Note: When I say "we" in this post, I'm usually speaking of America and/or Americans in general.  

Note #2: You've probably got something better to do than read this post.  

How did we end up being the bad guys in Serbia/Kosovo?  I'll be the first admit, I don't have a strong grasp on the nuances of the conflict over there, but didn't we go in to help Muslims who were being slaughtered?  What gives?

In any case, as we're inundated each day with useless election coverage, I'm starting to see a pattern emerge.  In the 1970s, dissatisfaction w/leadership leads to the election of Jimmy Carter, one of the weakest "nice guy" presidents in American history.  The South American drug problem skyrockets, gas shortages arise because of troubles in the Middle East, and Mother Russia rises to ultimate evil level power forcing Carter to contend with numerous crises (both real and imagined) until Ronald Reagan finally rides in and puts the clamps on all that commie pride.  

So how does this relate to today?  Okay, dissastisfaction with the Republicans is likely going to result in the election of Obama who appears a bit soft to me.  Drug trafficking is once again picking up nicely, the Middle East is in turmoil and oil prices are sky high (if we get lucky, in a few years we might be able to tack both drugs and oil woes on Hugo Castrez), and Russia is once again flexing its muscles (I think they're currently developing a nuclear missile that spreads AIDS along with radiation--if they don't, I'm sure China will).  If President Obama falters, a new hero is going to have to ride in for the 2012 election to save us.  (My pick is either Chuck Norris or Bruce Willis.).  

Now, the Mayans believed the world would be reborn in 2012 (or thereabouts), so what does this all mean:  

A return to the Cold War.  The 1980s will be reborn!  Yay!

Pete

Finally my Twilight: 2000 game is relevant again!  I just need to change the date and add AIDs!

Quote from: pspahnHow did we end up being the bad guys in Serbia/Kosovo?  I'll be the first admit, I don't have a strong grasp on the nuances of the conflict over there, but didn't we go in to help Muslims who were being slaughtered?  What gives?

That's not completely off-track (the Albanians are indeed the minority in Kosovo, and most of them are Muslims), but the beef isn't with the Albanians - it's with the christian-orthodox, traditionally Russia-friendly Serbians who until yet claimed Kosovo.
They where the ones who already under the reign of Slobodan Milosevic in the late 90s tried their best to keep the Western forces away and welcomed the sneak troop landing of the Russians, and they are the ones who now called back their ambassadors from the USA, France and every other country that legitimates a "free" Kosovo.

Quote from: HalfjackFinally my Twilight: 2000 game is relevant again!  I just need to change the date and add AIDs!

Radical!  

Quote from: pspahnNote: When I say "we" in this post, I'm usually speaking of America and/or Americans in general.  

Note #2: You've probably got something better to do than read this post.  

How did we end up being the bad guys in Serbia/Kosovo?  I'll be the first admit, I don't have a strong grasp on the nuances of the conflict over there, but didn't we go in to help Muslims who were being slaughtered?  What gives?

We stopped letting the Serbs, Muslims, and Croats kill each other for no apparent reason. After Yugoslavia melted, everybody that had been pissed at everyone else for the last five hundred years or more got a chance to start swinging, so they did.  The minorities (Muslims and ethnic Albanians) were pretty much getting slaughtered, and the Croats were losing ground in the I can ethnically cleans more of your folks than you can mine contest.

And then us and NATO made everybody stop. (Thank Clinton.  Bush I couldn't be bothered).  

The Serbs at some point decided that just because they weren't allowed to kill folks in Bosnia anymore more didn't mean they weren't allowed to kill people in Kosovo (which had sort of ended up in Serbia once all was said and done).

So we made them stop again.  The Kosovar were nervous about being ruled out of Serbia, and the Serbians didn't want a third of their country to go flying off.  The U.N. ended up in charge, and the Security Council (because of Russia and China) said that the U.N. was not allowed to gear Kosovo up for indepencance, and everyone that is not a fan of mass slaughter said they weren't allowed to let things go back to Serb control.

Somehow, Kosovo ended up declaring independance.  The Serbs are annoyed because a third or so of their country is running away.  Never mind that they didn't particularly care for the people that lived there anyway.

(Not that the Kosovar exactly have clean hands, there local militia have not always exactly been gentle with the Serbs as they've had the opportunity either, and there are extremists and militants.)

So, basically we made the Serbs stop killing folks on a massive scale when they were winning, and that made their right wing hate us.  We are also seen as major backers of Kosovar independants, because we are the face of NATO.

(Note that a lot of NATO countries saw their embasies attacked).    

The South American drug problem skyrockets,

This had a lot more to do with the drug market than anything in U.S. politics.

gas shortages arise because of troubles in the Middle East,

More to do with OPEC deciding that they wanted to prove to everyone that they had everyone else by the short and curlies.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyAnd then us and NATO made everybody stop. (Thank Clinton.  Bush I couldn't be bothered).

You forgot the bit about the charges of massive ethnic cleansing that were never proved, the talk of huge mass graves that never turned up, and the civilians killed by the NATO strikes as well as the attacks on Serbia's civilian infrastructure in violation of the Geneva Convention.  Do some digging concerning the UN investigation of the ethnic cleansing that justified the NATO attack.  Like Iraq, Kosovo was triggered by trumped up claims that never panned out made by those with an interest in encouraging military action.  Oh, and let's not forget the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo since the NATO action.  Please note that I am not claiming that the Serbs are angels but neither are the Kosovo Albanians.  ADDED: And, yes, I know that some mass graves were found but they never came close to the claims made to justify the NATO action there.

Quote from: John MorrowYou forgot the bit about the charges of massive ethnic cleansing that were never proved, the talk of huge mass graves that never turned up, and the civilians killed by the NATO strikes as well as the attacks on Serbia's civilian infrastructure in violation of the Geneva Convention.  Do some digging concerning the UN investigation of the ethnic cleansing that justified the NATO attack.  Like Iraq, Kosovo was triggered by trumped up claims that never panned out made by those with an interest in encouraging military action.  Oh, and let's not forget the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo since the NATO action.  Please note that I am not claiming that the Serbs are angels but neither are the Kosovo Albanians.  ADDED: And, yes, I know that some mass graves were found but they never came close to the claims made to justify the NATO action there.

Yea they only murdered 7000 Bosnians in Srebrenica, nothing to concern NATO, the UN or the USA. There were numerous examples of cleansing on all sides and it would still be going on if it hadent been stopped.

Morrow do you mix the cool-aid as well as drink it?

Quote from: John Morrowsnip a degree of silliness

Yeah.  Pretty much everybody was killing everyone and taking their stuff on a pretty massive level.  The Serbs were having the most success with that one though.

So, what do you suppose the "interests in military action" were, other than not having the madness spread over all of Eastern Europe, and stopping genocide?

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyYeah.  Pretty much everybody was killing everyone and taking their stuff on a pretty massive level.  The Serbs were having the most success with that one though.

So, what do you suppose the "interests in military action" were, other than not having the madness spread over all of Eastern Europe, and stopping genocide?

There was madness about to spread all over Eastern Europe? I don't recall that. I mean, I know there was a lot of turmoil as all of these satellites tried to deal with the receding power of the former USSR, but...

And if Genocide was the only reason, we have some 'splainin to do in other areas of the world.

So - to piggyback on your question: assuming it's not those two - what else could it be...

Quote from: John MorrowADDED: And, yes, I know that some mass graves were found but they never came close to the claims made to justify the NATO action there.

At what point are claims of ethnic cleansing supposed tip the scales of international intervention?  How bad did it need to be? During WWII there were similar complaints regarding rumors coming out of German-occupied Europe, and there are similarly still people citing evidence that claims of ethnic cleansing there were grossly exaggerated. What is it supposed to take to motivate international intervention when something like that is happening, regardless of the degree? What does it take to justify humanitarian intervention?

!i!

Quote from: James J SkachSo - to piggyback on your question: assuming it's not those two - what else could it be...

Why, covering up a sex-scandal, of course.

!i!

I still hold that the proper course of action in the baltic-kans for any so called capitalist empire would have been to open up shops all over the region selling guns to all and sundry.

If motherfuckers are that set on killing eachother, who are we to tell them no when we could be profitting from their bloodlust instead?

 Though, yes, I do draw the line at actually instigating it. Any would be arms dealer knows that you really don't need to CREATE markets... human nature does that for us.






EDIT::: For Ian \o/

Quote from: SpikeI still hold that the proper course of action in the baltics...

Psst.  Balkans.

!i!

Quote from: RockViperYea they only murdered 7000 Bosnians in Srebrenica, nothing to concern NATO, the UN or the USA.

That had already been stopped before the bombing of Kosovo.  Are you saying that the bombing of Serbia over Kosovo was justified becuase of killings in Bosnia that had already ended?

The Iraqis gassed the Kurds with WMDs and attacked the Marsh Arabs long before the US invaded Iraq.  Do you think those earlier killings, which had been stopped by no-fly zones, justified the invasion?  

Quote from: RockViperThere were numerous examples of cleansing on all sides and it would still be going on if it hadent been stopped.

It wasn't fully stopped.  How do you think the Serbs faired in Kosovo once the locals knew that they had Air NATO to protect them?

Quote from: RockViperMorrow do you mix the cool-aid as well as drink it?

No.  I actually look at the follow-up reports by the UN.  Have you?  How many people did they find in mass graves related to Kosovo and how many did they claim were killed by the Serbians to justify the attack?  Compare and contrast those numbers.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyYeah.  Pretty much everybody was killing everyone and taking their stuff on a pretty massive level.  The Serbs were having the most success with that one though.

So that justified taking sides?

Quote from: NotYourMonkeySo, what do you suppose the "interests in military action" were, other than not having the madness spread over all of Eastern Europe, and stopping genocide?

I think that it's likely that Clinton and Blair believed the exaggerated claims of the refugees from Kosovo and could have believed they were doing the right thing for humanitarian reasons.  Of course it's also possible that Bush and Blair believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs and that there was a legitimate security reason for going in to Iraq.  I think both are good lessons in being careful of what you believe from disgruntled refugees because they are willing to lie to encourage the US to take their side.  Of course it's a lot easier to call Clinton a liar and assume that he did it just to distract from his sex scandals but, like Iraq, that doesn't explain why Tony Blair went along for the ride.  But why believe in an honest mistake when you can believe in a conspiracy theory?