Controversial Forum Post

[igyman]

I based my opinion on the actions of the US ''peace troops''. Unfortunately I don't have any evidence that says specifically that the president profited from their resources, but I've seen some documentaries about 9/11, including Michael Moore's and I've watched the news at the time of the invasion of Iraq and I heard that the first thing the US soldiers went for were the Iraqi oil rigs. Not Saddam, not the dictator regime, but the oil rigs. As for my own country, the now former president Clinton bombed it in 1999, as some of you might know and for what? We were never a threat to the USA. We even thought what most Americans still think - that USA is the coolest country in the world (the bombs were quite the wake up call, let me tell you). We were a friendly nation and still are. What USA did to us in '99 was occupy the region of our country that holds the most natural resources. I find it hard to believe that they held it for seven years if there's no profit form it, because the situation there hasn't got better since the peace troops arrived, it got worse.

 

And what about the other nations America has a military presence in? Nations like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and South Korea. Do you think Americans are exploiting those countries' natural resources and profiting at the expense of those nations?

Their presence in those countries is of a completely different nature, so I really don't know why you are even bringing it up. Their presence there and pacts with those countries allows them to fly their military planes over those countries' skies and to send their troops directy from those bases to bomb Iraq, Afghanistan and any other country they choose to. So, yes, they profit from it, not in money as far as I know, but they profit.

 

What resources are American troops capturing and exploiting in Afghanistan? Perhaps poppy seeds for opium production? I certainly hope not. I can't think of any other resources Afghanistan has that America would be interested in.

Afghanistan's natural resources are: natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones.

Here's some basic information on Afghanistan.

 

To help put this in context for you, Serbia's gross domestic product in 2004 was about USD$26.27 billion. So in 2004 alone the U.S. spent 3 times the amount of money on Iraq than Serbia even generated!!!

I really don't know what Serbia's gross domestic product has to do with any of this. Of course it's not even close to what the US generates, or spends in a year. If it were, I'd be a millionaire, along with the rest of my country's population.

 

According to an article from The Washington Post,...

Since the press gets their information from the government officials and I am questioning the honesty of those officials, those reports mean very little to me.

 

If I may dare to use the quote from your signature - Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think, based on the actions and behaviour of the US government officials that this definitely applies to them.

[Char Ell]

I don't hate Americans, I think I've said that already, I just think that they should realise, especially their politicians, that they are just humans, like the rest of us and that they can't send their troops around the world, kill people and claim that it's in the name of justice and freedom, but actually do it only to capture and exploit that country's natural resources and fill their own pockets with money. (emphasis added)

I found this a serious indictment of America and wanted to know what evidence you based your viewpoint on.

I based my opinion on the actions of the US ''peace troops''. Unfortunately I don't have any evidence that says specifically that the president profited from their resources

So I don't get it. From what you've stated I understood that you believe America conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to exploit those countries' natural resources to fill America's own coffers yet you can provide no evidence in support of this. Will you now consider retracting this accusation?

I've seen some documentaries about 9/11, including Michael Moore's and I've watched the news at the time of the invasion of Iraq and I heard that the first thing the US soldiers went for were the Iraqi oil rigs. Not Saddam, not the dictator regime, but the oil rigs.

I haven't watched Michael Moore's "documentary" on Sept. 11 so I don't know what it's all about. Considering how Michael Moore has an almost fanatical desire to bash President Bush I find it hard to believe that the film he made would be unbiased. As for the U.S. soldiers going after the Iraqi oil rigs I guess it comes down to how you choose to view that action. As for myself I believe America's military forces wanted to prevent Saddam and those loyal to him from blowing up Iraq's oil infrastructure and setting Iraqi oil wells ablaze, like Saddam's army did to Kuwait's oil wells right before they were driven from Kuwait.

What USA did to us in '99 was occupy the region of our country that holds the most natural resources. I find it hard to believe that they held it for seven years if there's no profit form it, because the situation there hasn't got better since the peace troops arrived, it got worse.

I apologize in that I am not well versed about the situation in Serbia and Montenegro. Due to events in my personal life I was not paying much attention to world events during that period of time so I will refrain from making any speculative comments about a subject I have very little understanding of.

Their presence in those countries is of a completely different nature, so I really don't know why you are even bringing it up.

I find my remark quite relevant. America's military presence in S. Korea is a holdover from the Korean War. As you may recall America, Canada, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and other countries, commonly referred to as the Allies in U.S. history books, defeated and occupied the nations of Germany and Japan at the conclusion of World War II. The Marshall Plan was implemented and America and other of its allies contributed much towards rebuilding Japan and the parts of Germany not occupied by the Soviet Union. I think it is fairly evident that 60 years later these two countries are doing quite well and are self-governed, not American puppet governments that America is exploiting. If you require more proof I can tell you there is no doubt in my mind that Japanese automakers are kicking American automakers' butts right now.

Their presence there and pacts with those countries allows them to fly their military planes over those countries' skies and to send their troops directy from those bases to bomb Iraq, Afghanistan and any other country they choose to. So, yes, they profit from it, not in money as far as I know, but they profit.

Not at all. The German government did not allow the American military to stage air attacks out of U.S. air bases in Germany during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Only transportation of troops and equipment were allowed. And I also forgot to mention that American forces stationed in Saudi Arabia at the time were also prohibited from flying attack missions in support of the Iraq invasion by the Saudi Arabian government.

Afghanistan's natural resources are: natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt, precious and semiprecious stones.

Thanks for enlightening me on this subject but I really don't think America is "exploiting" any of these Afghani resources. They most likely don't exist in sufficient quantities to justify the money and effort it would take to extract and sell. Remember that capitalists engage in ventures they think will be profitable and I think very few American companies would be willing to engage in such a risky endeavor with little return, especially since the country is landlocked and requires shipping the goods across other countries, thereby incurring tariffs and increasing the cost of production.

I really don't know what Serbia's gross domestic product has to do with any of this. Of course it's not even close to what the US generates, or spends in a year. If it were, I'd be a millionaire, along with the rest of my country's population.

I simply wanted to give you a basis of comparison for what the U.S. is spending on Iraq.

Since the press gets their information from the government officials and I am questioning the honesty of those officials, those reports mean very little to me.

So you are saying that you don't believe America has spent over USD$300 billion in Iraq? That's all the article I referenced was talking about.

 

Look, I'm not questioning your readily apparent distrust of the American government. I can understand how you feel that way, especially considering the way you view America's actions in your own country in 1999. What I challenge are some of the reasons for that mistrust. I'm hoping you will take the time to evaluate the accuracy of the information you are basing your opinions and beliefs on as I feel you are only paying attention to the things you want to hear and discarding anything that doesn't fit with your established view of how America operates.

 

So if you say, "I don't trust America because their government fabricated intelligence about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify invading Iraq." Or "I don't trust America because they bombed my country in 1999 for no apparent reason." I'm not going to argue with you on those points. What I will argue against are statements that America is exploiting Afghanistan and Iraq for financial gain because I see no basis in fact for such allegations.

 

EDIT: Final statement modified after further consideration.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Astounding. Now that I know you are Serbian I find your point of view quite intriguing.

 

Would you care to explain how you arrived at this conclusion? As I mentioned before I have a difficult time following the logic in your thought processes.

Iraq is the world's second greatest supply of oil (unless of course the permafrost in Siberia is broken through). While the U.S government may not profit from capturing a country like that, the oil industry, which Bush and Cheney are closely affiliated with, stand to make a ****-load of cash from the U.S invasion of Iraq.

[Char Ell]

^^^

Yeah, you're right. Our national government will most likely seek to establish "favorable" Iraqi oil development contracts for U.S. oil companies. But before that can happen Iraq will have to be largely stabilized. And if the Iraqi government starts to think that those contracts aren't in their best interest I don't think they'll honor any of the long-term contracts.

 

@ igyman - I retract any statement I made to the effect that the U.S. government wouldn't seek to secure Iraqi oil production for American consumption, although I'm not sure I made any such statement and don't feel like reviewing what I wrote right now. However I do think the Iraqi oil situation is still yet to be fully determined and the U.S. government and U.S. oil companies are sorely mistaken if they think Iraqis will accept any oil development deals that they perceive as unfavorable. America's best course of action would be to support the stabilization of the Iraqi government and make a hasty exit shortly thereafter and forget about the oil.

 

Ugh. My head hurts.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I apologize in that I am not well versed about the situation in Serbia and Montenegro. Due to events in my personal life I was not paying much attention to world events during that period of time so I will refrain from making any speculative comments about a subject I have very little understanding of.

 

I actually do. Though I was quite young at the moment, I remember enough about the subject and I have read some articles and seen some documentaries about it.

 

There was no bombing for no reason. I'll make it short.

1999 was the year of the war in Kosovo. This province is a holy place for all the ethnic groups living around it (name me another place in the same situation, come on, I know you can ). I do not want to start a flame war with any serbian posters but anyway...

This man, Slobodan Milosevic, decided to do a thing called ethnic cleansing. Which, as you all must know, means the mass murder of a certain ethnic group, specifically the Albanian muslims. Of course, the muslims decided to retaliate, all hell broke loose and NATO had to intervene.

After the Serbian forces decided to stop the fight, a UN peacekeeping force with NATO support was deployed in Kosovo. Since then, Kosovo has been under UN "rule" and negociations are underway to determine its status.

The peacekeeping forces were unable to protect the churches and mosques in the region, leading to many of them being desecrated and vandalized by either angry muslims or angry Serbians.

 

Slobodan Milosevic died before who could be tried and condemned for crimes against humanity.

[igyman]

This man, Slobodan Milosevic, decided to do a thing called ethnic cleansing.

You should know that the ethnic cleansing thing is an unproven speculation, or rather, it is unproven that Milosevic had anything to do with it.

 

Slobodan Milosevic died before who could be tried and condemned for crimes against humanity.

He died during his trial in Hague and he died before the accusations against him could be proven or disproven.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm no particular fan of Milosevic, but some things need to be cleared up.

 

There was no bombing for no reason.

 

Technically you are right (they wanted Milosevic out of the way and they wanted control over Kosovo and its natural resources), but there was no justified reason for the bombing, especially for bombing the building of our national television, or the chinese embassy, or many other civilian buildings.

 

The peacekeeping forces were unable to protect the churches and mosques in the region, leading to many of them being desecrated and vandalized by either angry muslims or angry Serbians.

 

I've lived in Serbia, in its capital city - Belgrade all my life and this is the first time I hear about Serbians vandalizing mosques on Kosovo. The Albanians did their share of vandalizing, both churches and civilian residences, but I never heard of a case where Serbians vandalized a mosque. Can you provide a valid source of that information?

[lukeiamyourdad]

You should know that the ethnic cleansing thing is an unproven speculation, or rather, it is unproven that Milosevic had anything to do with it.

 

So which is it? Ethnic cleansing being a speculation or Milosevic having something to do with it?

You seem to first, deny it, then go back and say it happened but Milosevic had nothing to do with it.

 

http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/kosovoii/homepage.html

 

 

He died during his trial in Hague and he died before the accusations against him could be proven or disproven.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm no particular fan of Milosevic, but some things need to be cleared up.

 

You are right that his trial was never completed, but most evidences point to him being guilty. Afterall, rarely are men accused with crimes against humanity not guilty, unless untouchable because of some diplomatic reason.

You are still right, it is still not yet proven, at least in front of a court of law, that Milosevic is guilty.

 

 

Technically you are right (they wanted Milosevic out of the way and they wanted control over Kosovo and its natural resources), but there was no justified reason for the bombing, especially for bombing the building of our national television, or the chinese embassy, or many other civilian buildings.

 

National television (I assume state-owned) can be bombed during a war like every other media owned by the state. They can be used to spread propaganda and they are targets.

As for the Chinese embassy, that must be an accident. There is no reason to attack it. Same with the civilian buildings. Accidents happen as bombs are not 100% accurate.

I do not understand why you keep on insisting about natural ressources. You must not know much about economics. If you want to make money, you produce goods. Natural ressources, with the exception of oil, does not bring in a lot of money. Countries whose primary economical activity is based around it are quite poor. Then again, Kosovo is one of the poorest areas of Europe. What natural ressources could be worth conquering that piece of land for?

 

 

I've lived in Serbia, in its capital city - Belgrade all my life and this is the first time I hear about Serbians vandalizing mosques on Kosovo. The Albanians did their share of vandalizing, both churches and civilian residences, but I never heard of a case where Serbians vandalized a mosque. Can you provide a valid source of that information?

 

I have one article by UNESCO, but it cannot be accessed through normal means. Being a student of the Université de Montréal, I can, but you probably cannot.

However, I'll point you to a paragraph of the wikipedia article about the war in Kosovo:

According to a report compiled by the Kosovo Cultural Heritage Project, Serbian forces also engaged in a "deliberate campaign of cultural destruction and rampage during the Kosovo War". Of the 500 mosques that were in use prior to the war, 200 of them were completely destroyed or desecrated. The report concludes that most mosques were deliberately set on fire with no sign of fighting around the area.

 

The article is hardly biased as it does show both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Kosovo_War

 

On second thought, I'll provide you with the link to the UNESCO .pdf file.

http://portal.unesco.org/en/file_download.php/1c6cf0b20a60d85a3ef43cd9f87f80e4Pages+1-14+KOSOVO_report_distilled.pdf#search=%22Kosovo%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Project%20desecration%20of%20mosques%22

 

Page 8 starts mentioning the desecration of mosques, churches and cemetaries.

 

On an ending note, most site I came across while doing a short google search for reliable links were extremely biased.

Many sites were composed of muslim propaganda, other of christian propaganda. Either way, almost nothing was as objective as humanly possible, except for the wikipedia article, though I won't quote it for a university paper, is a relatively good source for basic information.

I also came across translated articles from Serbian newspapers and they were pretty bad too. To summarize it, Westerners don't understand us. Period. End of argument. All they were saying was western media demonized Serbia during the 1990's without ever bringing any counter argument to valid accusations by reliable journalists other then the usual "you don't understand us".

If you can, I suggest you look for articles on periodical search engines if you happen to have a proxy allowing you to get them. Since I got hold of mine when I entered uni, it has proven to be a gold mine of very reliable information. It is unfortunate that I cannot share it.

[igyman]

So which is it? Ethnic cleansing being a speculation or Milosevic having something to do with it?

You seem to first, deny it, then go back and say it happened but Milosevic had nothing to do with it.

I'm saying that I'm not really sure, the point being that since nobody here in Serbia is certain of what exactly happened, it is a rather pompous claim for someone who lives abroad (by this I am not refering to you specifically, but rather to some foreign politicians and reporters) when they say that it did for a fact happen and that Milosevic was responsible.

 

National television (I assume state-owned) can be bombed during a war like every other media owned by the state. They can be used to spread propaganda and they are targets.

Let's say that I accept that, but are you saying that it can be bombed while there are innocent people, journalists, inside the building?

 

As for the Chinese embassy, that must be an accident. There is no reason to attack it. Same with the civilian buildings. Accidents happen as bombs are not 100% accurate.

It was branded as an accident and the world accepted it, but just consider this: knowing that China and Russia were the only two NATO members who refused to bomb us and knowing the attitude of the US government on the Chinese regime, can you honestly say that you have no doubt whatsoever that it was an accident? Not even the slightest doubt?

 

Then again, Kosovo is one of the poorest areas of Europe. What natural ressources could be worth conquering that piece of land for?

You must have read that on wikipedia. Needless to say that you are wrong. Kosovo is rich in lead, zinc, chromium, molybdenum and manganese, not to mention coal.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I'm saying that I'm not really sure, the point being that since nobody here in Serbia is certain of what exactly happened, it is a rather pompous claim for someone who lives abroad (by this I am not refering to you specifically, but rather to some foreign politicians and reporters) when they say that it did for a fact happen and that Milosevic was responsible.

 

Of course you are not certain of what happened. Generally, people in the middle of the situation or very close to do not know what is happening. You have not commented on the link I provide.

 

 

Let's say that I accept that, but are you saying that it can be bombed while there are innocent people, journalists, inside the building?

 

If they help spread the propaganda...One of the biggest rules of journalism is staying as objective as humanly possible.

 

 

It was branded as an accident and the world accepted it, but just consider this: knowing that China and Russia were the only two NATO members who refused to bomb us and knowing the attitude of the US government on the Chinese regime, can you honestly say that you have no doubt whatsoever that it was an accident? Not even the slightest doubt?

 

China and Russia are part of NATO? You actually know that NATO means North Atlantic Treaty Organisation right? And that it was created during the Cold War to provide defense for Europe against a potential attack from the Soviet Union? And that China is simply not elligible to enter an alliance with the name North Atlantic in it for obvious reasons?

 

That aside, how you assume that the US would bomb one of their trade partners and potentially cause a war (an embassy being considered a territory of the country that owns it)? That would be the stupidest move ever. There is not a single evidence that it was on purpose other then speculation.

 

 

 

You must have read that on wikipedia. Needless to say that you are wrong. Kosovo is rich in lead, zinc, chromium, molybdenum and manganese, not to mention coal.

 

I quote myself:

 

I do not understand why you keep on insisting about natural ressources. You must not know much about economics. If you want to make money, you produce goods. Natural ressources, with the exception of oil, does not bring in a lot of money. Countries whose primary economical activity is based around it are quite poor. Then again, Kosovo is one of the poorest areas of Europe. What natural ressources could be worth conquering that piece of land for?

[igyman]

You have not commented on the link I provide.

Well, as a government site (you are refering to the link about ethnic cleansing?) it should be reliable, but since I am claiming that the US government is dishonest and untrustworthy I am not sure how trustworthy and reliable that info from the State Department site is.

 

If they help spread the propaganda...One of the biggest rules of journalism is staying as objective as humanly possible.

I guess it depends on what you consider as propaganda. I mean, you can't expect that the people who are being bombed by a certain country/alliance of countries praise their attackers.

 

China and Russia are part of NATO? You actually know that NATO means North Atlantic Treaty Organisation right? And that it was created during the Cold War to provide defense for Europe against a potential attack from the Soviet Union? And that China is simply not elligible to enter an alliance with the name North Atlantic in it for obvious reasons?

Uhhh, this is all getting really confusing. Yes, I do know what NATO stands for and I have obviously made a mistake in my previous statement, but the fact remains that those two countries were strongly against the bombing of my country and it arouses certain suspicion when it comes to the bombing of the chinese embassy.

 

I quote myself:...

I quote the part in that quote that was not in bold letters:

Then again, Kosovo is one of the poorest areas of Europe. What natural ressources could be worth conquering that piece of land for?

My answer refered to this part. I was simply trying to correct you in this claim and I believe I have done so successfully. As you could have obviously read, Kosovo is far from poor when it comes to natural resources.

 

Now to try to answer your other question. Why do I keep insisting on natural resources? As I have said, I have based my opinion on the actions done by Clinton's and Bush's government and that opinion is that those governments are crooked, dishonest, whatever you want to call it. Now, what actions? Doesn't it seem strange to you that (now former) President Clinton (and we all know what kind of a man Clinton is) personally initiates the attack on my country within NATO? My country has never been and never will be a threat to the USA, but then rise these strange acusations and suddenly bombs start to drop. We defend ourselves as best we can (destroying their vaunted F-117 bombers in the process and also at least one Apache chopper that was attacking from Albanian territory) and then months later the bombs stop and the foreign troops arrive to Kosovo and evict our people, not just the police, but most of the residence from Kosovo, so the Albanians are now a vast majority there. The Albanians form a government there that is in violation to the 1244 resolution and demand that Kosovo becomes an independant state.

 

Bush then after 9/11, not even finishing a proper investigation of the entire event, bombs Afghanistan like they would get Bin Laden by bombing the country's cities and killing civilians. Some time later he decides to invade Iraq, all in the name of ''War on Terror'' and the claims that Saddam has some mobile labs that produce nuclear warheads, or something like that. As the whole world knows those labs were never found and thus the invasion of Iraq was never properly justified.

Now, if there weren't any weapons of mass destruction (and remember that the whole invasion of Iraq was based on the claim that they possess means of producing weapons of mass destruction and that they would use those weapons against the USA), why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq? And why did the ground troops immediately go to secure the oil rigs and not attack the city and get Saddam? They did that later.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Well, as a government site (you are refering to the link about ethnic cleansing?) it should be reliable, but since I am claiming that the US government is dishonest and untrustworthy I am not sure how trustworthy and reliable that info from the State Department site is.

 

Just as a republican will always consider information written in the New York Times to be wildly unreliable.

If you really insist, then I'll try and find something from Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.

 

 

I guess it depends on what you consider as propaganda. I mean, you can't expect that the people who are being bombed by a certain country/alliance of countries praise their attackers.

 

That is entirely true, but I will refer to the definition of propaganda:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda&x=0&y=0

 

Uhhh, this is all getting really confusing. Yes, I do know what NATO stands for and I have obviously made a mistake in my previous statement, but the fact remains that those two countries were strongly against the bombing of my country and it arouses certain suspicion when it comes to the bombing of the chinese embassy.

 

So? Suspicions do not suddenly become facts without any evidence. As long as there's no proof, it's just a wild claim.

 

I quote the part in that quote that was not in bold letters:

 

My answer refered to this part. I was simply trying to correct you in this claim and I believe I have done so successfully. As you could have obviously read, Kosovo is far from poor when it comes to natural resources.

 

Poor when it comes to money. You still don't want to acknowledge that exploitation of natural ressources is worth nothing. You don't make a lot of money out of it. This isn't the Middle-Ages. You don't invade a country only for some minerals.

 

Now to try to answer your other question. Why do I keep insisting on natural resources? As I have said, I have based my opinion on the actions done by Clinton's and Bush's government and that opinion is that those governments are crooked, dishonest, whatever you want to call it. Now, what actions? Doesn't it seem strange to you that (now former) President Clinton (and we all know what kind of a man Clinton is) personally initiates the attack on my country within NATO? My country has never been and never will be a threat to the USA, but then rise these strange acusations and suddenly bombs start to drop.

 

And? If a genocide (or potential) happen in some part of the world, there are calls from the international community to stop it immediately. If bombs have to be used, then they are used. Doesn't really matter if the country is a threat or not. Nobody wants another Rwanda.

 

 

We defend ourselves as best we can (destroying their vaunted F-117 bombers in the process and also at least one Apache chopper that was attacking from Albanian territory) and then months later the bombs stop and the foreign troops arrive to Kosovo and evict our people, not just the police, but most of the residence from Kosovo, so the Albanians are now a vast majority there. The Albanians form a government there that is in violation to the 1244 resolution and demand that Kosovo becomes an independant state.

 

http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

Where does it say the Kosovo Albanian cannot create their own independant state? Important thing in the resolution, all refugees can return to their homes safely. So...I'd like evidence of Serbs being evicted by the international force.

 

 

Bush then after 9/11, not even finishing a proper investigation of the entire event, bombs Afghanistan like they would get Bin Laden by bombing the country's cities and killing civilians.

 

Ok...so the Talibans, open supporters of Bin Laden, known to finance his operations and leaders of the countries cannot be bombed because...?

 

 

Some time later he decides to invade Iraq, all in the name of ''War on Terror'' and the claims that Saddam has some mobile labs that produce nuclear warheads, or something like that. As the whole world knows those labs were never found and thus the invasion of Iraq was never properly justified.

 

Very true. By the way, it was bio weapons, not nukes. I don't see what this or the Afghanistan thing has anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

Now, if there weren't any weapons of mass destruction (and remember that the whole invasion of Iraq was based on the claim that they possess means of producing weapons of mass destruction and that they would use those weapons against the USA), why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq? And why did the ground troops immediately go to secure the oil rigs and not attack the city and get Saddam? They did that later.

 

I also specifically mentioned that no natural ressource excepted oil was worth launching an invasion for.

[igyman]

So? Suspicions do not suddenly become facts without any evidence. As long as there's no proof, it's just a wild claim.

I never said that it is a fact that they bombed the embassy intentionally, I said that a certain suspicion exists when it comes to the circumstances of the bombing of that building.

 

Where does it say the Kosovo Albanian cannot create their own independant state? Important thing in the resolution, all refugees can return to their homes safely. So...I'd like evidence of Serbs being evicted by the international force.

Where does it say that they can create their own government, especially in a region supposedly controlled by the UN? I'll try to find some evidence of the eviction of Serbs on the internet, but I doubt such reports would be posted online, since it's bad publicity for the peacekeeping forces there.

 

Very true. By the way, it was bio weapons, not nukes. I don't see what this or the Afghanistan thing has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Right, bio weapons, I wasn't completely sure about that. It is relevant to the topic because my original point of view - that it's not a big deal that the guy laughed at the described scenes in the documentary - was being attacked and I am trying to explain why I have that point of view by saying what I know of the actions in the aftermath of 9/11 and by stating my suspicions on the motives of those actions, suspicions that are based on the behaviour of the US officials, especially President Bush. I admit that we got somewhat off-topic with our discussion about the situation in my country and the 1999 bombing.

 

Btw, I'm still surprised that no mod has warned Dagobahn Eagle for an apparent flaming in post #68. There's a quote of my statement at the end of that post after which he refers to the poster as a creep. Since he didn't include the name of the poster in the quote, here's the link to post #3 where the original statement is.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I never said that it is a fact that they bombed the embassy intentionally, I said that a certain suspicion exists when it comes to the circumstances of the bombing of that building.

 

You're somehow just trying to get out of it. It's like all those conspiracy theories. Based on no evidence at all. Mostly suspicion. Since this is a debate, suspicions are easily trashed and discarded.

 

 

Where does it say that they can create their own government, especially in a region supposedly controlled by the UN?

 

It also mentions that a new governing body should be created so that Kosovo becomes autonomous. They want to create their own country. As of now, it's still controlled by the UN.

Besides, no where does it say that they can't create their own country eventually, which pretty much contradicts your claim that such an action would be against resolution 1244.

 

I'll try to find some evidence of the eviction of Serbs on the internet, but I doubt such reports would be posted online, since it's bad publicity for the peacekeeping forces there.

 

I found some. They're on websites dedicated to Christian extremists with lots of "Save Christians! Kill the evil Muslims!".

 

 

 

Right, bio weapons, I wasn't completely sure about that. It is relevant to the topic because my original point of view - that it's not a big deal that the guy laughed at the described scenes in the documentary - was being attacked and I am trying to explain why I have that point of view by saying what I know of the actions in the aftermath of 9/11 and by stating my suspicions on the motives of those actions, suspicions that are based on the behaviour of the US officials, especially President Bush. I admit that we got somewhat off-topic with our discussion about the situation in my country and the 1999 bombing.

 

 

You cannot accuse a people or its government of every thinkable crime because it did something bad. Just because somebody committed a crime in the past or the present doesn't mean that everything he does is a crime.

Suspicions have no weigh in a debate. They are very easily countered by a simple request for evidence backing the claim.

[igyman]

You're somehow just trying to get out of it.

Reread the parts of my posts about that particular matter and you'll see that I haven't said in a single one that it is a fact that the chinese embassy was bombed intentionally.

 

Besides, no where does it say that they can't create their own country eventually, which pretty much contradicts your claim that such an action would be against resolution 1244.

Eventually and right now are two different things. I am saying that the existence of that government in this moment contradicts resolution 1244.

 

You cannot accuse a people or its government of every thinkable crime because it did something bad. Just because somebody committed a crime in the past or the present doesn't mean that everything he does is a crime.

This goes both ways. It applies to the Iraqi, Afghans and Serbs just as it applies on Americans and the rest of the world. Besides, I only accused the US government, never the people. I did say that the people are strongly influenced and misinformed by their government, but I don't consider that an accusation at the people.

 

Suspicions have no weigh in a debate. They are very easily countered by a simple request for evidence backing the claim.

If the explanation for a certain suspicion has merit, then the suspicion itself must have some merit. Where is the evidence that the suspicions I've presented are unfounded?

 

Btw, what's up with ignoring the complaint at the end of my previous post?

[lukeiamyourdad]

This has become a circular argument so I won't keep it going. You just turn around and around and around...

 

Anyway, if you want to present suspicions into a debate, do as you wish. Suspicions are easily destroyed. Explanations are not evidence. You make a claim, you back it up. Explaining how you ended up having this suspicion does not change the fact that you cannot back up the claim. The opponent, in this case me, does not have to present anything to contradict you.

 

If you said that aliens exist and I say they don't, you'll have to bring up evidence to back up your claim. Although mathematically unlikely (if the universe is infinite) that there is no other life form anywhere, it does not validate the claim. Until there is strong evidence, there are no aliens.

A simple example I think.

 

By the way, if you have any complaints, address them to the local moderators.

[igyman]

Believe it, or not, I agree with you. This is going around in circles (but IMO not only thanks to me) and there is no point in continuing it. You have your opinion and I have mine. Neither of us managed to change the other's mind, so there's very little point in continuing further, if we want to keep this from becoming a stupid fight and keep the forums friendly.

 

(About the mod thing, don't get angry, I just thought that as a mod you could have done something, I understand now that the KoTOR forum is not your responsibility, but only of the moderators listed for this forum.)