why nato bombed china embassy in 1999 yugoslavia agression?
372880
I think it was a SO CALLED mistake. NATO made many of those so called mistakes during the bombardment.
11239
Sites of conflict weren't limited to Cuba and Afghanistan--there were ideological conflicts throughout the world at the time. Many countries in South America, Asia, etc. Though the US and USSR didn't ever really have direct contact, the cold war was very real though many people at the time didn't want to recognize that it actually was a war. \n\nThe USSR was actively promoting Communism throughout the world to extend their reach. Luckily Reagan had the insight to know that just because they weren't attacking us--the spread of Communism would be just as good as if they were attacking us. Reagan countered the USSR's pursuits and won. I think the USSR would still exist today if Reagan hadn't actively countered them and given the US "peace through strength". Because he refused to play Russia's game, they were forced into trying to keep up with the US's military and nuclear buildup which eventually lead them to an economic crisis--forcing them to snap out of their ploys of world domination.
322473
The cause of this war starts after WWII, when Serbian army conquered Croatia (then NDH - Independent Country of Croatia, Nazi country), united with them and Slovenians, and saved them from destiny of Nazi countries after WWII (Croatia and Slovenia would probably be occupied or annexed by USSR). They formed country called Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRJ). Tito (officially Croatian, but more likely an English spy or agent) became president, and weakened Serbia as much as possible. He created Kosovo issue, by bringing thousands of Albanians there, while forbiddening Serbians to inhabit it. Also he gave weapons of Yugoslavian Army (JNA) to Croatian and Slovenians. He also made outstanding foreign debts in Yugoslavia. About decade after his death, Yugoslavia, faced with economic problems, started falling apart. Croatians and Slovenians (who never had an independent state) used the opportunity, and declared independency. Milosevic was president at that time, by the way. So he tried to make a deal with Bosnian and Croatian politicians, and he did it. Croatia and Slovenia would be independent, but Serbia would get Bosnia, part of Dalmatia, complete Slavonia and perhaps even Macedonia. But, obviously obstructed from outside the country, plan was destroyed; Croats and Bosnian Mujahedins attacked official Yugoslavian Army (and surrounded them in few major bases in Bosnia). Macedonia and Slovenia peacefully got independence, but Albanians started Kosovo issue (they wanted independent Kosovo). After some time (1994) Croats forced more than million Serbs to pull back from Croatia (those who didn't fled to Serbia were killed in Operation 'Oluja' - Storm). Since Croatia became ethnically clean country, war had no more sense, so a cease fire was signed and Croatians got what they wanted - free country without Serbs. But, war continued in Bosnia, until UN, and SFOR interfered, causing cease fire and conclusion of Dayton Declaration (1995, I think). So Bosnia became relatively independent, yet under UN protection. Kosovo crises continued, and escalated after huge anti-Serb media campaign (probably financed by Albania and USA) into big war. NATO attacked Yugoslavia, and after more than half year of bombarding, Yugoslavia allowed NATO to take control over Kosovo, and Serbian police pulled back. But now Albanians want more - they want independent Kosovo (and they will most probably get it, since it is unofficial condition for Serbia and Montenegro to enter EU).\n \nConclusion: war was caused by long-term opposing of republics of Yugoslavia, by huge economic problems. This was is, without doubt, started from outside.
1140275
It was Clinton politics, the serbs were not following the reforms the US  were directing. The serb were still having a socialist for president, undercutting him was accelarating the old soviet socialist influence in this part of the world..\n\nNato Clinton invented a genocide to intervene in former Yougoslavia..\ndoes anyone knows that this famous genocide victims were about 2000 ? does anyone knows that these 2000 deaths occured after the bombing of Kosovo does anyone knows that these were more likely victim of figthings? \n\n\nDoes anyone knows that nobody ws able to proof any possible contegincy plan to commit atrocities at all ? this was the biggest hoax of all..\n\n\ngenocide? there were never a genocide, there were a massacre but no genocide and even after 13 years of investigation nato and the Court for the former yugoslavia were unable to stick a genocide crime on slobovic. This was a political embarassment for the West especially because Slobovic wasnt an expanstionist but had agreed and signed for the independence of these people..\n-------------------------------\n\nHey magic Gather upthere ? thank you you just described the republican party..
1073298
On July 2, 1990 an unconstitutional Kosovo parliament declared Kosovo an independent country, this was not recognized by the Government or any foreign states.\nAfter the Dayton Agreement in 1995, some Albanians organized into the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), employing guerilla-style tactics against Serbian police forces and civilians.\nOn 16 January 1999, the bodies of 45 Albanian civilians were found in the town of Racak. The victims had most likely been executed by Serb forces [2][3]. The so-called Racak Massacre was instrumental in increasing the pressure on Serbia in the following conference at Rambouillet. After more than a month of negotations Yugoslavia refused to sign the prepared agreement, primarily, it has beeen argued, because of a clause giving NATO forces access rights to not only Kosovo but to all of Yugoslavia (which the Yugoslav side saw as tantamount to military occupation).\nThe United States itself was not involved, but participated as a major element of a NATO force sent into the area.\nThis triggered a 78-day NATO campaign in 1999. At first limited to military targets in Kosovo proper, the bombing campaign was soon extended to cover targets all over Yugoslavia, including bridges, power stations, factories, broadcasting stations, post offices, and various government buildings.
316345
The Chinese are becoming a big threat to us militarily, economically and technoligically speaking. I just read in the news that the US Gov't gave the highest number of visas to China...Why? To get on their good side of course! The Chinese gov't has been building their military up big prompting the US to also spend more on defence. We are making new jet fighters and destroyers. Once again, we may find ourselves in an arms race like with Russia in the 80's.
278696
Technically, none of these are correct.  In 1947, George Kennan, who was responsible for setting up the US Embassy in Russia published an article in Foreign Affairs under the penname "X" calling on the US to prevent expansion of communism through the policy of 'containment'. It was based upon the dual plan of attempting to thwart the efforts of Soviet Russia of expanding into Asia and other parts of Europe and by doing so, economic system would collapse (this only took 30 years and a HUGE amount of deficit spending on OUR part). \n  \nTherefore, containment Policy would deal with USSR from a two-pronged approach (economic and militarily) Economically, the Marshall Plan was the large part of it the aid package delivered to France, Italy, Germany, etc. to rebuild after the war....secondly, NATO was created.  So I choose E....none of the above.
796009
It is estimated that the Soviet Union exterminated over 20 million of it's own people.\nChina exterminated 50 million to a 100 million of it's own Chinese.\nHow's that for Human Rights?\n(These are facts that can be checked out.)
681907
To grow with China. And kill PAK.
378363
Until the invasion of China into Tibet in 1959, Tibet has been a sovereign country for centuries. Being forcefully overrun by an other country is rarely pleasant, but for the Tibetans it turned into a real disaster in the years following the take-over. People died during the invasion, although few Tibetans (being Buddhist) fought. Later consequences of Mao's policies proved devastating to the country.\nFor example, the central Beijing government ordered that certain crops should be grown in Tibet. Many of these crops were simply not suitable for the high altitude climate, resulting in many Tibetans starving to death.\nPossibly the best known disaster is the fact that in Tibet nearly all culture, philosophy and education was tightly related to Buddhism. As in Mao's China religion was considered a poison to the people, Tibetan Buddhism was almost literally wiped out. Of the estimated 6,000 monasteries, nunneries and temples only a handful were not fully destroyed. Monks and nuns were forced to break their vows and often killed if they were not prepared to break them. With the destruction of Buddhism, nearly all of Tibets cultural identity also vanished.\nHis Holiness the Dalai Lama is probably the best known propagator to a peaceful solution for the preservation of Tibetan culture and religion, but the Chinese authorities have managed not only to ignore his efforts, but to virtually bully the rest of the world into silence on the subject. (Often along the lines of: "If you want to trade with us, shut up on human rights." This method even bullied the Americans into submission....)\n\nconsidering china's population & weapons, do you think tibetans can defend themselves, even without buddhism?\n\nCould we say that the non-violent approach of the Buddhist Tibetan poeple may have provoked more violence to themselves, to the point of actually loosing their culture, and the teaching of non-violence in itself ?\n\nWar is out of date, obsolete. (dalai lama)\n1st realization: changing, decaying is inevitable.\n\nMany Buddhists have refused to take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. The Buddhist code that governs the life of monks permits them to defend themselves, but it forbids them to kill, even in self-defence.\n\nFor Buddhist countries this poses the difficult dilemma of how to protect the rights and lives of their citizens without breaking the principle of nonviolence.\n\nThe pure Buddhist attitude is shown in this story:\n\n    "A Vietnam veteran was overheard rebuking the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, about his unswerving dedication to non-violence.\n\n    'You're a fool' said the veteran 'what if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?!'\n\n    Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently 'It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it.\n\n    'In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.'"
1062037
NATO did NOT support it even though it is essentially rules by the USA.\n\nIs the situation so bad that now right-wingers have to fake a multi-lateral appraoch???? Withdraw the troops before more die, cut the losses
567835
It got them invaded an conquered by N. Vietnam two years after they signed a peace treaty.\n\nInteresting how you say nothing about the fact that N. Vietnam invaded and conquered another country under circumstances that exactly fit the definition of 'Aggressive War' from the Nirenberg trials.
214104
They didn't invade either place. I don't have the slightest idea what you're referring to. For one thing, both are long-time members of NATO.
1099887
The US had a presence there since 1950's, even before that if you count the OSS operatives during WWII. Our involvement was to stem the tide of Communism, and also to step in to fill the gap after the French were leaving to comply with the Geneva Accord of 1954. \n     In the context of the times, fighting Communism was a more important and justifiable pretext than oil. \n    It seems apparent that actual motives changed and got muddied as the scope of involvement became lengthy. \n    In the end, US objectives are actually beginning to be realized, and that area of the world moves to more of a self determined free-market based economy. It is a shame that there had to be so much suffering of the general population AFTER US withdrawal to see this come about. \n     I have read memoirs and interviews from former Viet Cong of how they were immediately disenfranchised when the South was overrun, (and they were on the same side as the North, and did much of the dying at the hands of the US!), so one can imagine how bad it must have been for the remainder of the population.
585817
Basically to take Europe out of the equation in case of Nuclear war.\n\nReally though the Soviet Union was in such deep financial chaos that they could no longer afford the development and upkeep of targeting nukes on Europe.  \n\nSo taking them off the table was mostly a financial decision.\n\nI should add that there was also a growing emphasis on Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles.  They were easier to hide and defend.
444960
In November 1983, a NATO manoeuvre code-named Able Archer 83, which simulated a NATO nuclear release, caused panic in the Kremlin. Soviet leadership, led by ailing General Secretary Yuri Andropov became concerned that US President Ronald Reagan may have been intending to launch a genuine first strike. In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in Eastern Germany and Poland were placed on alert. Though at the time written off by US intelligence as a propaganda effort, many historians now believe Soviet fear of a NATO first strike was genuine.
561245
The Truman Doctrine was the main response of the United States toward the aggression by the Soviet Union in Europe and Middle East illustrated through Communist Movements in Iran, Turkey and Greece, it acteally became the major American Foreign Policy.  We believe it was the first of the succession of the containment moves by the US followed by the economic containment (The Marshall Plan), the military containment (The NATO).  Ever since then the US has send money, equipment and even military force to countries that were threatened by the communist regimes to strengthen their power of resisting the spread of communism.  That policy led the US involved with Greek Civil War (1946-1949), Korean War (1950-1953) and Vietnam War (1957-1975).....etc.