What did Bosnia offer the West?

And now on CBC news it says 'Syria Strike Needs Security Council Approval, UN Says' of course, the US already knew that...

Serbia at the time was a last bastion of socialism.

They should fire missiles at their bases, the government, and where the chemical warfare is held, and try as far as possible to avoid the innocents (women, children, and rebels). Hopefully many of the children are now over the border? It's disgusting they were targetted by their own government, and there should be repercussions for that. Even more importantly, I don't want these chemical weapons being used on a more global level, so time to nip that in the bud right now, rather than leave it and give it a chance to escalate, which was a mistake that occurred with the Iraq war I believe.

Who did it though?

One rumour going round is they did this just to get the US involved ?

http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/eviden...ons-not-assad/

When the UN inspectors tried to check it out they got shot at and forced to leave.

And then they replaced the damaged vehicle and turned around and proceeded to the area where the victims were. A short delay, and it's unclear who was sniping at them and it didn't happen again. If the inspectors' mandate was to determine who made the attack I doubt they would of been let in. If it was the government delivering the gas in an artillery barrage, the week of constant shelling they poured into the same area before allowing the inspection team in will have destroyed most evidence. I think there's going to be some restructuring in the area and it isn't going to please everyone.

Bosnia was because of its postion within eastern europe and letting it carry on could have destablised the whole region. Their are odd conflicts that buck the trend but in the most part there is motivation behind everytime UN, UK,US etc go in.

Why have the Chinese invested heavily in Africa and Latin America because of oil, minerals etc, its not a war I grant you and yet it's not a charity effort by them either. Why do Russia always get in a tiz about places like Syria ?, because Russia does a great deal of arms exporting to a lot of despot countrys.

If you are in some small desolate country with no resources and no means to buys arms then no one really cares what happens, there is no motivation

In this case is the "someone" not the "taxpayer"?

Of course there is motivation. The question is: What is the motivation?

I thought your argument was that those that wish to go in wish to do so to exploit the assisted country's resources.

Somalia, Korea, Rwanda, Cyprus, Lebanon, Mozambique & Sierra Leone?

Re: your last point. Generally, no, it doesn't. It is interesting to see, however, that the UN in the DRC is now shooting at the baddies (and shelling them). I have thought for some years that the only way to deal with those gits is to start killing them. The UN seems to have grown some balls.

My point is there is always a form of motivation behind these actions, if you can help yourself to resources and not pay the going rate then a country like China may do that. If there is Oil, gas etc somewhere and a civil war could affect you obtaining that resource then suddenly someone has crossed the line and the US or whoever have to dash in to be the hero.

I suppose a better word to use is agenda and these days there is always some hidden agenda.

In a fictitious video game world, imagine there are two teams called "superpowers" who will do anything to get the edge over each other in order to "win the game" (for example obtain revenue streams from as many places in the world or tap into as many natural resources as possible, so that the other team can't have them).

So what's the best strategy for winning this game? With any real time strategy game, usually the best overall strategy is to take control of as many of the worlds resources as possible, then, slowly deplete the other teams resources by forcing attrition or other such methods. When the other team has nothing usable left, take out their defenses then take over or take out their infrastructure. If it's of no use, just leave it to rot away.

But, without a good reason, you can't just take over a country for its resources as that would be breaking international laws. To get around that you either have to engineer a situation, or if you're patient, wait until a country breaks an international law so that you're then "allowed" to get into that country and take some control.

You probably first want to look at capturing countries that are resource rich or have revenue streams (such as that gained from military equipment purchases) that benefit the other team. They would offer a "win, win" situation as while you make gains, the other team suffers losses.

So it's probably a good idea to start in volatile areas where civil unrest or wars are taking place. Why? Because if they're not already breaking some international law or other, it could be quite easy to manipulate some situation or make someone in power out to be a very bad person. Then, using propaganda, tell a story that some international laws have been broken. When a sufficient amount of public and political belief in your story has been gained, you are then allowed to perform a military intervention. Go into the country and capture as many resources and revenue streams as possible. Spend as little money as possible on fixing the problem you went there to sort out.

To make it appear that you are the team on the side of "good" you have to earn game kudos by, once in a while, helping out a very poor troubled country by sending some soldiers in to sort out their civil war or genocide issue. Tell the world about the atrocities and let them know you're helping while spending as little money on the situation as possible.

Now, wouldn't that make a great game?

That's encouraging to hear.

I recall being on a UN mission (peacekeeping) when we came under fire. We were not authorised to return fire, absolutely nuts!

A friend of mine was in Bosnia during the IFOR process when his transport vehicle hit a mine. It bumped the vehicle over a small cliff and he and the vehicle bounced to the bottom, breaking his spine. The "local" forces refused permission for an evacuation and the IFOR superiors had to negotiate for 3 days before an evacuation was permitted. He was left there for 3 days.

[QUOTE=bats;10874913]Is it what politicians want to be seen doing, or when what happens becomes more public knowledge? When you can ignore the wife beater next door until he beats her out on the front lawn?

Syria has had an appalling human rights record for years, under both Al Assads. There was no freedom of expression, even expats had to watch what they did abroad for fear of reprisals to their families back home. Torture and disappearances have long been inflicted on the people by this government.

.[/QUOTE

One can't help but think that perhaps the devil you know is better than the one you don't know though....I bet a number in Iraq would welcome Hussein back (not the Marsh Arabs perhaps) and my husband and I, who were in Libya for years, know many who rejoiced when Gahdaffi went, but would welcome a despotic control on a country which seems to be now run by teams of militias. Even the lovely Mubarak is out of prison now, who said no bad deed will go unpunished?

The Assads are a horrible lot, but what might come could be worse...it will just all turn into another ghastly Iraq.

And to help us all understand..