New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

gisterme - 09:15pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6264 of 6268)

almarst,

In my view, this is the cause of the NATO intervention in Kosovo and Yugoslavia:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Yugoslavia-Milosevic-Profile.html?searchpv=aponline

Mr. Milosvic caused the bombing lf Yugoslavia by sending his mechanized army against civilians. Had he not done that, there would have been no bombing. Mr. Milosevic ended the bombing when he withdrew his army from Kosovo. Almarst, would you consider the Yugoslav army action "humanitarian"...800,000 refugees and about 10,000 killed?

Here's what some prominant European leaders think:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/world/yugoslavia-milosevic-.html?searchpv=reuters

Almarst, you asked me earlier about why I thought the US didn't support the "International Court for War Crimes"...

almarst-2001 5/15/01 8:36pm

"...Is there a credible explanation to the US opposition to the International Court for War Crimes, supported, as far as i know, by most of the other nations?..."

and also said,

"...The US is the largest direct finacier (against the UN law as pointed out by Yugoslavia) and the most vocal supporter of the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Yugoslavia demaniding the extradition of suspects out from the Balkans to the court in Haage...:

How many war crimes dockets does the world need, almarst? Judging by today's news, it looks like the International War Crimes Tribunal is doing just fine on its own. The UN can activate its docket any time some murdering dictator arises. I'll bet that if Saddam is ever captured, the UN will want to deal with him rather than some independent court.

If you want reasons why the US didn't support the other court:

http://cgi.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9807/18/crimes.trib/

"...U.S. concerns

The United States proposed an amendment that would have exempted peacekeepers and others from war-crimes prosecution for actions committed on official duty, unless their home country consented to a trial. But human rights organizations said that provision would gut the court's effectiveness.

"It would mean that if you wanted to ever investigate or prosecute [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein, you would have to ask Iraq's permission to go ahead," said Jelena Pejic of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights..."

"...Court 'weak in reality?'

Scheffer warned the conference that it was in danger of creating a court that was "strong on paper and weak in reality." He also pointed out that under international law, a treaty isn't binding on nations that do not ratify it.

U.S. delegates have been under pressure from powerful congressmen back home in Washington, who reject even the possibility that a U.S. citizen would face trial by an international tribunal."

That's all I can say for sure about that, almarst. However I think the Jelina Pejic interpretation of the rejected US amendment proposal (that the court would not be able to prosecute Saddam Hussein if the amendment were adapted) sounds kind of far out since the whole world knows that the US would dearly like to see Mr. Hussein being a cell-mate with Mr. Milosevic.

I know that this is an emotional issue with you, almarst, and there's just not much more I can s

gisterme - 09:21pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6265 of 6268)

"...207 lost in one CNN stocktake!"

Now THAT'S arms reduction lunarchick. Wish it was all that easy!

gisterme - 09:41pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6266 of 6268)

Looks like I lost part of my last post to almarst...

What was lost was:

Looks like that's all I can say for sure about that.

You and I can't change the past so let's look to the future. I've said before that I think NATO didn't handle the Kosovo situation very well and that I hope some lessons have been learned. I'm also glad that the world is rid of a bloody dicatator, as apparently the rest of Europe, including Yugoslavia is too. I hope you feel the same.

The US has a new administration for better or for worse (for me, too early to tell) whose policies are demonstrably different to it's predecessor. Let's just allow a little time for things to shake out and see what the new policy will really be with regards to the Balkins.

You said yourself that the past provides no guage to predict the future...why not heed your own advice? Let's wait a while and see what happens since neither you nor I can change anything ourselves anyway.

Let's try to look to the future and move forward from today. Okay? Can you do that? I would much rather be friends.

That's all I'm going to say about the Balkan situation and past events. I will respond to current events.

gisterme - 09:41pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6267 of 6268)

I'm gone.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense