Talk:NATO bombing of Yugoslavia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

aim of the mission

Statement that aim of the mission was to protect Albanian people from Serbian agression has not been trough. Simply, because Kosovo Has been part of Serbia and Serbian people used to live over there. The intervention - NATO forces killed more Albanianns than Serbian police did it. And after the interevention there is not more Serbian population on Kosovo.It was a big ethnic clearsing - Serbs were expelled from their homelend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.12.209 (talk • contribs) 28 May 2004‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.12.183 (talk • contribs) 27 May 2004‎

---

Yes, people. This article sucks. I dunno where to begin, and, frankly, I don't know enough. --Penta 00:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

NATO's proclaimed goal was to stop "humanitarian catastrophy" as i can recall... or i am wrong ... am i? Did they? I would say that big catastrophy is avoided by another (this time efficient) cleansing. On the second thought... who cares... --JustUser 21:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the purpose of this whole war to make the American public forget about the Lewinsky affair? --serbiana - talk 05:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is horribly bad, I'm sorry to say. It should be merged with the Kosovo War article or expanded. There is practically no mention of the actual targets hit all over Serbia, of its effect on the military (how much did the bombing achieve in terms of destroyed tanks, planes, etc.?) and the effects on the civilian population, and so on. An outside observer gets no idea of the geographic relations: it was about Kosovo (a small province in the south), but "strategic" (read: civilian) targets all over the entire country were hit, e. g. in Novi Sad, in the autonomous northern province of Vojvodina (a traditional anti-Milosevic stronghold!). Absolutely no mention of the well-documented accidental (or not so accidental) bombings of refugee treks, trains, hospitals, the bridge in Varvarin, ...

85.125.227.15 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, barely a mention of the other NATO troops that participated! This article doesn't need to be merged or even cleaned up....as it stands it is misinformation. Risker 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

YES, I HAVE A QUESTION.

So, I had just surfed some articles on Wikipedia. After stopping by the page about the Chengdu F-7, I read the article a little. One piece of text caught my attention. I looked in the section where it had country operators and such, and I looked at Albania for some reason, knowing that they have F-7s. And as I read, I saw that it said "F-7s saw action in wars as recent as the Kosovo war" For the Operation Allied Force article, I was the one who wrote a big portion of the air war part of the article (list of dog fights in the war), because I had studied the dogfights during that war. I would be really interested to learn if more aircraft and or air forces were involved in the air war aside from NATO and the Yugoslav Air Force. -Zastavafan76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.190.167 (talk • contribs) 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No clean up

I believe we added enough reliable information, there is no need for clean up.

Indeed a bad article, as it doesn't reveal it's sources, it can't be verified. Apparently this wasn't the work of an objective,honest and mindfull historian, but the work of just somebody who wrote something. Indeed there is no need for a cleanup or a merging, the only thing that really has to be done is change the title into 'somebody's view of some things that maybe could have happened during the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.'

The above criticisms were levelled at some aspects of the article during its evolution, but as it stands now, we can only guess when this was, and whether those complaints have been addressed. I do wish users who post such comments would sign with 4 tildes so that we know later on when it was written. It would make it a lot easier to see who is talking about what and when. Myles325a (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

NEW name

any thoughts on moving this page to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia?--TheFEARgod 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No the page should stay like it is, since it has additional information. How about renaming the article Operation Allied Force? Yes, the fact is that NATO bombed Yugoslavia for over 70 days in the spring of 1999, severely damaging infrastructure and other facilities related to the Yugoslavian government and military. But the action has a name, whether people agree with the decision to bomb Yugoslavia or not, the action is not known as the Nato Bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, except perhaps in Yugoslavia. The article contains weasel words, but the title is weaselish in and of itself. So, shall we rename the article, or move it to OAF? — Andrew 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

<A small amount of people believed it was one MiG-29 vs. 3 F-15s and that Slobodan Peric shot down and F-15C, and then 2 other F-15s shot him down in reaction. This story was never proven true, and the official dogfight is therefore written above these two sentences.>

Is this sentance even nessesary... what small amount, where is the source? And I'm not good at all the wiki commands like placing citation needed. Drew1369 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am just going to remove this as it is just clutter on the screen Drew1369 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

...see Operation Horseshoe article: Op. Horsheshoe was the name given by the German government to an alleged Serbian plan to expel the entire Albanian population of Kosovo. It was cited in support of NATO's bombing campaign during the Kosovo War. Although it has since been raised in trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, its veracity remains uncertain. Discuss it there. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't strictly about Horseshoe, and I'm not charging the Serbian government with wanting the mass expulsion of Albanians. But the point is that there was ethnic cleansing. To what degree is something that we can discuss, but to deny it outright is a little bit disingenuous.UberCryxic 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting paper for you read UberCryxic:

Democracy and Propaganda: NATO’s War in Kosovo by Dr. Mark A. Wolfgram, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University original (doc) google cache (html) // Laughing Man 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Here's an even better source: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting by the US State Department.

Among other things written,

Many bodies were found when KFOR and the ICTY entered Kosovo in June 1999. The evidence is also now clear that Serbian forces conducted a systematic campaign to burn or destroy bodies, or to bury the bodies, then rebury them to conceal evidence of Serbian crimes.

Forcible Displacement of Kosovar Albanian Civilians: Serbian authorities conducted a campaign of forced population movement. In contrast to actions taken during 1998, Yugoslav Army units and armed civilians joined the police in systematically expelling Kosovar Albanians at gunpoint from both villages and larger towns in Kosovo.

Looting of Homes and Businesses: There are numerous reports of Serbian forces robbing residents before burning their homes. Another round of robbery occurred as Serbian forces stole from fleeing Kosovars as they crossed the border to Montenegro, Albania, or Macedonia.

Widespread Burning of Homes: Over 1,200 residential areas were at least partially burned after late March, 1999. Kosovar Albanians have reported that over 500 villages were burned after March, 1999.

