claim of ethnic cleansing. We have also taken Kosovar Albanian assumptions pertaining to population size and distribution. In other words, the percentages are derived from their numbers! Moreover, it should be emphasised that the percentage of Serbs who left Kosovo estimated at 59.5 percent is based on the 100,000 figure given by the OSCE. Yet the OSCE report states that the number of Serbs who fled Kosovo during the same period is "more than 100,000".
Accounting for biases in the OSCE UNHCR figures and margins of error in the data on population, the estimates do not support NATO's allegation of a policy of mass deportation directed against ethnic Albanians.
Ironically, the OSCE (also in a discrete footnote) acknowledges the assumptions of Belgrade's 1991 Census data which indicates the ethnic Albanian population at 82 percent of total population. Yet the Census was boycotted by ethnic Albanians and the figures were never recognised by the parallel provisional government of Kosovo. Why does the OSCE acknowledge Belgrade's 1991 Census when NATO and KLA statements repeatedly indicate that the ethnic Albanian population is at 90 percent? Based on the 1991 Census figures, the estimated percentage of each population group which fled Kosovo would be 53.7 percent for the ethnic Albanians and more than 51.5 percent for the Serbs.11 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a11) Yet even when applying the assumptions of the 1991 Census, NATO's claim of mass deportations is not borne out.
The refugee crisis, we were told repeatedly during the War was limited to ethnic Albanians. According to the Western media, Serb civilians had been protected by the Serb police and Armed forces. The large scale exodus of Serbs from Kosovo prior to June 9, 1999 (acknowledged by the figures contained in the OSCE Report) was simply not mentioned. To reveal the numbers would have discredited NATO's main justification for launching its "humanitarian war".
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH

Other documentary evidence including an official report of the German foreign ministry published prior to the War, confirms that there was no evidence of "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo in the months immediately preceding the bombings. Who is lying? German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer had justified NATO's intervention pointing to a "humanitarian catastrophe", yet the internal documents of his own ministry stated exactly the opposite:
"Even in Kosovo an explicit political persecution linked to Albanian ethnicity is not verifiable. The East of Kosovo is still not involved in armed conflict. Public life in cities like Pristina, Urosevac, Gnjilan, etc. has, in the entire conflict period, continued on a relatively normal basis. The actions of the security forces [were] not directed against the KosovoAlbanians as an ethnically defined group, but against the military opponent [KLA] and its actual or alleged supporters."...12 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a12)
Moreover, a report of the United States Committee on Refugees (USCR) confirms a significant reduction in the number of refugees and internally displaced persons in the period following the signing of the October 13 (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/ethnic.htm#a13) agreement between U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) President Slobodan Milosevic. According to USCR, the overall refugee situation had improved with the entry of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM). The USCR report also confirms that "KLA ethnic cleansing of ethnic Serb civilian population pockets intensified in December [1999]" substantiating the results of the German Foreign Office intelligence report. But we were told time and again that the Serbs rather than the KLA had been responsible for ethnic cleansing in the months leading up to the War...13
The OSCE UNHCR figures on the number of refugees rather than supporting NATO's main justification for waging the war, suggest that more than half the Serb population had also fled Kosovo during the war. This tendency could be explained by the fact that the KLA had been responsible for relaying intelligence to NATO pertaining to potential targets in the bombing operation. Moreover, a history of the war also suggests that the massacres and atrocities directed against the Serbs by the KLA Military Command (amply documented for the period after June 9) had already commenced prior to the arrival of KFOR forces in Kosovo.
NATO's two central postulates for waging the war respectively "indiscriminate mass killings" and "ethnic cleansing" are not borne out by the relevant data. What then was the justification for the humanitarian bombings? What was the hidden agenda? Ultimately the truth must prevail, public opinion must be informed and those who are responsible for waging this criminal war must be brought to trial.
NOTES
1. Quoted in Peter Gowan, Kosovo; the war and its aftermath, Labour Focus on Eastern Europe, no. 64, 1999, p. 26.
2. CBS Face the Nation, 16 May 1999 quoted by Joyce Howard Price in The Washington Times, May 17, 1999.
3. Quoted in Peter Gowan, op. cit.
4. *******, 10 November 1999.
5. Wall Street Journal, 31 December 1999.
6. Quoted in Time Magazine, May 17, 1999, p. 2526.
7. OSCE, Kosovo/ Kosova, As Seen, As Told, An analysis of the human rights findings of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission, October 1998 to June 1999, Warsaw, 1999.
8. Ibid
9. Ibid.
10. Figures for 1993. See Albania Worldwide Web, http://www.albanian.com/main/. See also Musa Limani, The Geographic Position, Natural Riches, Demographic Characteristics, and the Economical Development of Kosova, Pristina, The Association of Lawyers of Kosova, 1992. Kosovar Albanian estimates place the population of Kosovo at 2.3 million for 2000.
11. The Government of Yugoslavia 1991 Census data for Kosovo identified a total population of 1,956,196 of which 82.2 % are Albanians, 9.9 % Serbs and 7.9 % other ethnic groups. The Census was boycotted by the ethnic Albanian population. During the 1990s, the evidence suggests that Kosovar Serbs left the Province in large numbers.
12. Intelligence Report from the German Foreign Office, January 12, 1999 to the Administrative Court of Trier.
13. See USCR http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/yugoslavia.htm (http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/europe/yugoslavia.htm)
C Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, February 2000. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to post this text on noncommercial community internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. The text can also be photocopied for noncommercial distribution. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms contact the author at
chossudovsky@videotron.ca or fax: 15144256224.
Michel Chossudovsky
Department of Economics,
University of Ottawa,
Ottawa, K1N6N5
Voice box: 1-613-562-5800, ext. 1415, Fax: 1-514-425-6224
E-Mail: chossudovsky@videotron.ca (Alternative Email: chossudovsky@sprint.ca)

SOURCE:nadir.org

INAT

10-10-2007, 12:07 AM

That`s for the press,historicaly whoever controled central (and Kosovo is in the middle point ) Balkans had domination over strategic passes towards central and eastern Europe and towards Little Asia (todays Turkey) and Middle East,that`s why the Turks attacked first Serbia,Macedonia and western Bulgaria nearly 60 years before they conquered Konstantinopol.

Today a large U.S. base have a job to control 25 billions$ worth mineral resources in Kosovo and to secure a new Russian free oil-gas pipeline through Bulgaria,Macedonia and Albania,Russians on the other hand are expanding their network also and that`s why will they return very soon to their traditional base to protect their pipelines and other investments.

Here is some more info on that good point zg18

The AMBO project (Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation) consists of the construction of an oil pipeline from the Bourgas gulf on the Black Sea coast across Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Albania to the port of Vlore on the Adriatic coast. The 894.5 km long pipeline has been designed to facilitate the transfer of some 30-40 million tonnes of crude oil per year from the Caspian region to the Adriatic Sea and further – to Europe and the US. The political negotiations around the project have so far taken 13 years and are not over yet. Total project costs are estimated to be USD 1.8 billion.

The project is portrayed by the AMBO Corporation as safe, necessary for the region, and one which will bring economic development and new jobs. However, in reality, as with any other major pipeline construction, it will pose a significant threat to the environment and carries certain political and economic risks.

source:bankwatch.org

AK-Lover

10-10-2007, 06:56 PM

INAT

10-10-2007, 07:03 PM

For anyone interested in finding out the truth about that particular conflict it's not going to be hard. I don't feel like having this conversation for the millionth time trying to convince people of things they should know but don't care to. My head hurts everytime we get into this history lesson that goes from beggining to end. Some beleive in what happened and some beleive in what they heard happened or what they want to beleive happened, lets just leave it at that and spare everybody the headaches.

Well this is just what people think could have happened.Or at least it started like that.This issue has had so many lies and false information
regarding it and certain truths have in recent times have come to light.
Which I think is good.

ting

10-11-2007, 08:35 AM

If NATO was able to supply more than 60,000 men using Albanian ports (the Greeks would have drawn a line somewhere, what with 97% of the population being against any sort of action against what was then Yugoslavia), I'd be very much so surprised. Especially if any of the units were mechanized or armoured.

You are the master of understatement. Do you know of the Greek response to the war? Or are you pulling facts out of thin air?

You can't think of any other potential snags? Seriously?

Which atrocity in particular, Kilgor?

Ordie:

Both.

Read:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1351/MR1351.ch7.pdf

Lokos

I`m kinda replying to replies not meant for me, so I`m sorry for butting in:)

Greece:
I`m not in possession of a "smoking article". Neither am I pulling facts out of thin air:lol:

My arguments are based on:
- My memory of the events at the time.
- History of Greece.
- The political and security situation in Greece at the time.
- Politics in the relation between small Nato countries in relation to big Nato countries.
- My own ability to resonate logically (lacking, I knowp-))

Public opinion in Greece in 1999.
In order to get more info on this I would have to search through the newspapers from the time. I would have to find the password for the database, which I`m to lazy to do right now.

I suspect the reason for the opposition against the Nato intervention was based on:
- historical ties between the countries, as well as a common fear of Turkey(The evil Ottoman Empire).
- The secession of Macedonia was seen as a threat to Greek territorial integrity.
- I`m sure that someone else could elaborate more on this, since my knowledge of this is superficial.

I`m guessing that Turkey is an important part of the argument. And for this reason I don`t see the Greek government willing to risk their relationship with Nato at any cost, and regardless of public opinion. Worst case scenario would see Greece ousted from Nato, while Turkey remained in Nato. That would be a security nightmare. On the economical level Greece was a major recipient of EU funding. I have now doubt that this money would dry up if EU citizens were dying due to greek unwillingness to provide port facilities. If it came to your either with us or against us Greece would not side with Serbia.

You said that the Greeks would draw the line somewhere. Yes they would. However they would draw the line at committing troops, and perhaps bases for combat aircraft. If Nato needed access to the ports and infrastructure, they would get it, regardless of public opinion.

You mentioned 97% of the greeks were opposed to any sort of actions. I can`t dispute your numbers, however i find it hard to believe that the Greek public would be 97% for or against anything. 97% is something like what Saddam got in his last election. That kinda of consensus is impossible in a democracy. If opinion polls were conducted in any country asking the question "Do you want peace on earth?" You would not get 97% saying yes.

You mentioned you went to Yugoslavia in 1998. I`m guessing the the information you got at that time was skewed towards a best case scenario. I`m sorry if I`m wrong, however I believe I am to a certain extent correct.

Regardless of the Greek public opinion at the time, as mentioned above, I don`t believe for a second that Nato would be barred from utilizing Greek ports.

Small Nato countries involvement:
I can come up with a number of other snags. However since these countries would present only a small part of the overall force I don`t see it as having much of a bearing on the overall topic were discussing. Except for Norway of course which would have no problem in sending two divisions and a carrier group on a weeks notice:roll:

Atrocities
I view the perception of events at the time as important. What the objective facts are today had no bearing on the situation at the time. The west believed the Serbs were conducting ethnic cleansing as they believed they had done in Srebrenica.

Article:
It was very interesting, thank you. I believe as stated before that the accuracy of the air strikes would be much improved with Nato forces on the ground.

ting

10-11-2007, 09:10 AM

Well, I watched "NATO" televisions during the bombing. It was not just propaganda, it was stories for little children.

What do you mean? I suspect an old Serbian saying doesn't translate to well into English. :lol:I think I get the gist of it though.

Anyway remember that any propaganda propagated by Nato would be filtered by thousands of of journalists and editors. They would have different motives. These could be of a domestic nature( i.e. anti ruling party, pro ruling party etc.) Of an ethical nature(stop ethnic cleansing etc.) Or there would be fiscal motives(what do our viewers, readers and advertisers want).

Of the international channels, I had at the time only access to CNN, not as good(objective) as BBC, but still better than Rupert Murdock`s Sky and Fox news. Then I had Swedish Television, Norwegian television, radio, newspapers etc. In order to directly influence the broadcast of information into my head, the propaganda would have to pass through different countries, journalistic traditions etc. I`t is extremely difficult to influence so many different actors by any organization. Then the final hurdle would be getting me to accept and internalize this information. The propaganda that got through all that would have to be extremely subtle.

My point is that the Serbian media would be much easier to influence. So if the question is who got fed the most propaganda I would say it was the Serbs.

Lokos

10-11-2007, 10:50 AM

You mentioned 97% of the greeks were opposed to any sort of actions. I can`t dispute your numbers, however i find it hard to believe that the Greek public would be 97% for or against anything.

Why, allow me.

