Some questions for you americans [Archive]

Serbian

10-05-2006, 02:11 PM

Why can't you live in your own country and mind your own busnis?
Why do you have to go to wars every few years and kill innocent people?
Why you make rules that even you don't respect?
Why are you in Irak? In Afganistan?
Why did you go to Serbia? To Vietnam?
I can bet that atleast 80% of you can't even show these countries on the world map.
I really can't understand you, and i would really appriciate if someone could explain me.

BoogyMan

10-05-2006, 02:15 PM

Serbian

10-05-2006, 02:25 PM

I would like to see would you be joking if i were bombarding washington.

Cobra

10-05-2006, 02:32 PM

Why, because our leader at the time thought it was in our national interests to go to war and get involved in others business.

Most people here could show you the countries on a map, but where's Serbia again my minds gone blank. Somewhere in Europe above Turkey but below Hungary and all those countries. That must not have been one of our big wars because I don't know much about it. We won that war.

Serbian

10-05-2006, 02:39 PM

What national interests??
Thats what i would like to know?

Serbian

10-05-2006, 02:43 PM

P.S. Yes, you won the war. You must be proud for it. We are very very big and powerful country. Great job.

Cobra

10-05-2006, 02:48 PM

What national interests??
Thats what i would like to know?

Afghanistan stopping the Taliban and Al-Qaeda who attacked us. Iraq getting Saddam, fighting Muslim radicals. Vietnam, fighting the spread of communism. Serbia, no clue like I said that must not have been a very big war because I've never hear much of anything about it. Weren't you guys having a civil war or something.

CheesyMuslim

10-05-2006, 02:51 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight Islamic Problems.
2. In order to resolve them before they spread throughout Europe and the Globe.
3. We do this to protect the innocent people of the planet.
4. We know now how things work, if we wait to long, Islam will be to powerful.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Serbian

10-05-2006, 02:53 PM

Talibans and Al-Qaeda would not attack you for no reason. Why did you give a damn for Saddam? Why did you give a damn for what type of goverment is in Vietnam? Why did you give a damn for our civil war?

Serbian

10-05-2006, 02:56 PM

I never heard that islamics have made any problems before you attacked their countries. Their religion is not violent.

CheesyMuslim

10-05-2006, 03:00 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But Clinton should of stayed out of Serbia.
2. He was flat out wrong to bomb Christians.
3. I have always spoken out about this.
4. Saddam was a huge problem for the whole middle East, and was capable of WMD's, and had proven he would use them, for he used them on the innocent Kurds, and he had to be dealt with.
5. Vietnam was a political War, and it is self evident that communism hasn't fair-ed well there, and that its peoples have suffered every sense.
6. The only reason they are still alive in Vietnam is because many escaped there to America, and have been sending back money ever sense.
7. This props up Vietnam's economy, other wise it would collapse.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Serbian

10-05-2006, 03:10 PM

But you too have nuclear weapons, and we all know that you are ready to use it (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Why can't then others have it?
He killed innocent Kurds. Well you killed innocent Indians. Things happen.
And about Vietnam, it is clear now that communisam is not good type of goverment, but it was up to their people to choose their goverment.

CheesyMuslim

10-05-2006, 03:24 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But some people should not have nukes.
2. They will terrorize everyone with them

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Serbian

10-05-2006, 03:30 PM

Ok, you're right about that, some people should be prevented from having nukes.

piratemonkey

10-05-2006, 04:02 PM

Why can't you live in your own country and mind your own busnis?
Because Republicans can't help themselves.

Why do you have to go to wars every few years and kill innocent people?
See above.

Why you make rules that even you don't respect?
Again, many conservatives are excellent at this activity.

Trumpeting morality, when they are no more or less moral than anyone else.

Why are you in Irak?
Our President lied to us and we believed him.

In Afganistan?
Um... this one should be obvious to anyone.Â*Â*Al Qaeda attacked the US.Â*Â*Afghanistan was controlled by the Al Qaeda-harboring Taliban.Â*Â*We had no other reasonable alternative.

Why did you go to Serbia? To Vietnam?
We went to Serbia?Â*Â*when?

I went to Vietnam last year for vacation.

I can bet that atleast 80% of you can't even show these countries on the world map.
Unfortunately, you are probably correct.

Serbian

10-05-2006, 04:11 PM

"Um... this one should be obvious to anyone. Al Qaeda attacked the US. Afghanistan was controlled by the Al Qaeda-harboring Taliban. We had no other reasonable alternative."

I didn't know that Al Queada attaked USA before USA attaked Afganistan...

"We went to Serbia? when?"

You bombarded Serbia in 1999.