Use of Human Shields: Refugees claim that Serbian forces used Kosovar Albanians to escort military convoys and shield facilities throughout the province. Other reporting indicates that Serbian forces intentionally positioned ethnic Albanians at sites they believed were targets for NATO airstrikes.

Identity Cleansing: Kosovar Albanians were systematically stripped of identity and property documents including passports, land titles, automobile license plates, identity cards, and other forms of documentation. As much as 50 percent of the population may be without documentation. By systematically destroying schools, places of worship, and hospitals, Serbian forces sought to destroy social identity and the fabric of Kosovar Albanian society.

And it goes on and on....UberCryxic 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And you consider the US State Department an unbiased and reliable source? When the US was the main attacking country? Are you actually being serious? --estavisti 17:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The US State Department is the most reliable and comprehensive source in this case. Nothing even comes close, although you might try this site for a wide variety of reports coming both from the State Department and news agencies and organizations, like the Human Rights Watch.UberCryxic 17:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The US State Department is a biased propaganda machine. --estavisti 17:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In some cases I'd agree with you, but this report is just about the most comprehensive source we have on the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The report is obviously not a propaganda piece; you can criticize its validity all day long if you want, but one the premises in your argument should not be that this is propaganda. That's basically admitting that you don't want to have a serious debate because you're discarding an important piece of information.UberCryxic 17:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

An important piece of information provided by the United States government, a interested party. Should we treat Serbian government sources with the same blind faith? --estavisti 17:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The US State Department started the war against Yugoslavia. Of course it is going to use any means available to create an impression that the war was neccesary. Any report or any other information by it is therefore completely worthless. In particular, your citations from it are obvious propaganda. As an example:

Many bodies were found when KFOR and the ICTY entered Kosovo in June 1999. The evidence is also now clear that Serbian forces conducted a systematic campaign to burn or destroy bodies, or to bury the bodies, then rebury them to conceal evidence of Serbian crimes. - Many bodies. How many? 10? 100? 1000? 100000? Were that bodies of Albanian civilians? KLA terrorists? How many of them might have been legitimately killed? How many of them might have been killed by someone other than Serbian authorities? (Apparently none according to the "report".) Why would reburying the bodies implicate that some crimes happened? Maybe it happened in order to conceal the evidence of legitimate operations (which NATO would misrepresent as crimes)? Nikola 18:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

BAHAHAHA the US State Department... a reliable source... BAHAHAH... that makes me giggle... and want to throw up at the same time that people actually think it's reliable... WAKE UP PEOPLE Stop The Lies 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

You do realize NATO killed more albanians then the Serbs did. I wonder why the us state department of lies and propaganda didnt mention that.99.232.239.18 (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition

I think somebody should add the following, my time does not allow me...

Military casualties and losses

Tail and canopy of F-16C shot down on May the 2nd, 1999. Belgrade Aviation Museum, Serbia.

Military casualties on the NATO side were light — according to official reports the alliance suffered no fatalities as a result of combat operations. However, in the early hours of May 5th, an American military AH-64 Apache helicopter crashed not far from the border between Kosovo and Albania. The crash according to the BBC occurred about 40 miles (75 km) northeast of Tirana, Albania's capital, very close to Albanian/Kosovo border. According to CNN the crash happened 45 miles (75 km) northeast of Tirana. The two American pilots of the helicopter Army Chief Warrant Officers David Gibbs and Kevin L. Reichert died in that crash. They were the only NATO casualties during the war. There were other casualties after the war, mostly due to landmines. After the war, the alliance reported the loss of three helicopters, 32 unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) and five aircraft — all of them American, including the first US stealth plane (a F-117 stealth fighter) ever shot down by enemy fire. Several of these were lost in accidents and not by enemy action. The Yugoslav armed forces claimed to have shot down seven helicopters, 30 UAVs, 61 planes and 238 cruise missiles. However, these figures were not verified independently and have little support among non-Yugoslav analysts.

Despite the heavy bombardment, NATO was surprised to find afterwards that the Serbian armed forces had survived in such good order. Around 50 Serbian aircraft were lost but only 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 artillery pieces. Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels. Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000ft (5,000m), making accurate bombing much more difficult. Towards the end of the war, it was claimed that carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft had caused huge casualties among Serbian troops stationed along the Kosovo–Albania border. Careful searching by NATO investigators found no evidence of any such large-scale casualties.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

Name should be moved back to NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There was no discussion.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

also, we do not need the year as it was the only NATO bombing of Yugoslavia--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

also, actually, it was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, there were other Yugoslavias--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Nikola 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If I could come in, what's the problem with Serbia? It might have actually been the called the FR of Yugoslavia at the time, but if I remember correctly, Serbia was the only part of the country which NATO bombed. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't remember correctly, Montenegro was bombed too. Nikola 07:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to make the move when I saw 1995 NATO bombing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This needs to be resolved in the naming (perhaps reinclude the year?) so that these two articles apply the same rationale to their naming. So I'm relisting this request to allow for more time for discussion. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm now I saw another example: Bombing of Iraq (December 1998), let's try Bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We don't need here the year because it's the only bombing of FRY in history (Iraq had three) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I must say, I overall oppose. There's no need to use an overly long official name just because it's official. Yugoslavia seems to work fine, or we could do Serbia and Montenegro. But Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sounds choked and overofficial. We don't say Bombing of the Republic of Iraq (December 1998), we say Bombing of Iraq (December 1998).Patstuart^talk|edits 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Patstuart’s position. There’s no practical reason to change “Yugoslavia” with the long official name “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. In 1999 the only Yugoslavia that existed was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, so in the same way that people usually says “2006 World Cup in Germany” instead of “2006 World Cup in the Federal Republic of Germany“, the article should keep the title “999 NATO bombing in Yugoslavia”.--MaGioZal 19:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

yes but we had MANY Yugoslavias and ONLY ONE Iraq. Disambiguation works here, pals. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm the users above never heard for the SFRY and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

and of course the FRY which is what was proposed and I agree with -- I don't know why anyone would want the ambiguous version in the title of an encyclopedia article. // Laughing Man 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose in general. The current title, with the year included, is simple and clear, even for readers not familiar with the details of the Balkans: it gives a precise time and mentions the parties involved. If a change must be made to comply with the naming conventions on military subjects, it could be 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia or NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (1999). - Evv 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Since the current name doesn't follow the WP:Milhist naming rules, I propose two names for the article, two ideas given above. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

doesn't need the year, because we know here WHICH Yugoslavia

• Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Yugoslavia (1999)

the year is here to differ the period from another bombing of Yugoslavia, during the 1941 April War.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request

Thank you for re-closing the move request. It sounds like there is little support for the return move as requested. TheFEARgod is even proposing two other names himself/herself. Go ahead and have a new discussion on the name for this article but the original move request was not getting much support. Also, once a name is agreed on, if a WP:RM entry is necessary, please use the {{move}} tag here. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Air war

I flagged this whole section as unreferenced a while ago. I give notice that I am going to take down any unreferenced claims. Everything here has to be verifiable or be removed. Let's say 48 hours to discuss, not that any discussion really needs to take place to remove unverifiable information. --Guinnog 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the large and completely unreferenced section. Can anyone wishing to replace it please ensure that anything added conforms to WP:A? Thanks.--Guinnog 21:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that the French Forces participated with around 100 planes as the second biggest Air fleet (more than UK and Italy together)?--89.245.255.184 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

NATO bombings (disambiguation)

Hi, please tell me guys if this disambiguation (which I've just created) is ok (neutral, etc) thanks.--Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge...

User MaGioZal wrotte: "Suggested merge with Kosovo article — the two articles contains too much overlapping information"

Answer: the fact that two articles "contains too much overlapping information" is never a good reason for merging - the good reason for merging would be the case where the SUBJECTS of the articles are same, but it is not the case here. Article about Kosovo war speak about all events connected to the Kosovo war, while article about bombing of Yugoslavia speak specifically about ONE EVENT of this war in details. There are many similar articles on Wikipedia that provide detailed information about certain events or things that are briefly mentioned in another articles too. Jist for example, there is article about Romanians that speak about all Romanians living everywhere and also article Romanians of Serbia that speak only about Romanians in Serbia, but providing much more detailed information about them. Another example is History of Croatia (speaking about entire history of Croatia) and Croatia in the Habsburg Empire (speaking only about certain part of history of Croatia, which is also briefly mentioned in the other article as well). In another words, bombing of Yugoslavia was part of the Kosovo war but was also a largelly separate event, especially for the people of Serbia (the basic difference between two events is the fact that for most citizens of Serbia the war in Kosovo was nothing but a distant war in distant province that had not much to do with their lives, but contrary to this, the bombing had great impact on personal lives of the citizens of Serbia). Therefore, bombing of Yugoslavia is indeed an very specific event that should have its own separate article - if your basic problem is that Kosovo war article have some same informations as this article, we can move some information about bombing from there to article about bombing, so that we have one article that speak about bombing in details and another one that speak about entire Kosovo war and that only briefly mention the bombing itself. PANONIAN (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft lost

Please, has ANYBODY ever read the source that is linked in the "Coalition Aircraft Lost"?

It is much more than...hialious. Not only was there NEVER a loss off a German Tornado during the war - even the German Wikipedia entry on the Kopsovo War claims there where no German Aircraft Losses, except some UAVs, but that seems to have been the problem of all Coalition members. I don't know about much about the other nations' losses, except for the F-117, which was a big fuss in the media. But please, PLEASE look at that stupid page that was linked.

April 11 A NATO aircraft (possibly a German Tornado) was shot down over northern Serbia at 00:12 a.m. local time (22:12 GMT) on 04-11-99, Tanjug news agency reported quoting eye witnesses. The witnesses said they saw anti-aircraft fire hit a plane over a village between Sombor and Odzaci in Vojvodina province, about 200 kilometers northwest of Belgrade (map). Xinhua news report here. Latest reports (June 8, 2000) indicate that the aircraft's remains were recovered near Sombor. Pieces of the aircraft were picket up by the troops from the SAM unit that was responsible for downing the plane. Oh my God. Please...WHERE ARE THE PIECES? Why did I never hear a big TV report about a German Tornado shot down? The media even reports when some retarded pilots fly their torando into a mountain, with discussions following etc...and this one would be all covered up and all? Omg.

Second, this stupid page claims that A B-2 BOMBER WAS SHOT DOWN. http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/b2down001.htm Now, anybody? ANYBODY? This is SO stupid. 21 B-2's where built, with NO LOST EVER.

Please, people, why do you keep quoting such a FUSS?

Just my 2 Cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.246.120.30 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Done. (And yeah, Venik's stupid.) --HanzoHattori 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this trash from the article at least twice. We need to remain vigilant to prevent it from being added again. --Guinnog 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done too ;) --HanzoHattori 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Year in name

I think we don't need the year in the name as it was the only (hopefully forever) NATO action in Yugoslavia. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gues what, this bull**** again

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=1999_NATO_bombing_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia&diff=147215848&oldid=146551610

I wonder how long they will keep inserting crap like this. Seems to be copy-paste from this silly website of aeronautics.ru or a similar. --HanzoHattori 11:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also this: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=1999_NATO_bombing_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia&diff=142327777&oldid=142030949

