Lift Up The Rock....

TritonRider

>From: "Henry Etta" Etta@etta.com

>You don't have to defame Clinton in order to praise Bush, try being a free
>thinker instead of following, especially following a party line.
>
>

No party line, except the Lbertarian Fascist one. Clinton got away with a non
UN sanctioned war with very little outrage Bush is being hammered fo one. I see
the party lines functioning in the lack of questioning Clinton's war. Bush has
really blown any chance of justifying his actions in a way anyone with half a
brain is going to believe.

<snip>
>AFAIK, fraternization is a crime under the UCMJ for an officer to be friends
>with, pal around with or associate with and enlisted person.
>
>There is no such crime for an enlisted person.
>
>But oddly enough, there are plenty of officers married to enlisted personel.
>
>Henry Etta
>

Fraternization is one of those things that's really in a gray area. Generally
if there is a preexisting marriage and one of you goes to OCS, or enlists for
the first time then it's ok. The one that really causes the headaches is the
adultery bit. The military still takes that pretty seriously and that's usually
where the divergent penaties come in.
Bill C

B. Lafferty

"TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040503171725.17257.00000367@mb-m23.aol.com...
> >From: "Henry Etta" Etta@etta.com
>
> >You don't have to defame Clinton in order to praise Bush, try being a
free
> >thinker instead of following, especially following a party line.
> >
> >
>
> No party line, except the Lbertarian Fascist one. Clinton got away with a
non
> UN sanctioned war with very little outrage Bush is being hammered fo one.
I see
> the party lines functioning in the lack of questioning Clinton's war. Bush
has
> really blown any chance of justifying his actions in a way anyone with
half a
> brain is going to believe.

Not quite accurate. From
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missio...background.html

BACKGROUND

Fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina came to an end on 11 October 1995. From
that date until 20 December 1995, forces of the United Nations Protection
Force (UNPROFOR) monitored a ceasefire put in place to allow for peace
negotiations being launched in Dayton, Ohio. On 21 November 1995, in Dayton,
the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina was
initialled along with 11 associated annexes (together, the "Peace
Agreement"). On 8 and 9 December 1995, the Peace Implementation Conference
met in London, appointing the High Representative for the Implementation of
the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 14 December 1995, the
Peace Agreement was signed in Paris by the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as
well as the other parties thereto.

In signing the Agreement, the three Balkan States undertook a broad
Commitment to: conduct their relations in accordance with the United Nations
Charter, fully respect the "sovereign equality of one another", settle
disputes by peaceful means, and "refrain from any action against the
territorial integrity or political independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina or
any other State. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and
Herzegovina recognized each other as "sovereign, independent States within
their international borders". On behalf of the Republika Srpska, the Bosnian
Serb entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia signed those parts of the accords that concerned that party.

The agreement with its 11 annexes covered a broad range of issues including:


a.. military aspects of the peace settlement;
b.. regional stabilization;
c.. delineation of an Inter-entity Boundary Line between the Federation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska;
d.. holding of democratic elections;
e.. human rights;
f.. assistance to refugees;
g.. civilian implementation of the Peace Agreement;
h.. an International Police Task Force.
The parties agreed to a ceasefire which had begun in October 1995,
withdrawal of UNPROFOR and deployment of a NATO-led multinational
Implementation Force, to be known as IFOR. All final decisions concerning
military aspects of the implementation were to be made by the IFOR
Commander. Full cooperation was pledged with "all entities involved in the
implementation plan", including the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) located at The Hague.

The parties requested designation of a High Representative for the
Implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was to
mobilize and coordinate all civilian activities and be the final authority
regarding civilian implementation of the peace settlement. They also called
for the Security Council to create a United Nations International Police
Task Force to monitor law enforcement activities and facilities, advise and
train law enforcement personnel, and respond to requests for assistance.

On 15 December 1995, the Security Council, by its 1031(1995), endorsed the
establishment of a High Representative to "mobilize and, as appropriate,
give guidance to, and coordinate the activities of the civilian
organizations and agencies" involved with the civilian aspects of the Peace
Agreement. In the same resolution, the Council welcomed the deployment of
IFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and noted the invitation of the parties for
that force to remain for a period of approximately one year. [In December
1996, the Security Council authorized Member States to set up a
multinational Stabilization Force (SFOR) to succeed IFOR.]

On 20 December 1995, IFOR took over from UNPROFOR whose mandate was thus
terminated. On 21 December 1995, the Security Council, by its 1035 (1995),
decided to establish the United Nations International Police Task Force
(IPTF) and a United Nations civilian office, brought together as the United
Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH).

Following the successful conclusion of its mandate, UNMIBH was terminated on
31 December 2002, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1423 (2002)
of 12 July 2002. The European Union Police Mission (EUPM) took over from
UNMIBH from 1 January 2003.


ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS OF UNMIBH

UNMIBH's mandate was to contribute to the establishment of the rule of law
in Bosnia and Herzegovina by assisting in reforming and restructuring the
local police, assessing the functioning of the existing judicial system and
monitoring and auditing the performance of the police and others involved in
the maintenance of law and order.

UNMIBH was headed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General
(SRSG) and the Coordinator of United Nations Operations in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, who exercised authority over the IPTF Police Commissioner and
coordinated all other United Nations activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The main components of the Mission were: IPTF; the Criminal Justice Advisory
Unit; the Civil Affairs Unit; the Human Rights Office; the Public Affairs
Office; and the Administration, including the United Nations Trust Funds.
[From 1998 to 2000, UNMIBH also included the Judicial System Assessment
Programme (JSAP).] The Mission had a nation-wide presence with regional
headquarters in Banja Luka, Bihac, Doboj, Mostar, Sarajevo, Tuzla and a
district headquarter in Brcko.

TritonRider

>From: "B. Lafferty" Magni@Italia.com

>Not quite accurate. From
>http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missio...background.html
>

All snipped
This all ocurred after the war was for most purposes over.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/bosnia/nbos014.htm
If you remember the UN didn't take a stance because Russia was going to veto
anything negative towards the Serbs.
All of the negotiations bought him cover after it was over. I've also had a
real question about why the French were never investigated seriously for their
role in the Rhwanda genocide aven when all the witnesses on the ground were
implacating them. Russia got a of cash and contracts for not blocking this
action etc.. It was just as dirty, just more skillfully handled.
Bill C

B. Lafferty

"TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040503194039.01198.00000657@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >From: "B. Lafferty" Magni@Italia.com
>
> >Not quite accurate. From
> >http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missio...background.html
> >
>
> All snipped
> This all ocurred after the war was for most purposes over.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/bosnia/nbos014.htm
> If you remember the UN didn't take a stance because Russia was going to
veto
> anything negative towards the Serbs.
> All of the negotiations bought him cover after it was over. I've also had
a
> real question about why the French were never investigated seriously for
their
> role in the Rhwanda genocide aven when all the witnesses on the ground
were
> implacating them. Russia got a of cash and contracts for not blocking this
> action etc.. It was just as dirty, just more skillfully handled.
> Bill C

The point is that Clinton did not unilaterally send troops to Bosnia but did
so via NATO with the agreement of the nation parties to the war and the
United Nations. This is in stark comparison to the unilateralist approach of
Bush to Iraq with no UN approval of the invasion. IIRC, the US was seeking
such a resolution for the invasion of Iraq from the Security Council, but
withdrew the resolution when it became clear that it would not only be
vetoed but might not even have been approved by the majority of Security
Council members at that time.

TritonRider

>From: "B. Lafferty" Magni@Italia.com

>The point is that Clinton did not unilaterally send troops to Bosnia but did
>so via NATO with the agreement of the nation parties to the war and the
>United Nations. This is in stark comparison to the unilateralist approach of
>Bush to Iraq with no UN approval of the invasion. IIRC, the US was seeking
>such a resolution for the invasion of Iraq from the Security Council, but
>withdrew the resolution when it became clear that it would not only be
>vetoed but might not even have been approved by the majority of Security
>Council members at that time.
>
>

Brian you know as well as I do, that one of the big reasons the French and
Germans didn't go for any resolution is that they were busy cutting deals for
after they got the UN sanctions lifted, while at the same time selling Hussein
equipment and supplies in violation of the UN sanctions. Russia wouldn't go for
the Bosnia gig because it had way too much money in Milosevic, until we bought
them off. France and Germany say way too much cash from Hussein and his oil to
be bought off this time, and they never thought Bush would go it alone. You can
invent whatever you want but Bosnia was NOT a UN mission. The UN didn't
actively oppose it because they made way too much money, and got all the
concessions they wanted out of it.
I'll guarantee you that If Bush had guaranteed to have Iraq repay the debt it
owed to France and Germany, and guaranteed that Iraq would honor Husseins oil
field modernization and development contracts with France, Russia, and Germany
this would've flown throught he UN in a heartbeat.
It's about money and power.
Bill C

TM

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:R2Blc.3044$a47.2376@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> The point is that Clinton did not unilaterally send troops to Bosnia but
did
> so via NATO with the agreement of the nation parties to the war and the
> United Nations. This is in stark comparison to the unilateralist approach
of
> Bush to Iraq

Does this say anything about the correctness of US policy, or, is it
indicative of the difference between the perceived self interest of the US
and Europe?

No one would argue that USSR opposition to US policy said anything about the
merit of US policy because it was clear that the USSR wished the US no
goodwill. World politics have shifted since then, obviously, and perhaps
assuming that Europe has the US's best interest in mind is as antiquated as
discussing the USSR.

TritonRider

>From: "TM" lkjd@lkjk.com
>Date: 5/3/2004 8:16 PM Eastern

>World politics have shifted since then, obviously, and perhaps
>assuming that Europe has the US's best interest in mind is as antiquated as
>discussing the USSR.

Schroeder does NOT like Americans and has a real agenda as is evidenced by
picking a foreign minister who is former "Red Brigades" albeit a minor member.
Chirac's attitude is aimed at restoring the glory of France and it's power
without actually spending any money on defense.
I'm completely in favor of pulling all of our military installations out of
Germany, Italy, Spain etc... and moving to 1 or 2 large forward staging bases
in the former eastern block. Then pulling out of Nato and letting the European
nations actually pay the cost of their own defense for the first time in 60
years.
Bill C

TritonRider

Hate to replty to myself but here's some food for thought I just found.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...04/037xxgah.asp
Bill C

Benjamin Weiner

Robert Chung <me2@privacy.net> wrote:

> Fafblog's Medium Lobster (http://fafblog.blogspot.com) observes that "Boys
> will be boys, and atrocities of war will be atrocities of war:"

> "Before we all get too excited about the 'torture and rape and sexual
> humiliation' of Iraqi prisoners by the US military, the Medium Lobster
> would like to make a few general notes about what is of course a terrible
> discovery but is not to be blown out of proportion.

> "--The activities that occurred at Abu Ghuraib prison are not to be
> compared to those of Saddam Hussein's rape rooms and torture chambers.
> After all, those were *rape rooms* and *torture chambers.* These were
> merely *rooms in which rape occurred,* and *chambers in which individuals
> were tortured.*"


Please use proper DoD terminology: "torture-related program activities."

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Howard Kveck

In article <20040503082747.29140.00000751@mb-m13.aol.com>,
tritonrider@aol.com (TritonRider) wrote:

> >From: Howard Kveck YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com
> >
> >> When you say:
> >>"So what "war crimes" were those? And what "prisoner abuse" was that?", it
> >>would tend to make it seem that you don't think it's a big deal at all that
> >>it went on.
> >>
>
> Sorry Howard I was so pissed at the response I didn't answer your question.
> It is a big deal, but it should also be a big deal when the other side does
> it.

Agreed.

> Contrast the still ongoing recriminations about Mi Lai with what has been
> done about the Hanoi Hilton and the other torture camps.
> My bitch is still and pretty much always has been that the left says very
> quietly "we don't think that was not the right way to handle that particular
> situation" in one case, but in the other puts 50,000 demonstraters on the
> street.

I think that part of the reason you don't see big protests in some of
these situations could be because the coverage of them are much more behind
the scenes. There are some who know of them (like AI or HRW and people who
follow the info they put out), but the majority don't. The coverage of the
leadup to the Iraq war was wall-to-wall and, going by what the people I
know who participated, it seemed like the wrong war at the wrong time: we
hadn't finished doing what was needed in Aghanistan or with ObL. That, plus
the fact that Bush and co. kept on about the (imminent) threat that Iraq
posed when it just didn't really seem like they actually were.

I think there's plenty of blame to go around on this kind of issue.
There were not enough on the left speaking up against the actions of Hanoi
(for example), as there were not enough on the right speaking up against
the actions of Saddam in the '80s (for example).

> Clinton's escapade into Bosnia was a strictly Nato affair, it was not UN
> approved and in my opinion was just as illegal and justified as this
> adventure.
> But look at the difference in reaction.

I'd say that was because of the coverage in the media: Milosevic and co.
were doing bad things RIGHT NOW, in the present. It could be seen
happening, and looked like the same kind of thing that happened in WWII.
The immediacy was more compelling, perhaps, than the stories of Saddam's
abuse. There were images of it to be seen from Bosnia, but not Iraq. (Of
course, the same situation occurred in Rwanda, and we know how long it took
to get the ball rolling on -that- one.)

> Granted Billy boy was smarts enough to claim it was for humanitarian
> reasons, and GWB still hasn't decided on a reason. My contention has always
> been that if Bosnia was justified then this is even more justified as Hussein
> was a more efficient murderer than Milosevic.

I (and many others) objected to the Bosnia action in terms of -how- it
was approached. I would have been much more ok with it if there had been
more UN involvement from the get-go. It has had a much better outcome
(though still far from perfect) than Iraq is going to have, imo. But
speaking of Bosnia, I would not bet against Iraq ending up divided up a'la
the Balkans. Might be the only way to keep the factions from demolishing
each other.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck

In article <20040503080257.09206.00000681@mb-m13.aol.com>,
tritonrider@aol.com (TritonRider) wrote:

> Unfortunately the response seems to be just what Iwas afraid it was going to
> be from experience.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3680025.stm
> A real quick whitewash and a slap on the wrist compared to what could've and
> very well maybe should've been done. Wait a few more days and watch the lower
> enlisted involved get hammered as several should, but definitely not by
> themselves.

As expected: "Circle the wagons!" Meyers says it was an isolated
incident, but the Taguba report is quite emphatic about it being
widespread. Even passing it off on Karpinski seems pretty questionable, as
she was in charge (from what I can tell) of several facilities like that
and was up to her eyeballs in management stuff. Plus the interogation end
of things appears to be in the hands of intel people from several agencies
and 'contractors' (aka: mercenaries). I had come across info that people
from Guantanemo had been there early on and set things up.

> The officer, unless they were a leutenant, would get a reprimand, while in
> almost every case the enlistted would get hammered and usually discharged.

And sometimes end up with a nasty discharge...

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck

In article <c75i3v$i5c4t$1@ID-226327.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
> >>
> >> So what "war crimes" were those? And what "prisoner abuse" was that?
> >
> > <http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact>
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/international/middleeast/02ABUS.html>
>
> Fafblog's Medium Lobster (http://fafblog.blogspot.com) observes that "Boys
> will be boys, and atrocities of war will be atrocities of war:"
>
> "Before we all get too excited about the 'torture and rape and sexual
> humiliation' of Iraqi prisoners by the US military, the Medium Lobster
> would like to make a few general notes about what is of course a terrible
> discovery but is not to be blown out of proportion.
>
> "--The activities that occurred at Abu Ghuraib prison are not to be
> compared to those of Saddam Hussein's rape rooms and torture chambers.
> After all, those were *rape rooms* and *torture chambers.* These were
> merely *rooms in which rape occurred,* and *chambers in which individuals
> were tortured.*"

Indeed. But I'll bet Rummy and co. can come up with a nice name for
them. Maybe "Delectation Chamber, Non-consensual"...

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck

In article <R2Blc.3044$a47.2376@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote:

> IIRC, the US was seeking such a resolution for the invasion of Iraq from
> the Security Council, but withdrew the resolution when it became clear
> that it would not only be vetoed but might not even have been approved by
> the majority of Security Council members at that time.

It really looked to me like they put that resolution up knowing from the
off that it would be rejected. It was simply there to be able to say,
"Well, we tried..."

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich

"Steven L. Sheffield" <stevens@veloworks.com> wrote in message
news:BCBB1DD6.2F68B%stevens@veloworks.com...
> On 05/02/2004 09:27 PM, in article
> R_ilc.3453$Hs1.464@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tom Kunich"
> <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It is almost impossible to find the reasons ANYWHERE that describe the
true
> > reasons that the USA entered Vietnam but you can see a million articles
> > blaming Nixon while ignoring the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as if it
never
> > existed.
>
> The true reasons? JFK was trying to contain communism pursuant to the
> Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty and committed troops after the
> French pulled out.

Psst, I know you think you know what happened but apparently you do not. BTW
It was Dwight David Eisenhower that first put troops into Vietnam to try to
stop Ho Chi Minh from murdering village elders in the south trying to
frighten viallgers into voting for him OR ELSE.

> Nixon pulled us out of a war we couldn't win ... one of the many GOOD
> foreign policy accomplishments he had that was overshadowed by his
terrible
> domestic policy and Watergate.

North Vietnam WAS DEFEATED. A small push would have toppled them over after
the Tet Offensive failed. Liberals were aghast and pulled the US out before
they could "win".

> And yes, TK, I'm still a Liberal.

And you still don't pay attention to history in your attempt to ignore what
really happened in favor of what some hippy professor told you happened.