The assault appears to be little different to that of
Operation Desert Fox when a similar offensive was
launched against Iraq at the end of 1998.And the similarities extend far beyond the bombardment of foreign soil to
impose the will of the US and UK upon an uncooperative country.
- Both are sovereign countries with a legitimate leader and government.
- In both cases the will of the people seems to be behind the decisions
being taken by their country's representatives.
- Neither country has, without provocation, attacked either the UK or United
States.
- In both attacks; the main thrust of the assaults have come from US and UK
armed forces.
- In both cases the offensive has been carried out without the approval or
condonement of the United Nations.
- Both have been unsanctioned actions.
- And both have been condemned by other members of the United Nation's
Security Council.
Beyond the barracks of the Serbian forces there is probably no one who condones
what is happening in Yugoslavia. Many people are dying in a conflict
which is nothing more than wanton aggression and, yes, it should be brought to
an end.
As to whether or not the US and UK have the right, either individually or
together, to take it upon themselves to bomb some sense into the country's
leader is an entirely different matter.
The offensive may be wrapped by the cloak of 'Nato action' but that is not the
supreme body which has the power to decide such matters.
The United Nations was formed to bring the diverse countries of the world
together, if not in harmony, at least to a forum where global problems could
be resolved on a global scale.
As the ultimate, global police authority the United Nations has the
power to impose sanctions and enforce their will upon the countries of the
world.
This is a tremendous power which can, as has been demonstrated in the past,
lead to the imposition of the United Nation's will upon a transgressing
country by force if necessary.
And when such force is applied, on behalf of the United Nations, it is done
with the backing of the members of the United Nations and has an authority
with it which carries a crystal clear message, "The world is taking the
action necessary to force you to desist from whatever you are doing".
And this is the important thing about actions carried out by, and on behalf
of, the United Nations; they are actions which everyone ( except obviously those
being acted against ) agree, world-wide, are necessary.
Such actions, having been argued out, debated, and seriously considered are,
with the best intentions, ultimately made for the benefit of the whole of
humanity.
They may be regrettable actions; but they are actions which everyone agrees are
necessary.
So when an individual country takes international law into its own hands it is
acting independently of the United Nations and without its backing or support.
And such actions are those which the United Nations is in place to prevent,
condemn and act against.
They are acts of international terrorism by one country against another.
Whilst the Serbian's battle against the Albanian people of Kosovo is something
which must be ended, the UK and USA flying in to rain s--t down on the Serb
forces, of their own volition, is in no way any different.
The UK and the US may have good reasons to believe that what they are doing is
right; I'm sure Slobodan Milosevic thinks he's also acting to resolve his
country's problems in the best way he can.
Perhaps force is the only way to stop the tragedy of Kosovo but, if that is
so, every one must be agreed that this is the case and such agreement
can only be legitimately claimed if it is supported and backed by the United
Nations.
With the absence of such unanimous support; the US and the UK are no better
than the Serbs themselves.
We now have three forces of evil bringing death and destruction to mankind and
not one has any legitimacy or universal support in their activities.
Neither the US nor UK had any overpowering reasons why they had to take up
arms; they are acting like nothing more than opportunist thugs who, upon
seeing a fight start up on a street corner, dive in, fists flaying.
The hypocrisy of the British Government is astounding; what would they have
said had a Yugoslavian bomber attacked British troops whilst our brave
lads were mowing down 16 year old Argentinians on the Falkland Isles ?
I am sure the phrases 'domestic dispute', 'sovereignty' and 'justifiable
action' would appear on a regular basis as we told others not to interfere
in our own battles.
America has always been the super-power which has tried to impose its will
upon the rest of the world, uninvited and for its own ends, and is well
hated for it.
Britain has always, in the past, played the diplomat, to do otherwise is just
not cricket.
To have become a terrorist, in the eyes of many across the world, is a sad and
depressing state of affairs.
To have been brought there, again, by what appears to be a--e-licking, toadyism,
by a Prime Minister who informs us that we are attacking our European
neighbours, with a sick, smarmy grin, is distasteful.
Despite its colonial past, Britain has always viewed itself as 'respectful';
it will probably continue to do so.
It may come as a surprise that not everyone around the world uses the same
adjectives to describe how they view the British.
We are certainly not currently enhancing our own reputation.
It occurs to me, that as I and others in the UK don't agree with the action
which our country and Nato has taken, there are similarily minded people in
Yugoslavia who abhor the Serbian military action and ethnic cleansing which
is being undertaken.
These people may not be alive tomorrow; not killed as a reult of their country's
internal conflict but because of the UK's aggressive actions.