Can't we have this article at least semi-protected? Permanently. --HanzoHattori 11:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Sorry, but that is not bull****. Aeronautics.ru simply relayed information given by Serbian authorities, combined with some Venik's personal observation. As information given by NATO authorities is largely present in the article, there is no reason for information given by Serbian authorities not to be present. Bottom line, in appropriate form, this should be in the article. Nikola 13:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

lol. News for you: Mr. Venik is a crazy Russian individual who was posting all kind of rumours he liked (not even "official" info by the former Slobo gvt - for them he had crazy conspiracy theories how they are "hiding NATO losses" too for this or another reason). And Serbia now wants to be part of NATO. --HanzoHattori 15:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

News for you: there are journalists in NATO countries who investigated the issue and came to conclusion that NATO was really hiding its losses. And Serbia never wanted to be a part of NATO, especially not now[1]. Not that I see why would that matter. Nikola 21:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NATO aircraft total losses acknowledged by both sides

1 x F-117 - shot down (Budjanovci) 1 x F-117 - damaged beyond repair 1 x F-16 shot down near Shabats 1 x AH-64 Apache of the "Task Force Hawk" - crashed after hitting a power line during training in Albania. The whole event filmed. 1 x AH-64 Apache of the "Task Force Hawk" - NATO claimed lost due to accident, Yugoslavs claimed shot down near border. Recently some information from the Serbian side are emerging an Apache and a Chinook were destroyed by anti-tank RPGs on ground in northern Macedonia by Yugoslav special forces team but it is not verified. 1 x C-130 Hercules - landing accident in Kosovo just after the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.121.233 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing data...

...that the NATO approved the military intervention in FRY on 5 March 1998. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the case for war

The majority of the text in this subsection does not contain criticism but support for the case for war. The section should be re-structured or renamed to "Debate..." instead of criticism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsapient (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A big problem with that section is that it does not include the case made by conservatives against the war. If it was the usual isolation or no-spending arguments we should mention them explicitly. This is important since younger readers (particularly in the US) may associate the word conservative with the Bush administration and find themselves confused, since the current administration (sometimes described as conservative) seems to prefer forced intervention to diplomacy or isolationism. Brusegadi (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of another criticism that I have seen mentioned: that the NATO invasion eliminated the internal Serbian opposition and increased the problems that it was trying to fix. The populace, much of which had wanted Milosevic out, now rallied around the leader and allowed Milosevic's regime to act with more freedom to squash dissidents and destroy Albanians (with the UN observers were gone, the Serbian Police and Army could fight openly with the Albanian Militia).

To quote a letter by Terry Jones published in The Guardian:

"Dear Sir,

If the old Warsaw Pact had bombed London because they didn't like Mrs. Thatcher's policies in Northern Ireland, you could be certain of two things happening: 1) the whole country would have got behind Mrs. Thatcher and 2) it wouldn't have helped the situation in Ireland one bit."

The situation bears some parallels to the current developing situation with Iran; the young people wanted the government out and there were big protests, but as soon as the bombing started, they rallied around their leaders. Esn (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

I ran over these sentences while copy-editing: "NATO achieved considerable moral advantage by the flight, whether desired or not. If desired it was a great success, as it convinced NATO's member states populations that they had to win the conflict."

I don't know what any of it means, what it is referring to, or why it was written. Perhaps somebody with a greater knowledge of the conflict than I can help. It appears in the 6th paragraph of "The Operation" section.

Thanks Fdssdf (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Finished copy-editing the article, but the issue I mentioned here still remains. Fdssdf (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing moral in bombing civilians with no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.222.72 (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [2]. Cla68 (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing false Clinton quote

Maybe Clinton did say "We shouldn't be doing this, but if we are, let's win it." But certainly not in the source cited. In that source, the quote is attributed to "foreign policy owls on both sides." --Joelrosenblum (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft losses

I have two losses for AH-64 Apache, 1 for F-117, 1 F-16 and 1 AV-8 Harrier. Only F-16 and F-117 were shot down (by SA-3). Another A-10 was damaged and landed in Kosovo. At the time all this was widely known, i don't understand why this was not implemented in the article. I did it, but it was reversed, of course.

To be exactly:

• 1 F-15E damaged on 26th march, emergency land at istrana AFB.
• 27 march F-117 shot down near Belgrade,
• 26 april, 1 AH-64 crashed near Tirana,
• 1 may, 1 AV-8B crashed in Adriatic;
• 2 may 1 OA-10A emergency landed at Petrovac, near Skopje (it was damaged by SAM, i remember vividly this incident watched in TV).
• 2 may, 1 F-16CG crashed,
• 5 may 1999 1 AH-64 crashed near Tirana, crew dead,
• 28 may 1999: 1 A-10A damaged by SAM;

Some sources : [3] [4] The AV-8B was the S/nc 164568 of USS Kearsage, happened near Brindisi.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

“Council of State, Supreme Court of Greece, found NATO guilty for war crimes in 1999 bombing.”

This statement, present at the end of the section “Criticism of the case for war” of the current article, is a misleading one.

If we look on the article of the reference (from an obscure, anti-American, pro-Antiwar.com website), we will see that

“ Twenty members of the Council of State (Greece’s supreme administrative court) have issued a statement, citing legal arguments deploring the international crimes against Yugoslavia, which inaugurate a ‘period of lawlessness’ and bring us back to the ‘eras of the Holy Alliance and the Axis.’ ”

And if we see the article in Wikipedia about the Greek Council of State, we will see that

“ The Council is headed by its president, who is chosen from among the members of the Council by the Cabinet of Greece for a term of four years. The court comprises the presiding board (the President and 7 Vice-presidents), 42 Privy Councillors, 48 Associate Judges and 50 Reporting Judges, all graduates of the National School of Judges. ”

Well, 1 + 7 + 42 + + 48 + 50 = 148.

In fact, wee see that the so-called “Council of State findings about NATO” is just a mere protest letter — not officially ratified by the council or even by the absolute majority of its members — signed by a minority (aprox. 13.5%) of council members at the time.

