Saturday, November 24, 2001
6:24 pm
Some late feedback, first on the other feedback:
Can these people read properly? You seemed to me to be saying that we should get Bin Laden and get out-wipe out the terrorists and bring our troops home. What's their objection to that? Because frankly I wouldn't take Afghanistan as a gift.We must of course have the intelligence necessary to guard against any terrorist resurgence-but otherwise, who rules Afghanistan ain't our war!
And this on my column:
The Kosovo adventure had a truly worrying side to it as Blair committed 50,000 troops, more than half the British army, to an operation with no conceivable national interest. That turned out OK as the Serbs surrendered without a land invasion. Has the man's luck run out?
I'm surprised that you seem to be supporting Blair's interpretation of the outcome of the 1999 war against Serbia, saying that the Serbs surrendered. Perhaps you're being ironic?
From Blair's 2 October speech:
I have long believed this interdependence defines the new world we live in. People say: we are only acting because it's the USA that was attacked. Double standards, they say. But when Milosevic embarked on the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo, we acted. The sceptics said it was pointless, we'd make matters worse, we'd make Milosovic stronger and look what happened, we won, the refugees went home, the policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed and one of the great dictators of the last century, will see justice in this century.
AAUI it was Nato that gave up the Rambouillet Appendix B demands that caused the war - the demand for a referendum on independence for Kosovo and for the military occupation of all of Serbia (the latter, as the Spectator pointed out at the time, very like the demand by Austria-Hungary in 1914 that started the World War). If Serbia loses Kosovo then Milosevic can say it wasn't he who gave it away (if he's ever allowed to speak from his prison cell).
The failure of Nato quickly and decisively to defeat a small impoverished country in the Balkans can't but have encouraged the Taliban and other regimes to defy the US, ISTM. Who's next, I wonder?
I personally think that as the west did achieve its main stated war aim, the evacuation of the Serbian armed forces from Kosovo, it is fair enough to use the term "surrender, although it may be a bit sloppy as the Serbs did not agree to be occupied as was envisaged at Rambouillet. Where did Blair get this idea that Milosovic was one of the great dictators of the twenty first century?
Can these people read properly? You seemed to me to be saying that we should get Bin Laden and get out-wipe out the terrorists and bring our troops home. What's their objection to that? Because frankly I wouldn't take Afghanistan as a gift.We must of course have the intelligence necessary to guard against any terrorist resurgence-but otherwise, who rules Afghanistan ain't our war!
And this on my column:
The Kosovo adventure had a truly worrying side to it as Blair committed 50,000 troops, more than half the British army, to an operation with no conceivable national interest. That turned out OK as the Serbs surrendered without a land invasion. Has the man's luck run out?
I'm surprised that you seem to be supporting Blair's interpretation of the outcome of the 1999 war against Serbia, saying that the Serbs surrendered. Perhaps you're being ironic?
From Blair's 2 October speech:
I have long believed this interdependence defines the new world we live in. People say: we are only acting because it's the USA that was attacked. Double standards, they say. But when Milosevic embarked on the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo, we acted. The sceptics said it was pointless, we'd make matters worse, we'd make Milosovic stronger and look what happened, we won, the refugees went home, the policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed and one of the great dictators of the last century, will see justice in this century.
AAUI it was Nato that gave up the Rambouillet Appendix B demands that caused the war - the demand for a referendum on independence for Kosovo and for the military occupation of all of Serbia (the latter, as the Spectator pointed out at the time, very like the demand by Austria-Hungary in 1914 that started the World War). If Serbia loses Kosovo then Milosevic can say it wasn't he who gave it away (if he's ever allowed to speak from his prison cell).
The failure of Nato quickly and decisively to defeat a small impoverished country in the Balkans can't but have encouraged the Taliban and other regimes to defy the US, ISTM. Who's next, I wonder?
I personally think that as the west did achieve its main stated war aim, the evacuation of the Serbian armed forces from Kosovo, it is fair enough to use the term "surrender, although it may be a bit sloppy as the Serbs did not agree to be occupied as was envisaged at Rambouillet. Where did Blair get this idea that Milosovic was one of the great dictators of the twenty first century?
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2001
(202)
-
▼
November
(43)
- An interesting question from an old copy of the Ne...
- And yet another one rolls in. I think that it sta...
- Some questions on this "prison riot" in Mazar-e-Sh...
- This is from a proud son of Dixie: Aw quit compla...
- This particularly worrying piece came in today: W...
- Afghan FAQs 1. What are the Afghan FAQ’s and why ...
- Anyone heard anything on the story in Pravda: AME...
- Oh no, not more bloody feedback on last week's art...
- Before you say it, no my last column is not wrong ...
- Some late feedback, first on the other feedback: ...
- A late addition from "Republican Catholic and Par...
- Responses. This is a fairly centralised point for...
- The rational debate continues: Came across your w...
- The responses keep coming. First a question, who ...
- A late addition. Is this what NORAID say behind c...
- Response I'm not sure why, but I've got a flurry ...
- Some feedback on my last article: Your artical ha...
- Information gratefully received My mailing list h...
- For more on the dangers of Pakistan going nuclear,...
- On some previous questions on Iain Duncan Smith th...
- So they've taken Kabul and all's right with the wo...
- If bemoaning moral and cultural decay is your thin...
- I'm not an Anglosphericist, and I don't think I've...
- Jonah Goldberg says our loyalty to America is "pee...
- And another thing. According to The Telegraph, Bi...
- So Osama did it all along, according to the Telegr...
- Has Romano Prodi finally gone mad? You be the judge.
- Has anyone noticed an, ahem, hostility from the BB...
- Another piece that's a bit late on here is this fr...
- An old but interesting piece in The Spectator by J...
- Does it still seem convincing? 10 Downing Street ...
- Anthony Howard's piece in Times is headed The Gove...
- Question Does anyone know how Iain Duncan-Smith k...
- How to work my links I have changed the way the l...
- What price for Poor David's survival? Poor David ...
- Discussion Groups Here's some of my favourite gro...
- Odds and ends Some Links I kept on meaning to pos...
- These are the MPs who spoke out against the bombin...
- Poor David Trimble has been saved! Hurrah for the...
- Historical Document's speech Blair's speech to th...
- Doublethink Some classic doublethink from the Com...
- Looks like poor David Trimble is about to be chuck...
- Two new web logs, one by Natalie Solent, which sho...
-
▼
November
(43)
0 comments:
Post a Comment