"I went to Vietnam last year for vacation."

:)

"Unfortunately, you are probably correct."

I'm sure that i'm correct.

piratemonkey

10-05-2006, 04:19 PM

I didn't know that Al Queada attaked USA before USA attaked Afganistan...

Fair enough.

I couldn't be more against the war in Iraq, but Afghanistan was justified, in my humble opinion.

"We went to Serbia?Â*Â*when?"

You bombarded Serbia in 1999.
Ah.

That wasn't just the US.Â*Â*That was a group of several Western countries (NATO) that all agreed about crimes being committed by the Serbian government in Kosovo.

History has shown that to have been a morally justified action.Â*Â*Your government was purposely killing unarmed civilians.Â*Â*Literally lining them up and shooting them.Â*Â*I've seen the video footage of this happening.Â*Â*Though it may be painful to admit, your government committed war crimes.

That's not to say the US government is completely innocent of such things.Â*Â*In fact, the Bush Administration has violated international law several times.Â*Â*I hope he's held responsible like Milosevic was.

piratemonkey

10-05-2006, 04:32 PM

5. Vietnam was a political War, and it is self evident that communism hasn't fair-ed well there, and that its peoples have suffered every sense.
6. The only reason they are still alive in Vietnam is because many escaped there to America, and have been sending back money ever sense.
7. This props up Vietnam's economy, other wise it would collapse.

Side point here.

I was in Vietnam last year.Â*Â*They don't need their economy propped up by anything... it's going gangbusters.Â*Â*I've literally never been in a more commercially-oriented place.

Vietnam is Asia's second best performing economy right now, second only to China.

After its oversized and overheating neighbour, Vietnam also boasts Asia's best-performing economy.
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2653647

Figure that.

Serbian

10-05-2006, 04:35 PM

"History has shown that to have been a morally justified action. Your government was purposely killing unarmed civilians. Literally lining them up and shooting them. I've seen the video footage of this happening. Though it may be painful to admit, your government committed war crimes."

Ok, we did war crimes, but we are not the first ones to do it, and i don't remember that any other country was attacked for doing it.

piratemonkey

10-05-2006, 04:57 PM

Ok, we did war crimes, but we are not the first ones to do it, and i don't remember that any other country was attacked for doing it.

Saying that others did it isn't a moral justification for any action.

Saying that others got away with it isn't a moral justification for any action.Â*Â*In addition, this was the first time this happened in NATO's back yard, since the creation of NATO.

I'd say your country got off relatively easy.Â*Â*Every government building, bridge, power plant, factory and military facility could have been wiped off the map in the name of saving innocent civilian lives.Â*Â*NATO showed admirable restraint.

Cobra

10-05-2006, 05:00 PM

Because Republicans can't help themselves.Yeah, because we all know a dem controlled congress or president has never messed in other countries affairs.

piratemonkey

10-05-2006, 05:07 PM

Cobra

10-05-2006, 05:26 PM

Doesn't matter, your claim that it's all republicans fault we are always geting in other countries business is still false.

I don't know, I think I remember some dems who were very supportive of the Iraq war and are still too chicken to stand up, denounce it, and call for a pullout.

piratemonkey

10-05-2006, 05:39 PM

I don't know, I think I remember some dems who were very supportive of the Iraq war and are still too chicken to stand up, denounce it, and call for a pullout.

I supported the war.

Why? Because I believed the lies that were coming out of the Bush Administration. I couldn't believe that the President of the United States would be so irresponsible to exaggerate danger and minimize risk with something as important as war. I was wrong.

BTW - the "Republicans can't help themselves" was 1/2 joking. There are definitely at least a few Democrats who are equally culpable. Republicans just get us into the Big quagmires. ;)

Cobra

10-05-2006, 07:11 PM

Ok, we did war crimes, but we are not the first ones to do it, and i don't remember that any other country was attacked for doing it.
You got unlucky and were picked for your war crimes, doesn't matter that other countries got away with it. A crime is a crime, if a few crooks gets away with it, it doesn't mean you have to let them all.

Serbian

10-05-2006, 07:14 PM

"I'd say your country got off relatively easy. Every government building, bridge, power plant, factory and military facility could have been wiped off the map in the name of saving innocent civilian lives. NATO showed admirable restraint."

http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/intro1.html

restraint?

Serbian

10-05-2006, 07:26 PM

"You got unlucky and were picked for your war crimes, doesn't matter that other countries got away with it. A crime is a crime, if a few crooks gets away with it, it doesn't mean you have to let them all."

But thing that i can't understend is why do you give a fuc* about Albanians? What interests can you possibly have with them? I haven't got anything against them personaly, don't think that i'm a rasist or something, i'm just taking them for an example.

Cobra

10-05-2006, 08:12 PM

I don't know, Clinton fought that war before I was reading news and Idon't know much about or if we had any intrests in helping the Albanians.

piratemonkey

10-05-2006, 09:34 PM

"I'd say your country got off relatively easy.Â*Â*Every government building, bridge, power plant, factory and military facility could have been wiped off the map in the name of saving innocent civilian lives.Â*Â*NATO showed admirable restraint."

http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/intro1.html

restraint?

Your link is to a very biased opinion piece... hardly objective journalism.

Any deaths caused in that war were the fault of your government. To have let your government continue to kill civilians en mass because they were a different ethnicity or religion would have been a FAR greater crime.

There are blatant errors in that article, as well.

Here's the the first one I saw:
The political situation there is more confused and uncertain than it ever was before.

That sentence is laughable.

I guess the political situation is pretty sure and stable when the majority of a population is being killed or are fleeing to another country.:rolleyes:

If you want to convince people you are correct, I'd advise you to link to mainstream media sources.Â*Â*While they aren't always correct, they tend to be at least a bit less biased.

Labrocca

10-05-2006, 09:35 PM

Well...what a first thread to read. But I must say pleased we have a Serbian member with actually some good questions. As others have said...Al Qaeda attacked us first and they did so repeatedly not just 9/11. 9/11 just happen to be on US soil. We were asked to go into Vietnam if I recall. The South Vietnamese government wanted us there after the French pulled out.

We don't go to War every few years...Serbia wasn't a war for us...just a bombing. I have to ask you...Is your country a better place today because of our actions to stop the genocide?

As for 80% of Americans that can't point to places on maps...yeah I give you that one but those aren't the people making the decision to go to war.

Most Americans are aware of the world opinion about us. We are hated...it's uncomfortable. However those in authority and with power must use it. That's just the nature of power itself. To not use power is to not have it. I hope you understand.

The world is not always a good place...while you may never believe this...America wants the world to be free and open. Bush is trying to install Democracy into the Middle East and that's something I believe Americans want. The price we pay to achieve this may be great however.

piratemonkey

10-05-2006, 09:38 PM

Good points, Labrocca.

Â*Bush is trying to install Democracy into the Middle East and that's something I believe Americans want.Â*Â*The price we pay to achieve this may be great however.

"Install" being the operative word and the reason why it won't work. ;)

Alonzo

10-05-2006, 09:54 PM

Two general points. They're relevant, but not tied to any specific post.

One, the world needs to take actions to prevent genocide and genocide like situations from occuring. That's what happened in Serbia. If it had not happened as it did then the only question would be why wasn't anything done.

A nation should not have the right to persecute a group. And, when that persecution rises to the level of genocide or genocide like behavior, then any nation capable of stopping it has the duty to do so. The governing nation loses the right to self determination when they decided to turn their guns on their own civilians in that manner. And disputes between two nations (or one nation and a rebel province) need to be interfered with when genocide type situations arise. That's what happened with Serbia and Bosnia. That is not to say one side is blameless though.

Nations exist to protect their own people. When they fail to do so, the situation may well require international intervention to do so.

And, second, the Iraq war was a horrible decision. It was foolish and pointless. Yet, pulling out would be the worst of both worlds. We're stuck there for years, perhaps even more than a decade, due to the mess we made. Iraqi's will pay the price if we stay or if we go, but a halfway decent future is much more unlikely if we leave immediately.

We were asked to go into Vietnam if I recall. The South Vietnamese government wanted us there after the French pulled out.

They needed us to protect them when they violated the peace treaty that was signed with the french. The division between north and south was to be temporary. The north had the power to take Vietnam, but ended hostilities with the agreement that the division would be temporary, and elections would be held soon to decide the government of Vietnam. The south though, headed by Diem, wanted to make the division permanent, and cancelled elections when it became clear Ho Chi Minh would win.

BoogyMan

10-06-2006, 12:24 AM

Yeah, because we all know a dem controlled congress or president has never messed in other countries affairs.

No Democrat has ever run a campaign promising that he/she won't engage in "nation-building."

Lemme think.Â*Â*Who has? ;)

One would imagine that after telling us all time and again how much more intelligent you are than the rest of us that you would be loathe to even type in garbage like this.

I cannot imagine what might have happened that would have changed peoples minds about many things they might have done or thought BEFORE its occurrance, can you?

Egads man, this is tired old DNC claptrap.