Athens, 17/04/1999 (MPA) An opinion poll conducted by the polling company V.PRC on behalf of the Athens newspaper "TA NEA", shows that 96% of the Greeks condemn the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia, while 51.4% approve the way the government is handling the crisis and 52.9% believe that Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic and the Serb government violate the human rights of the Kossovo ethnic Albanians.
Also, 36.3% believe that ethnic Albanians in Kossovo must be given autonomy, while 33.5% believe that Kossovo should remain part of Serbia.

On the coverage of the events by the mass media, 65% believe that it is very good to fairly good and just 7.6% maintain that events are not reported right.

Source: http://www.hri.org/news/greek/mpa/1999/99-04-17.mpa.html

Sorry, 96%. My bad.

You mentioned you went to Yugoslavia in 1998. I`m guessing the the information you got at that time was skewed towards a best case scenario. I`m sorry if I`m wrong, however I believe I am to a certain extent correct

What in the world are you talking about?

Lokos

valtrex

10-11-2007, 11:29 AM

Public opinion in Greece in 1999.
In order to get more info on this I would have to search through the newspapers from the time. I would have to find the password for the database, which I`m to lazy to do right now.
I suspect the reason for the opposition against the Nato intervention was based on:
- historical ties between the countries...
Yes, that is true; the Greek opposition against the NATO interventions was based mostly on the historical ties between the two countries mostly because we live in a difficult neighbourhood and despite that, Greece & Serbia have never fought each other (at least in the last 2-3 centuries, which is rare in the Balkans); of course the public opinion's reaction is more sentimental, they react against something that appeals expessively to emotions.

...as well as a common fear of Turkey
hmm, yes & no. It's true that our reactions on the political level were determined by the Turkish actions. The 90's was the period in which the Turkish influence over the Balkans was extending, we were talking publically about the Turkish ambition of forming a sphere of influence, a-so called-"Muslim crescent" over the Balkans (Kossovo-Albania-FYROM-S.Bulgaria (the Turkish minority there)-Greek Thrace (the Muslim minority there)

You said that the Greeks would draw the line somewhere. Yes they would. However they would draw the line at committing troops, and perhaps bases for combat aircraft. If Nato needed access to the ports and infrastructure, they would get it, regardless of public opinion
The moment the Greek government (any Greek government, be it conservative or socialist) would have provided troops or aircrafts, under the overwhelming opposition & pressure of the public opinion, would have collapsed the next second

You mentioned 97% of the greeks were opposed to any sort of actions. I can`t dispute your numbers, however i find it hard to believe that the Greek public would be 97% for or against anything. 97% is something like what Saddam got in his last election. That kinda of consensus is impossible in a democracy. If opinion polls were conducted in any country asking the question "Do you want peace on earth?" You would not get 97% saying yes
According to national polls and press accounts, 96-98% of the Greek public opinion was against the intervention. Active Greek participation? forget it

Labud

10-11-2007, 01:31 PM

What do you mean? I suspect an old Serbian saying doesn't translate to well into English. :lol:I think I get the gist of it though.
Kowakian ML mentioned good example of this propaganda.

My point is that the Serbian media would be much easier to influence. So if the question is who got fed the most propaganda I would say it was the Serbs.
I didn't noticed some big propaganda. There was only reporting about what is bombed, about Army actios there wasn't any word. Only propaganda was bad names for nato pact, such as "nato janisaries", "evil nato armada", etc.

ting

10-11-2007, 02:11 PM

Why, allow me.

Source: http://www.hri.org/news/greek/mpa/1999/99-04-17.mpa.html

Sorry, 96%. My bad.

What in the world are you talking about?

Lokos

Wow! 96% is fascinating. I cede to your source and will have to internalize this into my world view. I feel my head crunching as i type:-D

You wrote in an earlier thread that you went to Yugoslavia in 1998, hence I assumed that much of the information you gained was from local sources and would hence be skewed.

However I think you proved me wrong there..:oops:

ting

10-11-2007, 02:23 PM

The moment the Greek government (any Greek government, be it conservative or socialist) would have provided troops or aircrafts, under the overwhelming opposition & pressure of the public opinion, would have collapsed the next second

According to national polls and press accounts, 96-98% of the Greek public opinion was against the intervention. Active Greek participation? forget it

So I guess if Nato needed use of the port facilities for "logistics" no line would be crossed and the government would survive?

On a side note, would there be any chance of the Army overthrowing the government in a coup? I`m curious about the role of the army seeing as it had done so before.

Oh and when I say draw the line at, I mean draw the line before. English is not my natural language.

Laworkerbee

10-11-2007, 02:25 PM

I suspect the reason for the opposition against the Nato intervention was based on:
- historical ties between the countries, as well as a common fear of Turkey(The evil Ottoman Empire).
- The secession of Macedonia was seen as a threat to Greek territorial integrity.
- I`m sure that someone else could elaborate more on this, since my knowledge of this is superficial.

Your leaving out one of the the most important bonds and that is religion; both countries populations are orthodox christian, with Russia being the core state of orthodox civilization.

ting

10-11-2007, 02:26 PM

Kowakian ML mentioned good example of this propaganda.

I didn't noticed some big propaganda. There was only reporting about what is bombed, about Army actios there wasn't any word. Only propaganda was bad names for nato pact, such as "nato janisaries", "evil nato armada", etc.

Thats the kind of propaganda I find childishp-). Though it is easily noticed.

ting

10-11-2007, 02:44 PM

Your leaving out one of the the most important bonds and that is religion; both countries populations are orthodox christian, with Russia being the core state of orthodox civilization.

Yeah, I know. I try to stay away from religion since I don`t know what the difference is between greek orthodox and serbian orthodox. For all I know they could be like sunni and shia, and i would have really put my foot in it.:roll:

valtrex

10-11-2007, 03:54 PM

So I guess if Nato needed use of the port facilities for "logistics" no line would be crossed and the government would survive?
Yes, and that is exactly what our government did back then

On a side note, would there be any chance of the Army overthrowing the government in a coup? I`m curious about the role of the army seeing as it had done so before
In 1999? nah, not a chance. Btw...doesn't democracy mean that the ruling elite follows the will of the people? so in a situation where the public feeling opposes the will of the politicians, in this conflict who wins? the people I guess (at the time of the elections the rulers will be replaced by others.

Yeah, I know. I try to stay away from religion since I don`t know what the difference is between greek orthodox and serbian orthodox. For all I know they could be like sunni and shia, and i would have really put my foot in it.:roll:
The difference is only in language (Koine Greek in Greek Orthodoxy, Serbian & Church Slavonic in Serbian Orthodoxy, Russian & Church Slavonic in Russian Orthodoxy) and in administration (each local Church is self governed by a ruling Bishop be it Archbishop-Greece, or Patriarch-Serbia, Russia, Romania etc). We believe the same things.

...English is not my natural language
Neither is mine..Greek is my mother tongue

Kowakian ML

10-11-2007, 08:26 PM

Question for ting:
I've heard stories (it's some sort of urban myth around here) that Norwegian pilots have refused to fly against FRY. I know it's probably just made up, but I was wondering, since you are from Norway, do you know anything about that?

The difference is only in language (Koine Greek in Greek Orthodoxy, Serbian & Church Slavonic in Serbian Orthodoxy, Russian & Church Slavonic in Russian Orthodoxy) and in administration (each local Church is self governed by a ruling Bishop be it Archbishop-Greece, or Patriarch-Serbia, Russia, Romania etc).
And in dates. We are going 14 days ahead. :)

KVLG

10-12-2007, 02:10 AM

Yup, that's right. It was one old, windowless room with surgery table in the middle, with straps tied on, with, believe it or not, maces (yup), hatchets (aha), helberd (they were standard YU army issue back then), pole axe (I kid you not), Rambo-like knives (bigger the better), Longswords (King Arthur has returned... with vengance... Must... kill... Lancelot...) etc... What were they trying? Maybe to convince west that motto of YU army was "straight outta medieval"...

Maybe they were trying to convince the West that the real motto of the Yugo military was "We're really gonna get medieval on your asses". :)

ting

10-12-2007, 05:04 AM

Question for ting:
I've heard stories (it's some sort of urban myth around here) that Norwegian pilots have refused to fly against FRY. I know it's probably just made up, but I was wondering, since you are from Norway, do you know anything about that?

And in dates. We are going 14 days ahead. :)

I`m sorry to say we were just as war like as everybody else. I think I understand why this myth has surfaced.The Norwegian F16s were not upgraded to the MLU(mid life update) standard which translates into block 50 or something. Meaning they lacked the all weather/day night ability. I don`t remember which other capabilities were lacking. Probably as a result of this, they were relegated to flying combat air patrols over the Adriatic.

Norway and then Yugoslavia and now Serbia have had and has a very close relationship. It`s not strange that this myth would surface. However Serbia was seen as the big bad wolf in the Balkans war, and seeing signs of what might be ethnic cleansing, we went int super humanitarian mode:roll:

On a side note about the war: Is there still a big problem with unexploded cluster bombs lying around Serbia? Last time our PM(or FM) was there, there was talk of maps for were the bombs landed. Nato still haven`t released the maps:bash:

It`s been 8 years:cantbeli:

Labud

10-12-2007, 10:26 AM

^The maps were released few days ago. But we still don't have enough money and men to do un-mining.

BW2

10-12-2007, 03:15 PM

I`m sorry to say we were just as war like as everybody else. I think I understand why this myth has surfaced.The Norwegian F16s were not upgraded to the MLU(mid life update) standard which translates into block 50 or something. Meaning they lacked the all weather/day night ability. I don`t remember which other capabilities were lacking. Probably as a result of this, they were relegated to flying combat air patrols over the Adriatic.

Norway and then Yugoslavia and now Serbia have had and has a very close relationship. It`s not strange that this myth would surface. However Serbia was seen as the big bad wolf in the Balkans war, and seeing signs of what might be ethnic cleansing, we went int super humanitarian mode

On a side note about the war: Is there still a big problem with unexploded cluster bombs lying around Serbia? Last time our PM(or FM) was there, there was talk of maps for were the bombs landed. Nato still haven`t released the maps

It`s been 8 years
X2

I have a great deal of respect for Norway, although I haven't heard so much of there involvement in the war, I can tell you at least they are trying to rebuild bridges with Serbia.

Norway to date has given the most foreign aid to Serbia for clearing of unexploded ordinances and rebuilding of infrastructure. A Norwegian telecom company bought a Serbian one for $2 Billion dollars...OK that was a business transaction but hell that was a very generous deal if you ask me.

And as stated in the last comment the maps have finally been handed over, some listed areas are currently being cleared and funds have been set up, there was a conference about a week ago to start collecting donations. Again Norway has jumped right in and lent a hand.

My thanks to Norway and the Norwegian people.

Regards: Bluewings

AK-Lover

10-12-2007, 06:46 PM

Their is also a very big problem with the DU that was used during the bombing campaign.

number nine

10-13-2007, 01:59 AM

Their is also a very big problem with the DU that was used during the bombing campaign.

Do you really believe in that crap?

DU is used in AP rounds and AFAIK only US aircraft which uses DU ammunition is A-10 for it's GAU-8 Avenger gun. Where these aircraft were not used, there is no threat of DU either.Threat exists only in parts of Kosovo where that aircraft operated, and also, only if they indeed used their autocannon and not bombs or missiles.

naymeria

10-13-2007, 03:43 AM

Do you really believe in that crap?

DU is used in AP rounds and AFAIK only US aircraft which uses DU ammunition is A-10 for it's GAU-8 Avenger gun. Where these aircraft were not used, there is no threat of DU either.Threat exists only in parts of Kosovo where that aircraft operated, and also, only if they indeed used their autocannon and not bombs or missiles.

Well, in italy money has been just allocated for a full scale medical investigation because it seems that the incidence of cancer in italian servicemen who have been in bosnia and kosovo, as well as genetic malformations in their children, is higher than expected.

The problem with radioactivity is actually this. It can have a short-term effect from contamination, a medium term and a long term, according to the amount of instant exposure and how it occurs in your body. So you don't really know if and when cancer can develope. (I had to take a medical course on its effects at work, being a mildly exposed personel.)

Nay

www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/news_collection/awnplus_english/2007-10-09_109137123.html (http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/news_collection/awnplus_english/2007-10-09_109137123.html)

(ANSA) - Rome, October 9 - It remains unclear whether exposure to depleted uranium (DU) is to blame for high numbers of Italian soldiers contracting cancer, Defence Minister Arturo Parisi said on Tuesday.

Addressing the Senate's DU investigation committee, the minister said alleged DU poisoning remained an "area of complete uncertainty".

Because of its density, DU is put on the tip of shells and bullets which are then more effective and can even pierce armour-plating on tanks.

A DU-tipped weapon goes through the object it strikes before erupting in a burning vapour cloud, which then settles as chemically poisonous and radioactive dust.

"We are moving in an extremely limited sector of human understanding, where the precise link between cause and effect has yet to be ascertained," Parisi said. He stressed that the ministry was "keen to explore every scientifically plausible hypothesis", and said "all reasonable precautions" were being taken to protect Italian soldiers. Producing the ministry's first precise statistics on cancer cases since the DU issue exploded six years ago, Parisi said 255 soldiers serving in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq or Lebanon between 1996 and 2006 had later developed cancer. Thirty seven have died.

There were 1,427 cases of cancer among soldiers serving in Italy during the same period, he said.

Parisi admitted there had been a delay in producing ministry statistics on fatal diseases for this period but said a change in data collection methods meant an "accurate database" was now being developed. In addition, Parisi said next year's budget earmarked 10 million euros for the creation of a defence ministry centre to identify the precise causes of cancer in soldiers who had served abroad.

A further 170 million euros allocated to state employees harmed in the line of duty would also be available to soldiers thought to have contracted cancer from contact with DU, he said, even though a definite connection has not yet been proved. MPs QUESTION ACCURACY OF MINISTER'S STATISTICS.

But following the hearing, questions were raised over the accuracy of the statistics provided by Parisi. "I fear the minister's figures refer only to the number of soldiers who fell ill while in active service, and failed to take account of those who had left the military," said Tana de Zuleta, a Green MP in the majority coalition. "I think more information is required on the ministry's methods for collecting data, given the enormous discrepancy between its figures and those provided by associations representing victims' families". Senate committee chairperson Lidia Menapace, another majority figure, also cast doubt on the statistics. She said the ministry's list of cancer cases was much shorter than suggested by other sources. "Although any number is too high, if the ministry figures turn out to be accurate I would be happy," she added. The committee, which will provide its own report into the DU allegations by the end of the year, is the latest in a series of bodies tasked with investigating the claims. The DU issue surfaced early in 2001 after Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands reported a spate of cancer cases among soldiers who took part in peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Bosnia.

During the 1999 Kosovo war, US planes are reported to have fired more than 30,000 rounds of DU ammunition at Serbian targets while in 1995, US bombers fired almost 11,000 rounds of the same type of ammunition in Bosnia.

Fears were fuelled in April 2002 when it emerged that a number of children fathered by Italian Balkan veterans had been born with genetic malformations.

At the height of the DU scare the European Parliament, as well as Italy, called for a moratorium on DU ammunition. But a preliminary 2001 Italian government report said there was no evidence of a link between DU weaponry and the cancer cases encountered in Italian Balkan veterans.

Another report commissioned by the defence ministry and issued in June 2002 did however admit that there were an "excessive" number of Hodgkin's disease victims among former Balkan peacekeepers.

The report, drawn up by an independent scientific committee, said it had found 12 cases of the lymphoma among former Balkan servicemen where only five would have been expected applying the normal statistics.

DU has been a source of controversy for more than 15 years following claims that its contamination of battlefields in Iraq during the 1990 Gulf War caused widespread cancer among Iraqi civilians and contributed to health problems among allied military veterans.

Both the US and Britain acknowledge that DU dust can be dangerous if inhaled but insist the danger is short-lived and localised.

number nine

10-13-2007, 04:04 AM

But what I stated is a fact. Doring NATO-Yugoslavian war tanks, which will use majority of DU projectiles which are used in a conflict were not used at all. Hence, battlefield contamination due to DU projectile use was much higher in Iraq than in former Yugoslavia, and especially Kosovo and Serbia.

The report, drawn up by an independent scientific committee, said it had found 12 cases of the lymphoma among former Balkan servicemen where only five would have been expected applying the normal statistics.

Don't you see huge problem with this statement? They in fact could all to the last become ill from that tumor, and even that couldn't show that incidence of malignancies is higher due to DU contamination. You can hit the jackpot three times in a row, to put it simply, not because jackpot machine is malfunctioning.

I don't say DU is not dangerous, what I say is can we be sure that is not an ordinary misfortune only? And I'm quite certain that residents of Kosovo and Serbia receive overwhelming majority of harmful radiation from sun and not DU or any other contamination due to war.
However DU is ideal to be used as boogeyman.

To measure the effects of prolonged exposure to DU in fact, only some experiments need to be done in controlled environment, again, measured against the animal group that will not be exposed to it.
Incidence of malignancies will then be recorded, and we will have something to discuss about. But in fact results of such experiments that god forbid show that DU is safe enough for military use will not make it to the headlines.

So I need facts. Is it indeed unsafe for use? I don't need vets blaming everything including their impotency on it.

naymeria

10-13-2007, 05:59 AM

Don't you see huge problem with this statement? They in fact could all to the last become ill from that tumor, and even that couldn't show that incidence of malignancies is higher due to DU contamination. You can hit the jackpot three times in a row, to put it simply, not because jackpot machine is malfunctioning.

Exactly:). That's the problem with radioactivity. Apart those subjected to a huge instant dose, where effects come out more or less straight away, all the rest is and can only be statistical, because how the rays/neutrons/etc hit your cells is aleatory. But being probalistic leaves always the uncertaintity, as you said, that it wouldn't have happened anyway.

However, the probability to get a deviation > 100% bigger than the naturally expected mean ( as 12 against 5) is extremely low and this, in statistical science, is sufficient to not rule it out as just a case.

That's why it is justified that a full scale medical investigation is needed, ominicomprehensive on all who have served, where they have served, family cancer cases, ect... to determine the real statistics and correlations.

However DU is ideal to be used as boogeyman.
True. Even too ideal. But this is the media which love to focus more on the 'sensational' and the 'scandolous' rather than presenting things in the correct and balanced context. As long as people get upset, it's fine for them, and actually, the less people understand, the better.:)

To measure the effects of prolonged exposure to DU in fact, only some experiments need to be done in controlled environment, again, measured against the animal group that will not be exposed to it.
Incidence of malignancies will then be recorded, and we will have something to discuss about.
I agree and i think a lot of time will pass before anything can be said with certainty.
Remains however the fact that it can't be ruled out, a priori, that DU hasn't been used and it hasn't had any effects, just because it's more difficult to individuate and pinpoint medical consequences in a deterministic way, as in other types of diseases. Since indications (always statistically speaking) are there to suspect it.

So ( back to the boogeyman thing), i think that instaed of neglecting it beforehand because not provable, people just need to be correctly informed about the true image of phenomenon, without blowing it up disporpotionally. (I'm not criticizing you or anything, just talking. it's more against the general media, actually)

For the usage of the tanks in Nato-jugoslavia, this i don't know, but i take your word for it, also because i won't be able to distinguish one tank from another or one ammunition from the next.:) And i certainly won't go into military yes/no debate about it, either.

Nay

number nine

10-13-2007, 06:04 AM

I agree with you dude.

Labud

10-13-2007, 11:42 AM

Hyde

10-13-2007, 02:10 PM

I believe that Nato was willing to take massive casualties, especially with the KLA and Hungarians....

Ok, enough of the sarcasm...

Laworkerbee

10-13-2007, 02:43 PM

KninGrad

10-13-2007, 04:52 PM

I can say that number of people sick of cacner is being rapidly growing since 1999 in Serbia and since 1995 in Republic of Srpska. Few of my friends and relatives died of cacner in last 10 years.

Yes, I also watched some documentary about that. Seems its really true but people who lived in Serbia know that the radiation was much higher than normal (during summers ).

Annihilator9112

10-13-2007, 11:52 PM

Yes, I also watched some documentary about that. Seems its really true but people who lived in Serbia know that the radiation was much higher than normal (during summers ).

its global warming! ahhhh

KninGrad

10-14-2007, 03:31 PM

its global warming! ahhhh

Yes, it is global warming in Serbia but not in Croatia, Montenegro and other surrounding countries...:roll:
:roll:

AK-Lover

10-14-2007, 05:06 PM

Yes, it is global warming in Serbia but not in Croatia, Montenegro and other surrounding countries...:roll:
:roll:
Krajisnik, I think he was being sarcastic ;)

KninGrad

10-14-2007, 09:40 PM

Krajisnik, I think he was being sarcastic ;)

my bad then .... :oops: