Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
The biggest difference is that the U.N. is stepping in to rectify wrongs which are currently occurring. Whatever happened to the Lakota happened a long time ago. If in 2008, we embarked on a genocidal campaign against the Lakota, the U.N. might have something to say.
Of course, the reality is that the U.S. has enough guns, bombs, etc. to keep anyone from being able to do anything about something like that, so nothing happened. Perhaps that's the biggest difference between those two situations? Serbia is small enough that the international community can impose its will, the U.S. determines the national community's will.
Also, the Balkans have been known to be the starting point for serious international conflict. The western U.S.? Not so much.
|
I hear you about differences in the current situation, but I doubt that's how the Lakota tell it.
Your point about the Balkans as a starting point in international conflict is an interesting one, but it makes creating essentially an independent majority Islamic state all the more interesting, which is not to say that I'm opposed to it.
What about Chechnya? Should they just suck it up and accept they're part of Russian forever since there's been no attempt at ethnic cleansing*? Things seem to have settled down and they may have simply accepted things.
*ETA: or maybe more accurately, what is the difference since their have been attempts at ethnic cleansing?
Threaded Mode
