Response to Which wars are OK

Just to clarify on the Balkans thing. I was not referring the the conflict in the Balkans in the early 1990's. I don't know enough about that to be able to say anything much on it. I was commenting on the Kosovo War (which happened in 1999).
<If the US / NATO were as bad as you say in the balkan conflicts we would expect the US/NATO flag to be flying over Belgrade, Sarajevo, Zagreb now. Or similarly after WWII you would expect Germany, France, etc to be US/UK controlled countries. But no, they did the job and transfer power back to the people as soon as possible. As they will in Afghanistan and Iraq. >

The more extreme demands in the Rambouillet Accord were dropped after the war began. They were presumably deliberate to instigate a war, as no country would have agreed to such demands.  The demands, from Appendix B of the Rambouillet Accord, (Status of Multi-National Military Implementation Force) include that:

NATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal.

NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal, or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia].

NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.

The authorities in the FRY shall facilitate, on a priority basis and with all appropriate means, all movement of personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, or supplies, through or in the airspace, ports, airports, or roads used. No charges may be assessed against NATO for air navigation, landing, or takeoff of aircraft, whether government-owned or chartered. Similarly, no duties, dues, tolls or charges may be assessed against NATO ships, whether government-owned or chartered, for the mere entry and exit of ports. Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft used in support of the operation shall not be subject to licensing or registration requirements, nor commercial insurance.

NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use. NATO shall not, however, claim exemption from reasonable charges for specific services requested and received, but operations/movement and access shall not be allowed to be impeded pending payment for such services.

The Parties recognize that the use of communications channels is necessary for the Operation. NATO shall be allowed to operate its own internal mail services.

The Parties shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for the Operation, as determined by NATO. This shall include the right to utilize such means and services as required to assure full ability to communicate, and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum for this purpose, free of cost

The Parties shall provide, free of cost, such public facilities as NATO shall require to prepare for and execute the Operation. The Parties shall assist NATO in obtaining, at the lowest rate, the necessary utilities, such as electricity, water, gas and other resources, as NATO shall require for the Operation.

 Regarding the post WWII situation, the US did not withdraw in the manner that you imply. They  interfered to an unbelievable degree with the elections in Italy, for example. See .  They still have bases in Germany (which they used during this war).

<"The weapons used had a 50-60% failure rate. “

That is utter rubbish. Out of thousands of bombs, 2 unfortunately hit markets. >

 These sort of figures are coming from the military, and if you had gone to the link I gave you would have known that.  I doubt they had a figure at the time for the latest Iraq war, so must have based their figures on the last few conflicts (Kosovo,  bombing of Iraq by allies late 1990's and Afghanistan - speaking of which remember that they blew up the red cross building which  had a big red cross painted on the roof. Maybe they thought it was a target?). It seems that part of the problem may be with human error. During the Afghanistan War soldiers had to take drugs before they could fly on some of the missions. This may have affected performance.

<As regards the training of Noriega have you forgotten that he was removed by the US? >

No I haven't forgotten, neither I doubt have the families of the thousands of civilians they killed and made homeless in the process.

<The US and UK have for the most part been very well behaved in protecting the world from terrorists.>

I think the fact that they have been arming and training them answers that.

<There is no evidence that “ordinary Iraqi people are part of the resistance>

So we imagined those people protesting then?

<Why don’t you quote the human rights abuses by Al queda, the IRA, the PLO, the Taliban, the Serb army, FARC etc etc etc. Or do you think that the US are the sole abusers of human rights. You are so prejudiced it is unbelievable. >
The reason I am discussing the US/UK in answer to your ridiculous idea that they are acting for the greater good, and because of some of the other comments you have made.
<You appear believe without question any anti American propaganda you can get your hand on. >
Would that be the State Department quote? Or maybe Appendix B of the Rambouillet Accord? Did you like my George Keenan quote in the thread on John Stuart Mill?

Created By: Orla Ni Chomhrai