Anti-Racism

10-06-2006, 12:52 AM

bobbylien

10-06-2006, 01:02 AM

2. He was flat out wrong to bomb Christians.

So its wrong to bomb a christian nation even if its engaging in genocide? I think we need to step up and end genocide like whats happening right now in Darfur. The UN will sit on their asses for months and let thousands of people die before even agreeing to have meetings about possibly taking action.

BoogyMan

10-06-2006, 01:49 AM

Serbian

10-06-2006, 03:36 PM

"I have to ask you...Is your country a better place today because of our actions to stop the genocide?"

it is certanly a smaler place...

Serbian

10-06-2006, 03:37 PM

"I guess the political situation is pretty sure and stable when the majority of a population is being killed or are fleeing to another country."

it was not majority of a population...

Serbian

10-06-2006, 03:39 PM

"Most Americans are aware of the world opinion about us. We are hated...it's uncomfortable. However those in authority and with power must use it. That's just the nature of power itself. To not use power is to not have it. I hope you understand. "

Yeah, i can understand this...

"The world is not always a good place...while you may never believe this...America wants the world to be free and open. Bush is trying to install Democracy into the Middle East and that's something I believe Americans want. The price we pay to achieve this may be great however."

...but no, i can't belive this

piratemonkey

10-06-2006, 04:07 PM

"I guess the political situation is pretty sure and stable when the majority of a population is being killed or are fleeing to another country."

it was not majority of a population...

It was the majority of the population in many Muslim areas.

Some advice: Trying to minimize the attempted genocide of an ethnic group in your country isn't going to get you much credibility. It also completely undercuts your judgments about America.

piratemonkey

10-06-2006, 04:08 PM

"I have to ask you...Is your country a better place today because of our actions to stop the genocide?"

it is certanly a smaler place...

And who's fault is that?

Crazy how when you try to kill or displace all the people in an area how they don't want to be in your country anymore.

Serbian

10-06-2006, 04:19 PM

To piratemonkey:

I didn't try to minimize it, you first said majority of the people, not majority of the people in many Muslim areas. That is very different.

To all:

Ok, you gave me some informations that i haven't known, but the thing that i still don't understand is why do you care about some things that have nothing to do with you. If i was the president of Serbia and if someone from let's say Zimbabwe, called me to send our soldiers there to stop the war between let's say Buritu and Suritu tribes, there's no way i would send my people in some jungle on some another continent to fight with some crazy barbarians. But you probably would. Why?

Serbian

10-06-2006, 04:22 PM

To piratemonkey:

You are blaming Serbia for sacking Albanians, but you supported Croatia when they sacked 200,000 Serbians from there..

Serbian

10-06-2006, 04:24 PM

Sorry, maybe not supported but certanly didn't nothing to prevent it.

Serbian

10-06-2006, 04:25 PM

Maybe not supported, but certanly did nothing to prevent it.

Serbian

10-06-2006, 04:29 PM

Serbian

10-06-2006, 04:30 PM

I'm sorry for my english, i must have made hundreds mistakes on my posts...

piratemonkey

10-06-2006, 05:01 PM

And how come you always blame other nations for doing such things and you never blame yourself for killing hundreds of tousans japanese civilians with atom bombs? I would never use atom bomb on anybody.

Don't apologise for your English.
Anyone here who makes fun of your English here shouldn't be doing that.

Historians again agree almost to the last one.Â*Â*If nuclear weapons hadn't been used on Japan, many more 100's of thousands of people would have died than did.Â*Â*The Japanese military was training the civilian population to fight to the death.Â*Â*The only thing that stopped that was the threat of total destruction of their entire island.

The position you hold on this subject would cause MORE people to have died.Â*Â*That seems like the immoral position to me.

The point I'm trying to make is that in morality, people who see in black and white are rarely correct.Â*Â*That's the Republican's biggest problem in the US right now.Â*Â*They can't see shades of grey.

Let's make this discussion less about my country or yours.Â*Â*Say you heard a neighbor of your beating his child every night.Â*Â*That has nothing to do with you.Â*Â*What would you do?Â*Â*What would you feel the moral obligation to do?

Serbian

10-06-2006, 05:13 PM

Ofcourse i would call the police to stop him. But, speaking like that, then you heard many neighbours beating their children every night and you called police only to stop some of them. That's not right.

piratemonkey

10-06-2006, 05:18 PM

There's a limit to what one person or country can do.

But, I agree that the US has been selective in it's moral outrage. I think that's wrong and am fighting against that in my own government. We should have 20,000+ troops in Darfur right now, is we weren't all hypocritical about that topic.

You essentially are exactly right. But I'd rather argue that we should help all the abused kids than ignore all of them, which is what you seem to be arguing.

Serbian

10-06-2006, 05:28 PM

piratemonkey

10-06-2006, 05:44 PM

What i'm trying to say is, if the two neighbours (Croatia and Serbia for exemple) are both beating children of each other, and if you put only one of them in jail, then his children will remain unprotected.

To continue our analogy:

Serbia and Croatia were adults fighting each other. Then Serbia started beating Croatia's children (i.e. committing war crimes).

Were the Croats completely innocent? No. But there were several clearly documented cases of the Serbian government killing civilians en mass. UN troops witnessed this happening.

If you are trying to establish moral equivalence between the actions of the Serbians and the actions of the Croats or Kosovars, history is not on your side.

Again, you see how morality isn't black and white. There are levels of culpability.

Serbian

10-06-2006, 05:54 PM

I agree that Serbs did more crimes than Croats, but it is a fact that we both did crimes. And you see, your goverment saw things black and white. They bombarded us and putted us under sanctions for our crimes, and did nothing for Croatian crimes.

piratemonkey

10-06-2006, 06:25 PM

and did nothing for Croatian crimes.

You may not know this, but this isn't true.

There were many UN resolutions that required Croatia to retreat to previous positions and that Croatia must restrain from military operations. Some Croat elements felt aggrieved, as no such resolutions had prevented the Serbian forces from attacking Croatia in the earlier stages of the war (when the disturbances were considered national, not international).

So, initially, the international community was squarely against the Croats and did nothing to the Serbs.

Also
The ICTY later investigated Croatian officers Janko Bobetko, Rahim Ademi, Mirko Norac and others for the alleged crimes committed during this operation.

Ante Gotovina and other Croatian officers were later indicted for war crimes regarding the operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_War_of_Independence

So some, at least, were held responsible...

Serbian

10-06-2006, 06:32 PM

Ok, but it is a fact that more than 80% convitcs in Hag are Serbs..

piratemonkey

10-06-2006, 06:51 PM

Ok, but it is a fact that more than 80% convitcs in Hag are Serbs..

I believe that.

But the Serbs committed crimes against the Bosnians, the Croats and the Kosovars.... so I'd guess there is 80% of the culpability on the Serb side. I may be wrong, but it's likely close to that.

In addition, because the orders to kill civilians were coming from high up in the Serbian chain of command, there were simply more people to prosecute.

Serbian

10-06-2006, 09:07 PM

"In addition, because the orders to kill civilians were coming from high up in the Serbian chain of command, there were simply more people to prosecute."

That might be the explanation.

CheesyMuslim

10-07-2006, 02:10 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But Clinton had no business bombing anyone in Serbia.
2. Clinton took it on himself to kill Christians, to sacrifice Christians in order to stop the conflict.
3. That was a huge mistake.
4. And nothing can change that fact.
5. He should of been bombing both or neither.
6. This disparity is laid to his account.
7. He will not be over looked, in this case.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

piratemonkey

10-07-2006, 04:06 PM

Did the conflict stop, when NATO (not Clinton) bombed Serbia?

Yes? It did?

Wow, then the Serbians must have been the ones driving the conflict, eh?

Serbian

10-08-2006, 10:05 AM

We don't seem to understand each other the best...

1. In 1999 was a conflict in Kosovo. Serbian armies sacked Albanian civilians and therefore NATO lead by America bombed us. I don't complain about that.

2. In 1992 there was a civil war in Bosnia between Muslim, Serb, And Croat civilians. Muslims were wining so our goverment interfiered and sent our armies. When we started to kill Muslim civilians en mass EU sent peace troops and stopped that war. In a peace threaty The Republic of Serbs was made as a Part of Bosnia, and we were putted under sanctions for killing Muslim civilians. I don't complain even about that.

3. But in 1995 there was a civil war in Croatia. In operations "Storm" and "Blast" Croatian armies have sacked 200,000 Serb civilians. Nobody did nothing to prevent that. No bombing, no peace troops, no sanctions. That's what i'm complaining about.

I'm not trying to justifie us. We had no right to kill Albanian civilians in 1999 or to kill Muslim civilians in 1992-1993. But what i'm trying to say is that your justice isn't same for everyone. And if it's not same for everyone than it's not justice. Or you think it is?

CheesyMuslim

10-08-2006, 02:23 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. But I would be complaining about #1.
2. I think when the Serbs started killing the Muslims, that was a solution to a very bad constant problem, and it was wrong for USA to get in the middle of that.
3. I think that this is an outrage! I want those who were sacked to get back to their homes, and I want those who stole them to pay rent or restitution, for the time they used these homes.
4. Unless this is done right, and we share some bombs on top of the Muslims, we have treated the Serb folks unfairly.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas