Three American soldiers were captured in Yugoslavia by the Yugoslav army. News
channels across the country posted their photos, interviews, and families back
in the states. Bruised and broken, they are now national heroes. But why?
Has anyone else been keeping up with the news? NATO is still bombing the hell
out of Yugoslavia. What do you think they are bombing? Empty buildings? No.
This "crisis" as our government calls it is really a war without the title. In
war, people die.
Soldiers fight in a war knowing that they could come out dead. Those who
survive we call heroes. I have no problem with that. The only problem I see is
that we seem to be forgetting the 360 thousand people (according to CNN) who have moved out of their homes,
the starving people of these countries, and the thousands already dead. So to
call three wounded but walking soldiers "heroes" is to ignore and dishonor
the graves of some thousand
foreign citizens.
Our ethnocentricity is really clouting the judgement of the media, and it is
important to remember that we (America) are not always right. Our country
has
done plenty to deserve international hatred. On the other hand, we've done a
lot of good. Either way though, our soldiers knew what they were getting into
before they signed up. Let's not let a few bruises influence our decisions to
destroy a few million people,
okay?
What do you think? Leave your feedback below.
By clicking on "Submit," you assert that you are who you represent to be and your
comments abide by section 20 of Radford's Student Handbook (for RU students), and by the Virginia State and Federal laws including but not limited to libel, copyright law, and invasion of privacy. The comments posted on this site are not necessarily representative of the views of Radford University, its
administration, faculty, staff or all of its students. For more information, read our policy on feedback fora.
Responses: Refresh page to view latest entries.
Name:Daniel Johnson Major: Psychology Comments:
As a proud member of the Green Party, I must admit that I go against some of my party's beliefs by insisting that we should escalate the war in Yugoslavia to depose Milosevic and prevent World War III. Air strikes accomplish nothing. Look at Iraq. Hussein is still in power. Our policy of containment must not continue. This is post Cold War times here. Three wars have been fought since World War II on the containment strategy, and all three were inconclusive victories... Korea remained divided, communism took Vietname, and Hussein still kept his war making machine in Baghdad. If we do the same thing to these nations as we did in the last three conflicts, what good will it do? Years down the road Milosevic will send us right back into war again, and there will be no Kosovars left alive, there will be more American lives lost, and in the end American credibility will be damaged. I say we use ground troops to take out the Milosevic regime, restore order in Kosovo, and prevent Yugoslavia from threatening its neighbors. It is the only solution.
Name: Scott Comments:
I wasn't implying my earlier argument that we shouldn't intervene. We just need to reevaluate our situation and see that without ground troops we may not be accomplishing anything thats helping the Kosovars. The Serbs should be punished for their flagrant violations of international law that has happened in Serbia. The best way would be to send ground troops in, but are the US and Nato Allies willing to risk the lives of their soldiers. That question is the biggest one.
Comments:
Normally, I am a pacifast. War should be avoided. But it should not be avoided when it is warrented. Serbia (as well as lots of other small backwards countries) has committed horrid atrosities against an ethnic group. We can not sit in the comfort of our malls and do nothing more than lament. We must intervene. International law demnands it. Our humanity demands it. Not just America, but all democracies who cherish human rights. We should have gone with ground troops long ago. Serbia should lose its soverienty the moment it adopts the policy of ethnic clensing.
Name: Spencer Comments:
I agree with Robert's comments regarding an "all-or-nothing" strategy. The United States has had a long-standing policy that prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders. My opinion is that if one person is directly responsible for horrible acts that must be stopped, take that person out. Read Tom Clancy's Executive Orders, in which that exact thing happens. - To get off in another direction- the thing that really worries me about this campaign is the lack of resources the military has, as a direct result of Clinton's downsizing agenda in the early 90's. Imagine if some major problems cropped up in Iraq and/or elsewhere in the world that we had to deal with. We'd be stretched beyond our limit. Everyone seems to think that just because the Cold War is over there aren't still aggressive nations out there stirring things up. If Clinton's going to commit us now, he shouldn't have drawn us so far back then.
Name: Robert Comments:
If the United States is to continue in this fashion against foreign powers as the "World's Police" then military policy should shift to affect this. The United States should adopt an all or none strategy for the use of military power, the military should be given clear and concise goals to complete and total support to complete these goals. These limited military incursions eg. "Air Power alone" to effect changes in the foreign policy of other nations Does not work, Saddam Hussein being an example...When put to the question of ground troops being employed in Serbia, and if the above military policy of full use is adopted then the answer would encompass the entire Air, Land, Sea, and Spec Forces to accomplish the task given to the military forces. Also I believe the foreign powers military leaders should be held 100% accountable for their actions, and if the military deems it necessary to terminate the foreign powers leader to halt that country's military disobedience then so be it....enough of this killing of innocents to accomplish foreign policy, the leaders should be held responsible for their actions....the military units committing these atrocities in serbia are not rogue units, they are under direct orders from milosevic himself!
Name: Spencer Comments:
Oh sure. They have a right to be upset about us bombing them. It's not like Serbia has done anything wrong. Besides the 430,000 Kosovars who have been forced from their homes into other countries and who knows how many killed - burned alive or executed when their homes and towns are flattened and all trace of their existence wiped from the earth at the hands of the Serbs, I don't see what they've done to deserve bombing. I mean, slaughtering women and children and tossing them into mass graves certainly isn't any reason to be attacked by an international force seeking to stop it. If I were Serbian and I'd helped "ethnically cleansed" an entire people, then got bombs dropped on my military targets, I'd be upset too, and would certainly be well justified in kidnapping and keeping a few US soldiers illegally in violation of international law. Good point.
Name: Scott Comments:
Nice article..just a note: It isn't clear whether they were in Yugoslavia or neighboring Macedonia. The way i feel about this whole conflict is. We were deeply upset about them taking our soldies but can you blame them. After all we are continually bombing them and killing people of theirs. If i was them i would be ticked off too.
