You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
January 16, 2017, 04:05:54 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: What's in the news?  (Read 193629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1375 on: July 02, 2015, 02:22:37 PM »
He also hasn't made a good movie in 20 years, though. So it's more like icing on the cake.

*stops to actually look up his movies*......huh....id totally forgotten that he hadn't made any movies in a while....hmm...I almost wonder now if this might be something just to get attention? Or maybe im just grapsing at straws....

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1376 on: July 02, 2015, 02:31:27 PM »
He also hasn't made a good movie in 20 years, though. So it's more like icing on the cake.

You mean, he's made *any* good movies?  ;) Aside from Truman Show, that is?

Seriously, I could never understand that guy's appeal.

Offline Zakharra

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1377 on: July 02, 2015, 03:09:24 PM »
To put this in a perspective probably not seen in the western media, let alone in the US:



Even the Ukrainians want the US to get the f*** out of their country....

so.. yeah...

OMG, seriously America? One would think that the US would, by now, realize that it is needlessly antagonizing Russia by its actions. If it wants to have a good relationship with Russia, it needs to stop the needless antagonizing posturing.

Something with a pot and a black kettle...

 Several points of difference there: First the US is barely involved. Russia is far more involved in Ukraine militarily than the US is. If anything, the US is/will be there as advisers at the request of the legally recognized government, and it is there to help that government protect itself against secessionists and a not so subtle invasion by Russia.
 Second, the article I linked and quoted is of some Russian MPs asking their judiciary to check the legality of the Baltic States independence from Russia/USSR in 1991. That sort of talk, even if it is jokingly, can and will be taken negatively by the nations mentioned. Especially when much the same talk about the legality of the USSR to give Crimea to Ukraine happened. The Baltics did not want to be under Russian control and don't want to return to Russian control.
 Third, Russia's attempts to hold onto its sphere of influence is stupid, especially when the nations that were in its sphere don't like Russia in the first place. Such as most of Eastern/Central Europe. When the USSR broke up, most turned to western Europe and many asked to join NATO. Why? One big reason is Russia. They don't like being under Russian domination.

 Another reason these actions by Russia are worrisome is Russia's willingness to lower the bar in the use of nuclear weapons. There's talk of the Russian military being willing to use a battlefield tactical nuclear device (low yield) in a conventional war if they think they face an existentialist threat (which seems to vary since they are vague in what that constitutes) This article explains a lot: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war#gamble   Whether you believe it or not is up to you.  As it looks now, Russia reminds of of a more powerful North Korea with how it is waving around its nuclear arsenal like a club to threaten its neighbors so it can get attention and get its way in things. Russia needs to accept that as long as it keeps acting like it is, its neighbors will fear it and look to/turn to the West (EU and US)  for protection and economic ties. As I keep saying, there's a big reason WHY most of eastern Europe has turned to the west, and that reason is Russia's actions.



  The childhood diseases should be mandatory. They are no joking matter. Those diseases were nasty and killed millions of children and young adults. If we can prevent them by vaccines, then we should do so.  (and as far as I know, no religion says vaccines are bad, so why the religious dislike of them?)

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1378 on: July 02, 2015, 03:15:51 PM »
Swedish deputy PM (and one of two spokespersons of the Green party) Ĺsa Romson is asked during a press briefing after a speech, where was Auschwitz located? and answers "in southern Germany".  :o

The question, and the misstep, were an echo of a locally infamous gaffe in a major tv debate several months back, where she used the same extermination camp as a simile for what's happening in the sea between Italy and Africa: "the Mediterranean has become like Auschwitz!"

*worried facepalm*


Online Dashenka

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1379 on: July 02, 2015, 03:33:48 PM »
Several points of difference there: First the US is barely involved. Russia is far more involved in Ukraine militarily than the US is. If anything, the US is/will be there as advisers at the request of the legally recognized government, and it is there to help that government protect itself against secessionists and a not so subtle invasion by Russia.
 Second, the article I linked and quoted is of some Russian MPs asking their judiciary to check the legality of the Baltic States independence from Russia/USSR in 1991. That sort of talk, even if it is jokingly, can and will be taken negatively by the nations mentioned. Especially when much the same talk about the legality of the USSR to give Crimea to Ukraine happened. The Baltics did not want to be under Russian control and don't want to return to Russian control.
 Third, Russia's attempts to hold onto its sphere of influence is stupid, especially when the nations that were in its sphere don't like Russia in the first place. Such as most of Eastern/Central Europe. When the USSR broke up, most turned to western Europe and many asked to join NATO. Why? One big reason is Russia. They don't like being under Russian domination.

 Another reason these actions by Russia are worrisome is Russia's willingness to lower the bar in the use of nuclear weapons. There's talk of the Russian military being willing to use a battlefield tactical nuclear device (low yield) in a conventional war if they think they face an existentialist threat (which seems to vary since they are vague in what that constitutes) This article explains a lot: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war#gamble   Whether you believe it or not is up to you.  As it looks now, Russia reminds of of a more powerful North Korea with how it is waving around its nuclear arsenal like a club to threaten its neighbors so it can get attention and get its way in things. Russia needs to accept that as long as it keeps acting like it is, its neighbors will fear it and look to/turn to the West (EU and US)  for protection and economic ties. As I keep saying, there's a big reason WHY most of eastern Europe has turned to the west, and that reason is Russia's actions.



  The childhood diseases should be mandatory. They are no joking matter. Those diseases were nasty and killed millions of children and young adults. If we can prevent them by vaccines, then we should do so.  (and as far as I know, no religion says vaccines are bad, so why the religious dislike of them?)

Okay. You are right. Those people in the movie are just actors, hired by Russia to demonstrate against the US in Kiev. All the former soviet states are in Eastern Europe, including Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, etc.
Russia's actions are also VERY different from what the US is doing and has been doing for centuries. Silly me. How could I not see.

I stand corrected.

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1380 on: July 02, 2015, 04:30:28 PM »
Russia's actions are also VERY different from what the US is doing and has been doing for centuries. Silly me. How could I not see.
.

Not really Russia is just doing exactly what the US is doing, playing the great game. Every country in the world does it to an extent. To not play the Great Game leaves one open to control, attack, or exploitation by another nation.

The only difference is in how a country plays the game and how many people they hurt. Some are nicer and some aren't. But at the end of the day someone always gets hurt and every single country has some measure of blood on their hands.

No one is exempt from it. But at the same time, if there is anything ive learned is that only science and mathematics contain things which are 100% true all the time. So sometimes some things are honestly done out of the better part of a people's heart, fighting groups like Boko Haram for example or delivering Humanitarian Aid. While other things are done to keep the world spinning and/or ensure your home still has food, water, electricity at reasonable rates.

The US is not a nation of saints but neither is Russia or any other country out there.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 04:46:32 PM by Lustful Bride »

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1381 on: July 02, 2015, 05:09:20 PM »
Lets move onto something else before we get stuck in another one of those pointless political arguments that go nowhere except in circles.

A man who falsified data about an HIV vaccine is paying the price for his crime.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/researcher-who-faked-hiv-vaccine-results-receives-rare-prison-sentence/ar-AAcrmnm?ocid=HPCDHP

Mmm delicious justice. Can you not smell it?

Online HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1382 on: July 02, 2015, 05:34:14 PM »
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33353370

"Saudi prince to donate $32bn fortune to charity"

That's his personal fortune he's giving away there.

Offline Zakharra

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1383 on: July 04, 2015, 11:50:00 AM »
Lets move onto something else before we get stuck in another one of those pointless political arguments that go nowhere except in circles.

A man who falsified data about an HIV vaccine is paying the price for his crime.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/researcher-who-faked-hiv-vaccine-results-receives-rare-prison-sentence/ar-AAcrmnm?ocid=HPCDHP

Mmm delicious justice. Can you not smell it?

 I have no problem with the prison sentence. That only makes sense. I do find it kind of odd that some people think the prison time was too much. I'd like to ask those people why? The man basically stole millions in research money by his fraud.He defrauded and lied about his research and passed it off as good. Why shouldn't he go to prison for years? We've sentenced people to years/decades in prison for far less fraudulent charges. His being a researcher does not and should not give him any immunity.

Offline Yugishogun

  • Giver of amazing items to all those in need
  • On Hiatus
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: Sheboygan, Wisconsin
  • Gender: Male
  • Elliquiy Arms! Maku Spark!!!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1384 on: July 04, 2015, 11:57:36 AM »
You mean, he's made *any* good movies?  ;) Aside from Truman Show, that is?

Seriously, I could never understand that guy's appeal.

You mean you never watched "Ace Ventura"?

Offline Cycle

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1385 on: July 04, 2015, 11:59:48 AM »
He said good movies.  ;)


Offline Zakharra

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1386 on: July 04, 2015, 01:06:54 PM »
Okay. You are right. Those people in the movie are just actors, hired by Russia to demonstrate against the US in Kiev. All the former soviet states are in Eastern Europe, including Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, etc.
Russia's actions are also VERY different from what the US is doing and has been doing for centuries. Silly me. How could I not see.

I stand corrected.

 I said Eastern Europe. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and the ones there are in Central Asia. So please get the geography correct?  That being said Belarus does favor Russia (the government at least. I think a good part of the population does as well), but as far as I know, the rest of the Eastern European countries that make up Central Europe do -not- like being under Russia's influence. You keep ignoring WHY pretty much all of the turned away from Russia when they could. It's not because they have fond memories of Russia (and its various governments) or that the west was offering so much more economic goodies (although these were a nice incitement), but it's because Russia, under the C/Tzars and the USSR tried and succeeded to dominate them physically as well as economically, politically and militarily. They don't like it.  Russia isn't liked because it acts like a bully and waves around its military and nuclear armaments like a club it says it -will- use. I know you will likely reply the US does much the same, but I would point out the method we might use it and the fact that our nearest neighbors do not fear us like Russia's do, nor do they think we would ever invade them or use our military to force our will on them.

 Russia's actions of using its citizens/ethnic Russians that live in other nations as an excuse to invade (that was one of the reasons for the Crimean action and the actions in eastern Ukraine, to protect the ethnic Russian population), is very worrisome for those nations that do have somewhat substantial percentages of ethnic Russians.

 Either way, this probably isn't the thread to be arguing this unless it's in regard to news articles.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1387 on: July 04, 2015, 01:32:40 PM »
http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-court-ten-commandments-monument-must-come-down-164936584.html

A Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds is a religious symbol and must be removed because it violates the state's constitutional ban on using public property to benefit a religion, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

      Hail Satan!  Or something.  Giggles.

Quote
After the state allowed the Ten Commandments monument to be placed at the capitol in 2012, the Satanic Temple announced plans to install its own statue and the group began working on a sculpture of a Baphomet, a goat-headed deity.

On Tuesday, Satanic Temple Spokesman Lucien Greaves, who also goes by Doug Mesner, told TPM that the state Supreme Court ruled "appropriately."

"The Ten Commandments monument really does have no place on the state capitol grounds," Greaves said.

And now, Greaves says the Satanic Temple has "no interest" in placing the monument on the capitol grounds in Oklahoma City.

"The whole idea was that we were offering a counterbalance to the Ten Commandments," he told TPM.

He added that the Satanic Temple's effort to place a monument at the Oklahoma capitol may have helped force "the Supreme Court to think in such a way that made them rule against the Ten Commandments."

Greaves said that the downside to the state Supreme Court's ruling was that the Satanic Temple could no longer bring its own lawsuit. He said that the group had been working on a lawsuit against Oklahoma for "failing to even recognize our application for permission to put up a monument."

..... 
Greaves told TPM that in any state where the government allows a Ten Commandments monument, the Satanic Temple will "be there to counterbalance that."

The group has completed its Baphomet statue and will unveil it in Detroit on July 25.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1388 on: July 04, 2015, 01:37:02 PM »
Ah, Church of Satan. You be trollin', we be hatin'.

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1389 on: July 04, 2015, 01:49:19 PM »
Baby successfully rescued by Coastguard after drifting out to sea in a small inflatable raft.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/baby-on-small-inflatable-drifts-out-to-sea/ar-AAcxh2D?ocid=HPCDHP

Thank god this had a happy ending, that is just an utter nightmare to contemplate on what would have happened if they didn't catch her.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 01:58:01 PM by Lustful Bride »

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1390 on: July 04, 2015, 03:18:54 PM »
The fact that it happened because her parents forgot about her is more chilling, personally.

Online Dashenka

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1391 on: July 04, 2015, 03:28:56 PM »
Quote
After Melda was offered a drink of water, the family left the beach.

That's the smartest thing the parents did that day.

Honestly people like that shouldn't be allowed to have children.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1392 on: July 04, 2015, 09:36:01 PM »
      Research shows the US and UK had decided to abandon Srebrenica (Bosnia 1995) to forseeable genocide, far in advance of the attack.

Doesn't drink, but starts considering it.  Ugggh.  This is pretty sickening.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 09:37:07 PM by kylie »

Online Dashenka

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1393 on: July 05, 2015, 06:12:21 AM »
      Research shows the US and UK had decided to abandon Srebrenica (Bosnia 1995) to forseeable genocide, far in advance of the attack.

Doesn't drink, but starts considering it.  Ugggh.  This is pretty sickening.

That's hardly 'news'. But good that it's finally been researched after all that time. Better late than never I guess.

Offline consortium11

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1394 on: July 05, 2015, 07:04:34 AM »
      Research shows the US and UK had decided to abandon Srebrenica (Bosnia 1995) to forseeable genocide, far in advance of the attack.

Doesn't drink, but starts considering it.  Ugggh.  This is pretty sickening.

I think the article is conflating two things in an attempt to sensationalize.

Virtually everyone knew the "Safe Areas" were untenable in the short, medium or long term... you can see reports from pretty much the moment they were first set up. The reality was that barring a full-scale military intervention they were always going to be either handed over or abandoned; which is what most of the stuff noted in the article was about. The massacre at Srebrenica is a different (although obviously related) matter; while there were still casualties the fall of Zepa was not on the same scale and while Goražde was also eventually abandoned by the UN it never fell, largely because the Royal Welch Fusiliers ignored orders and bought the Bosniak troops enough time to secure the town. If the UN had actually done its job... or even done half its job... the  "Safe Areas" could have been abandoned/handed over without massacres.

But that would require the UN to actually function.

The issue was stark and simple. The UN and many of its constituent nations thought that simply being the UN and standing around would stop people from fighting; that the mere presence of UN Peacekeepers (and a quote from Lt Col Jonathon Riley, the commander of the British forces at Goražde, when he spoke to the British Prime Minister during a sustained Serbian attack on the town seems pretty appropriate: 'You and Mr Rifkind (Defence Secretary at the time) shouldn't try to peacekeep where there is no peace to keep') would mean no-one would dare attack them. But no-one told any of the other sides on the conflict that; peacekeepers were routinely shot at by all sides of the conflict.

Peacekeepers were saddled with woefully inadequate equipment for what was in reality a combat mission and to compound that political concerns meant that their RoE were equally bad; they largely couldn't defend themselves or intervene to help others. The supposed trump card was that if the peacekeepers were attacked or things got too serious the UN could step back and NATO could start airstrikes. But the Serbs worked around that with incredible ease. Their first assault on Goražde was beaten back by NATO airstrikes and they agreed to retreat 20km away. But they then captured around 350 UN peacekeepers from around the country (who because of their equipment and RoE had little chance to defend themselves), paraded them on TV and made the implication clear; keep up the airstrikes and these men will die. Because the UN (both as a whole and as individual countries) lacked the will to stand up to that, the airstrikes were cancelled. Then came the second attack on Goražde which was only just fought off (with the peacekeepers largely restricted to hiding in bomb shelters during the day and giving advice to the Bosniak forces at night). The Serbian high command learned their lesson; if you have captives the UN lacked the will to fight back. Shortly afterwards  Srebrenica was attacked and fell. It was only after details of the massacre came out from there that airstrikes began again.

If the UN had provided adequate troops, if those troops had been adequately equipped, if their RoE had allowed them to actually do something and if they'd had the support they deserved then the "Safe Areas" could have been protected from aggression and handed over in an orderly fashion with enough time and resources for the people trapped there to evacuate to areas which actually were safe.

Edit: I should also add that the UN's weakness and incompetence meant that the Safe Areas also became the home to Bosniak forces who used them to stage raids from; something that should never have been allowed under the agreement. While that in no way justifies the massacres it does give a clear reason they became military targets to begin with. Naser Orić, the commander of the Bosniak forces in Srebrenica was hardly an angel; within the town itself he was basically a gangster and, as above, he used it as a staging post to rearm and attack surrounding Serbian areas.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2015, 07:17:28 AM by consortium11 »

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1395 on: July 05, 2015, 10:25:58 AM »
Srebrenica invites shit-slinging. Former Swedish PM (and later on, an unusually skilled foreign secretary) Carl Bildt used to get some of the blame tossed at him by a few fellow politicians for "not having been able to stop the massacre" or not foreseeing it. He had been handed the job of a kind of EU envoy to try to unravel the raging conflict a few months before the tragic events, and it's not as if he had a direct line to some troops that could have stopped what was suddenly happening.  :-(

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1396 on: July 05, 2015, 10:30:54 AM »
So the UN is incompetent, inefficient, and naive. That's not news. But I guess it doesn't made as good a story as implied willful conspiracy to genocide.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1397 on: July 05, 2015, 12:32:56 PM »
       Unless you mean that not having its own air superiority over the region, is the same as incompetence...  The report seems fairly certain that the US was withholding air support and not giving the commanders on the ground good (or some might say, lucid) information.

       Whatever else various countries might have done earlier, there appears to have been plenty of blame to go around.  The US and UK are in the UN, and they were involved too (bombings and all) by that point.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2015, 12:34:14 PM by kylie »

Offline consortium11

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1398 on: July 05, 2015, 02:33:21 PM »
Srebrenica invites shit-slinging. Former Swedish PM (and later on, an unusually skilled foreign secretary) Carl Bildt used to get some of the blame tossed at him by a few fellow politicians for "not having been able to stop the massacre" or not foreseeing it. He had been handed the job of a kind of EU envoy to try to unravel the raging conflict a few months before the tragic events, and it's not as if he had a direct line to some troops that could have stopped what was suddenly happening.  :-(

It's one of the great tragedies that when a bureaucracy like the UN fails everyone and no-one is the blame. Thus everyone involved will have it hanging over them forever.

So the UN is incompetent, inefficient, and naive. That's not news. But I guess it doesn't made as good a story as implied willful conspiracy to genocide.

Immediately before the attacks on the safe areas it was pretty apparent what would happen there if the Serbs took over. But that being true is rather different to saying that the acknowledgement years before that the safe zones were untenable and at some point would have to be given up is tantamount to allowing that genocide. That second part is mere conspiracy theory.

There's been conspiracy theories about Srebrenica for years; a notable one is that the US, UK, France and Bosniaks actually encouraged the massacre as a act of real politique to justify further military intervention. You get even more ridiculous ones that it was actually French secret agents and Bosniak troops who committed the massacre or that it was Serb prisoners killed there.  Then there's the denialism by Serb nationalists and on the other hand those who deny that there was ever any negative done by the Bosniks in Srebrenica.

       Unless you mean that not having its own air superiority over the region, is the same as incompetence...  The report seems fairly certain that the US was withholding air support and not giving the commanders on the ground good (or some might say, lucid) information.

       Whatever else various countries might have done earlier, there appears to have been plenty of blame to go around.  The US and UK are in the UN, and they were involved too (bombings and all) by that point.

Air support (in the case of air strikes; air drops of aid were still going through) was cancelled in the wake of the capture of UN peacekeepers following the first attack on Goražde. That came from the UN, who NATO was essentially working under the authority of; it was only following the London Conference in the wake of Srebrenica that UN ground forces were allowed to call in NATO airstrikes themselves rather than have to go through civilian NATO channels who could deny requests. Hawks, primarily in the US, wanted to step up the bombing campaign much earlier but were denied... largely by the UN which was deeply unhappy about their peacekeepers being attacked by the Serbs in response to the first set of airstrikes and concerned about the political reaction to having the hostage peacekeepers killed in retaliation.

I'm certainly not saying the US or UK were blameless over either Srebrenica in particular or the conflict in general. They're not. They're part of the UN after all and took a leading role in the mission. But it was the UN as a whole that set up the safe areas, the UN as a whole which was designated to protect them, the UN as a whole that set the RoE and equipment of the peacekeepers there, the UN as a whole which called off and cancelled the air strikes and UN troops which did nothing to prevent the Srebrenica massacre. The comparison with the second assault on Goražde holds up; in that conflict shortly before the massacre the Royal Welch Fusiliers ignored orders and the RoE to hold off the advancing Serbians for long enough to allow the Bosniak forces in the town to take up strategic positions which secured the area before following the RoE and falling back to their bomb shelter and basically waiting it out. In contrast in Srebrenica the Dutch troops did little but retreat and surrender. I don't really blame the troops on the ground themselves; if anything they were even less adequately equipped, prepared and supported than the RWF and so were stuck in a near impossible situation. But the impossible situation they found themselves in was because of the UN's inability to do anything more than symbolic gestures at that point.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #1399 on: July 06, 2015, 01:09:21 AM »
Their finance minister just resigned, adding even more to the insecurity, but I figure their banks are not considered something anyone would want to buy for short-term profit at this point in time - the chances of landing in a hopeless paper chase or in endless litigation in Greek and German courts would probably be only too high. Anyway I agree a law against such buy-outs could easily be passed.