I tried to edit the article when I came across this and realised the same as what the above person has posted, but less than a day later the sentence I'd added on at the end about there being 148 judges had been deleted. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.50.123 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Chetnik Cabal

Wikipedia: one of the few places in the Universe where the NATO bombing of Serbia is considered “a worse war crime” than the Srebrenica Massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.86.134 (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian bomb clearance of Nis

Russia's state agency Emerkom was in this southern city to remove the unexploded bombs thrown there by NATO warplanes as they attacked Serbia nine years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.192.181 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Propose move

I propose moving this article to 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, as Yugoslavia is a more common name than Federal republic of yugoslavia.--Patton123 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents list

What qualifications are there to put who participated on the NATO side in the Belligerents column? Right now there is US, Britain, Netherlands, Turkey and Italy. Is there a reaosn them and not more nations? I heard that Canada carried out 10% of the bombing, why isn't it there? Or is there more to it than that? Lemniwinks (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Strategy Section

Has this - "Strategic targets, such as bridges, hospitals and factories, were also bombed."

Really? *hospitals* were deliberately targetted? I find this improbable. Toby Douglass (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Few hospitals were bombed for sure. Whether it was deliberately, I don't know. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A hospital was hit when a missile went astray, according to the BBC. See [5] It is not correct to say a hospital was "bombed", as that indicates that it was deliberate. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time I read the article I don't remember reading hospitals, which makes me think someone slipped it in Lemniwinks (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

14 tanks and over 400 Schools were bombed so it raises questionsJohn Gradwell (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Milosevic government used Kosovar Albanians as human shields

Look at excerpts from this April 26, 1999 article from Time:

Had the air defenses been crippled, the pilot could have flown closer to that target, seen it was civilian and aborted the strike and the resulting global horror it provoked. A fellow F-16 pilot, from the 555th Fighter Squadron at Aviano, call sign “Buster,” was frustrated by the snafu. “The last thing we want to do,” the major says, “is help Milosevic do his job.” But mixing Serbian troops with Albanian civilians has been part of Milosevic's strategy. Buster says he has seen “truck, truck, tractor, military, military, bus” convoys. “They're using Albanians as shields,” he says, “and that makes me sick.”
(…)
The Serbs have been hiding tanks and other weapons in villages, knowing that NATO's aversion to civilian casualties will keep them safe. “We know where they are, but it's difficult when they're parked in villages or in convoys with civilians,” says Buster, the F-16 pilot. He held his fire, he recalls, when he spied a white vehicle next to a burning house. “Is a white van a military vehicle?” he asks. “No, but I'm sure it's not the guy lighting his own house on fire.” And the Serbs have split their armored units so that tanks operate alone or in pairs, denying NATO nice, fat targets.

Maybe this info should be put in this article.--201.52.86.117 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For me it's hard to believe in this, becouse another US pilot hit refugee coulmn full of civilians, and he tought that he is hitting tanks, beside in column were only civilian tractors. And that was consider as pilots mistake. Also during the whole NATO bombing Yugoslav army and Serbian police have never moved their vehicles in columns, only when they moved two armored brigades from Kraljevo and Niš, than they transported tanks on trains, and non of trains was hit as they were hidden in tunels during air strikes. --Kos93 (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Depleted uranium

Should the link on depleted uranium mention the specific groups that state this, or link to their statement? At the moment it only says that "according to European nongovernmental groups", masses of Italian soldiers have died due to depleted uranium. As everyone knows the topic of depleted uranium is highly contentious. It is similar to saying "According to nongovernmental groups, Israel's invasion of Gaza was (good/bad)" - who are these groups?217.154.66.12 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

J-22 loss

The J-22 aircraft of Yugoslav Air Froce was not shot down, it has crushed on 25.III 1999. durign the air support to ground troops. The pilot, Zivota Djuric, commadner of 241st squadron died in crash.--93.86.45.51 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Air Forces section

First of all, the summary of the capabilities of the aircraft involved in this section is not important or relevant. These should stay in their respective articles.

Second of all, it lists two F-16Cs as having crashed/been shot down (both in late May), while the infobar lists only one F-16C lost (presumably the one lost on May 2). Which is correct? Were the F-16s lost later in May just crashes or were they shot down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltondaniel (talk • contribs) 28 April 2009‎

Bombardment of Prizren

• Video of the bombardment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.40.115 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

people should know

that there was no ethnic cleanings and there were no evil bad serbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.46.33.76 (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ha ha ha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.241 (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia strategic victory

How was it a strategic victory for the Yugoslavs? This needs to be amended. Ijanderson (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Any sources on this?

On May 20 an F-16 jet fighter crashed in the village of Gradiste, Croatia 17km southwest of Vinkovci on at 03:35 local time (map). The incident was observed by a number of local residents, who were woken up by a loud explosion and observed a fireball in the sky and a parachute. The crash site was heavily patrolled by police and several small clashes took place between the police and curious villagers.

Any sources on this? Because I don't remember it happening. The whole article is.. just bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rospaya (talk • contribs) 06:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong photo?

The photo depicting the "Yugoslavian Army General Headquarters building damaged during NATO bombing" is the same as the Chinese Embassy covered in this article: NATO_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade

The photo belongs here, it is (was) the Yugoslavian Army General Headquarters building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.194.11 (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Point of difference

Come on guys, Albanians and Serbs dont have to be friends yet lets agree on some facts. We all know that that were not 500,000 Albanian deaths and its laughable to think that over a quarter of Kosovo Albanian population died in the war so the propaganda was there. My main concern is that Serbophobia and the drive to vilify the entire Serb nation and Serbs as a people. I really dont care enough to develop the western propaganda model article, unless im forced to by confusion of, propaganda for facts. cheers.FC Toronto (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The only facts that matter is that from about 1989 to 1999, Serbs fell for Milosevic's propaganda and Serbs armies and irregulars committed horendous acts all over the former Yugoslavia. Call it Serbophobia if you want, but people are right to be phobic of such people. Cheers.207.236.177.82 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of illegality quote

I have removed "It is generally agreed upon that the bombing campaign was illegal" because when I looked at the source, there was no mention of illegality. The single source cited was a book looking at the media wars and perception of the conflict from different media in different nation-states. The implication was that the justification may have been manufactured or "sexed up". However, this source on its own does not constitute a generally agreed position that the bombing campaign was illegal. I was expecting quotes from legal scholars, domestic or international court cases, or academic commentary that suggests that - in fact what material there is suggests divided opinion, with a slight majority suggesting that it was legal in substance if not in form. Hence I have removed the contentious statement pending futher primary sources such as court transcripts or academic surveys etc.

USA started the bombing of Yugoslavia without the approval of UN, so it is illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.174.2 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the quote of the legality should be removed, at the top about the house not supporting it therefore its illegal. The attack was approved by NATO, an organization which the senate ratified our participation in, since NATO agreed to the campaign it was legal. -JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.32.198 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

The infobox contradicts with the article in saying when the war ended. The infobox says it ended 10th July, 1999; and the article introduction says it ended 11th July, 1999. --Kris159 (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Absurd outcome

Under the "outcome" this line is present"high civilian casualties for both the Serb and Albanian minority, low casualties on military targets"

This is absolutely absurd, from what do we measure what "high" and "low" are? Why is this article the only one that has this up? Civilian loses have almost always been higher than military loses in almost every war, in ww2 between 40-70 million people died, 2/3rds of whom had been civilans, yet such a passage is not mentioned on the outcome. This article needs to be professional and state the outcome without making political mouthpiece statements.

NATO stated that the objective was to lower the casualties on CIVILIANS and destroy all military sites. World War II is nothing but just a senseless war about the Holocaust and the Axis trying to take over the world and become one empire. But Kosovo was about propaganda and disarmament of rebels and NATO's decision to destroy MILITARY UNITS1 But they attacked civilians mainly mistaken for military people or routes etc. 97.102.153.253 (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What was the outcome? Serb/Yugoslavia forces withdraw from Kosovo, peace treaty is signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fix

Can someone with experience fix the NATO casualties section - put flags vertical, clean up link and other sources, add that Harrier and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.171.154 (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

NATO Definite Victory?

Really, is it a NATO victory because sources tell that after all targets were destroyed, the objective still did not finish, and there was nothing else left. Yugoslavia still stood up. NATO's goals were not achieved. Only one, which is that the Armed Forces retreated due to the KUMANOVO TREATY, WHICH RUSSIA PPLAYEED THE KEY ROLE INTO FORCING IT, NOT BY BOMBING! So its a Yugoslav Tactical Victory because they stopped NATO — Preceding unsigned comment added by VJ-Yugo (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your own reasoning is not sufficient - find some independent sources to support your position. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you must gain a consensus here to make your change BEFORE you make it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You piece of shit fucking block me then pussy... Go ahead I don't give a care if you are that of a fucking girly bitch! FUCK YOU Boing! Said Zebedee! What the fuck kind of user is that? Fucking mindless block addict retard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.153.253 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 20 March 2011

OK, seeing as you've asked so nicely - have a 1-month holiday this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah? 97.102.58.155 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The peace deal accepted was offered by the Yugoslavs before the bombing began, Both Clinton and Milosevic claimed victory, and nato only destroyed 14 tanks (the initial claim was 200). Nato's initial aims were to give their troops unrestricted access throughout Yugoslavia, and to topple Milosevic, both of which they failed to do. There was no clear cut winner in this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gradwell (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And the Federal Yugoslav Army managed to hide almost all key military elements so I therefore conclude that its a Tactical Yugoslav Victory, I have read documentaries, everything about NATO's illegal war on Serbia Tankman786 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That it may be, but theres arguments against that as well, therefore I have changed the result to "Kumanavo Treaty, UN Security Council Resolution 1244" — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gradwell (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets at least put it to, Tactical Yugoslav Victory, Strategic NATO Victory. NATO at least had the Generals to sign the Treaty, but the Yugoslavs had mad it very difficult for them to DESTROY their whole army. Tankman786 (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Tankman786 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolution something blah blah blah, Tactical Yugoslav Victory, Strategic NATO Victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tankman786 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Tankman786 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of VJ-Yugo (talk · contribs) Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The bombing was certainly not a Nato victory, they destroyed 14 tanks, 14 (Also at first they announced they had destroyed 200), Yugoslavia could also claim victory, they shot down an invisible plane, and the terms accepted were offered by Milosevic before the bombing, Its unclear who the winner was in this conflict so I've changed the Result to Kumonavo Treaty and UNSC resolution 1244John Gradwell (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Both this article and the 1995 Op Deliberate Force article say that this was the first time that the Germans had engaged in air combat since 1945, which was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.208.235.27 (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

luftwaffe

Both this article and the 1995 Op Deliberate Force article say that this was the first time that the Germans had engaged in air combat since 1945, which was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.208.235.27 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

New civilian casualties

Someone should add cluster bombing of Niš, bombing of state television that killed 16 journalists and civilians, Grdelica train...I know there are separate articles, just connect this article with those and add some more text. Nothing big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.172.110 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Italian casualtes through depleted uranium

An anonymous user has been edit-warring to include this. "According to European non-governmental groups, dozens of Italian soldiers have died since the war due to the "use of weapons with cancer-causing depleted uranium"" sourced to this. Although the BBC is a good source, this does not seem like a good summary of what the source says. --John (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented what I regard as a compromise version. Stuff like this doesn't belong in the infobox anyway. --John (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.hvkk.tsk.tr/PageSub/Kurumumuz/Tarihce/1944-Today.aspx
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-05-25 06:41:43, 404 Not Found
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-06-08 23:25:33, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.arrc.nato.int/pictures/kfor/refugees.htm
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-05-25 06:41:45, 404 Not Found
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-06-08 23:26:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=5748&kat=3
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-05-25 06:41:45, 404 Not Found
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-06-08 23:26:32, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/086/80/PDF/N9908680.pdf?OpenElement
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-05-25 06:41:43, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-06-08 23:27:22, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/1999/t04091999_t407nato.html
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-05-25 06:41:47, 404 Not Found
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-06-08 23:27:49, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

3 captured soldiers

No mentions on what happen to it. I had to look it up and was like oh yeah, I remember Jesse Jackson got them released. Yet Jesse Jackson is not mentioned. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.98.44 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there is no mention of the three captured soldiers of 1-4 CAV 1st Infantry Div. I would like to incorporate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryFromGA (talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring over captured Americans

This has been repeatedly removed although it seems to be well-referenced. Could those wishing to remove it please make their case here rather than edit-warring to remove it? Thank you, --John (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be removed because its trivial and unimportant. The article is big enough without inserting meaningless stuff. That part of article is in no way contributing to the rest of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.240.126 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it trivial and unimportant? The BBC obviously didn't think so in reporting on it.--John (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Biased media...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.227.1 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Biased? On this topic I think the BBC is about as neutral as it gets. Which sources would you prefer we used? --John (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Brazda-Stenkovac refugee camp.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Brazda-Stenkovac refugee camp.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 12 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Brazda-Stenkovac refugee camp.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

NATO crimes

Made a special section with all NATO crimes, start with the fact they used FORBIDDEN cluster and uranium bombs, bombed hospitals, civilian houses, refuge colons, and all the other NON militar targets, as well that NOONE was on trial for them!77.105.29.34 (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2012

Suggest to replace TANJUG link #30 (now broken) with this one: http://www.tanjug.rs/news/36691/13th-anniversary-of-nato-bombing.htm 216.239.86.210 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Done --Six words (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2012

In NATO naval forces you forget say Spanish navy ships Marqués de la Ensenada (A-11) and FFG Victoria

83.165.5.43 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: You neither indicate where exactly this should be inserted, nor do you provide a source. --Six words (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Official information from the book of General Clark, official Serbian data and the day that terrorists celebrated as a day of remembrance of their dead

Why is there no information that is in Kosovo was a ground offensive from territory of Albania, with the support of regular Albanian army and ground offensive was crushed with 2500 dead terrorists at the border crossings "Kosare" and "Goruzup". All the time the war in Kosovo was 30 000 terrorists.The official losses of Serbian forces in Kosovo(1998-1999): 18 tanks (13 NATO destroyed, 5 terrorists destroyed), 5 BTR and 27 artillery weapons (most of the WW2 which is set as false targets) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.10.31 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

US military uses Yugoslavia as testing ground for high-tech weaponry

please add this info . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.216.75 (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/051399-speech-by-president-to-veterans-organizations-on-kosovo.htm
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-05-25 06:41:46, 404 Not Found
  • In 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on 2011-06-08 23:26:57, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

arvhive has these links. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.216.75 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit War over casualties (June 2012)

There looks to be an edit war going on over the NATO casualty estimate. As a third party editor it would appear the sources being added are well documented and reputable so I see no reason why they are being reverted. If there are specific reasons they should be discussed here or between users, not in the comments of edits. Jargon777 Leave a message 15:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is need for discussion here. The NATO sources should be mentioned and I have reputable sources. I do not know why the USER kept reverting. He even claimed that my sourced NATO estimates were "vandalism". The dispute is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If there are other reputable sources that have different figures, their inclusion may also be a good idea. There is a need for discussion as long as the other editor continues to revert or add the content. You should not continue to revert him as you will only end up violating the three revert rule yourself. Jargon777 Leave a message 15:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did you remove number of wounded Serbian soldiers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.231.17 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed in over a week. Jenks24 (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

---

1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia → NATO bombing of Yugoslavia – per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) the title of the article should contain information when something has happened only if where and what "are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously". Taking in consideration that proposed title "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" unambiguously explains what has happened (NATO bombing) and where (Yugoslavia) there is no need for when (1999). Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A big piece of Serb propaganda

This is what this article, like many others related to the Yugoslav Wars here in Wikipedia, seems like to me, and to many others.

For anyone in the world (outside Serbia and its ally, Russia) who like me followed the happenings the war and the NATO campaign in 1999 the action was a clear consequence of policies of Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo, who wanted to expel and/or kill all Kosovar Albanians (and this is not conspiracy theory — there are many photos and proofs of the thousand of Kosovar civilian refugee camps in Albania during this period) — which were the majority of Kosovo population since the 19th century, as maps found here in Wikipedia can prove — and repopulate the former autonomous province with Serbs loyal to Belgrade. Simply.

The NATO campaign WAS NOT genocide.

But due to intense editing and vigillance of the Greater-Serbian sympathizers (many of them people from Serbia or Serbian immigrants in Australia and Canada, as we can see in their userpages…), anyone who reads the article gets the impression that the villain was NATO and “the jihadists of KLA that wanted to turn Serb Jerusalem into a Sharia state”, not Milosevic and his friends that went to the ICTY.

The bombing campaign is shown as a cruel, monstrous, Nazi-like unjustifiable civil bombing campaign (like the Bombing of Warsaw in World War II) with the only objective of killing innocent Serb civilians and take Serb Jerusalem from Serbdom.

This distortion of truth, this Serb victimization, all this propaganda that want to portray the MAIN VICTIMS — the civilian Kosovar Albanians — as villains, as cockroaches who don’t deserve to live in “Serb Jerusalem” is DISGUSTING.

But it seems like the “Serb warriors” (many of whom with deep knowledge of Wikipedia mechanisms to use them at their favour) of English-language edition of Wikipedia are winning here the POV battle to rewrite History.--201.81.224.11 (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I must say that all your comments are terribly unconstructive and provocative. Read Talk page guidelines.--Zoupan 23:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What is “provocative and unconstructive”?

. To say that the NATO campaign WAS NOT genocide?

. To say that the main criminals of the Kosovo War, according to the quantity and quality of people judged and arrested by ICTY, were Serb persons (politicians, armed forces and bandits/paramilitaries) allied to Slobodan Milosevic?

. To say that many articles about Kosovo, the Kosovo War and other Yugoslav Wars here in this English-language version of Wikipedia differ wildly from what most of the scholars and journalists from the Developed, Western and Democratic world say about what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s?

--177.32.130.106 (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• We do have a bias problem here. The way to fix this is civilly, with sources. More sources; better sources. bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've toned down some of the fantasy about the Chinese embassy bombing being intentional (strangely enough, reliable sources report a less offensive story, which had been omitted from the article). There might be some room to explore fringe views in the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade article, but not here, and not with such weight. bobrayner (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Move to 'NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia'

The current title does not cover the full spectrum of the air campaign, which included attack helicopters, cruise missiles and interception operations as well as fast attack air to ground. The current title makes it sound as if NATO blanket bombed the place with B52's, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No. The existing name is WP:COMMONNAME which covers all NATO campaigns.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This article should have encyclopedic title, which is the only one - Operation Allied Force. All other names are just POV and OR. Also Operation Desert Storm, Operation Deliberate Force and some others - basing on exactly same principles like in the cases Operation Overlord, Operation Barbarossa or Operation Torch. Yes, I know Military history#CODENAME, but this rule is senseless and should be changed. Also, it's hard to say, that title "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" reflects the most popular or common name of this campaign in English language... --Matrek (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please cite Reliable Sources for your claims. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think the current title is ok. --John (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• I think Operation Allied Force would be more appropriate; we should always prefer a real name instead of making up a descriptive name. Operation Allied Force has much stronger usage by sources, compared to "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia", so it's got the WP:COMMONNAME advantage too. However, I could live with "NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia" as a second-choice if the community rejects Operation Allied Force. bobrayner (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree, and think that current name is by far better, per WP:COMMONNAME. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• I am surprised that WhiteWriter invoked WP:COMMONNAME as a reason to keep the existing name, because the evidence clearly shows the opposite. On Google Books, Operation Allied Force beats the current name by 62800 to 11100. On Google Scholar, Operation Allied Force beats the current name by 7960 to 603. Among higher-quality sources the pattern seems to be even more obvious. In addition, Operation Allied Force fixes the neutrality problem identified by Peacemaker67. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposition is "NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia", not "Operation Allied Force"... :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is back

It's unfortunate that WhiteWriter has decided to repeat the edits made by VJ-Yugo socks. Michel Chossudovsky is not a reliable source on European history. The article already has reliable sources which describe what happened, and they flatly contradict Chossudovsky. I'm sure that Chossudovsky is used to this position - having made a wide variety of other statements about 9/11, HAARP, Libya, Syria, economics &c which are impossible to reconcile with what reliable sources say - but we should not pander to it. bobrayner (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I just checked some more sources, to no avail; the Chinese embassy bombing conspiracy theory doesn't even get mentioned in Chomsky's "Rogue States", which is the definitive collection of anecdotes which might make NATO look bad. bobrayner (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why Michel Chossudovsky is not rs? Do you have any consensus for that, or discussion? I cannot see it... --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

They were one of the first sources discussed - and rejected - by the Reliable Sources noticeboard when it was set up in 2007. Of course, they generate eyecatching content so it's been mentioned again on RSN from time to time - there's always somebody who really wants to believe a source which says that 9/11 was an inside job, HAARP is a weather-control weapon, Srebrenica is a hoax to make serbs look bad, Gaddafi was a nice guy, NATO conspired to bomb embassies, H1N1 was a pretext for massive military mobilisation, the Indian Ocean tsunami was manipulated by American government &c - but each time it goes to RSN, it's rejected. bobrayner (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dated references (post-propaganda)

How can you still keep refferences of NATO war time - wrong estimations or propaganda about 5-10 000 soldiers killed... those refferences from western news are over 10 years old and not reliable today, as today modern and realsitic figures exist. true figure is something over 1000 soldiers and policemen killed by NATO bombing. remove the old figures and old dated sources. (Правичност (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

The goals

Is it possible that so many people in the USA believe in that propaganda?

USA goal was entry of NATO troops in the whole territory of Serbia (read the Rambouillet agreement), USA goal was to circumvent the UN, Serbs have insisted of negotiations to UN and to respect international law. USA goal of implementation of international law and UN resolutions? In this even the red neck irradiated by CNN propaganda does not believe.The UN did not allow bombing of Yugoslavia and the first time in the history of the UN is the aggression against a sovereign country that has not attacked anyone and the UN not approve military action against Yugoslavia than United States without UN permission attacked. Pure propaganda! Kosovo and Metohija is part of Serbia 1000 years ago and U.S. has armed terrorists 1 year before the war to attack the regular army and Serbian police. Just because Serbia did not allow to USA real base on its territory (that Serbia has the full right). And yes, Kosovo is not an independent state, 2/3 of the world countries do not recognize virtual state Kosovo and UN says KOSOVO IS PART OF SERBIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.93.243 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

sadly moslty nationalist and hating people write down these wiki articles that reffer to war times on ex-yugoslavia lands. just look at the račak "massacre" article... totally un-neutral. That incident has been solved years ago already, as an KLA setup. Even the investigators from those times revealed those people were actually Albanian guerilla fighters killed in action, after which their bodies were planted on the field (as they were massacred), but the bullet hit marks reveal the true secret... only that secret wasnt to be used in the war time it had to wait until USA would get their base on Kosovo, then they would admit anything eventough their whole excuse for bombing was that same set-up massacre (prepared together with KLA members). (Правичност (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

Harrier crash

Do not remove it, just please fix the reference as I do not know how. Source: http://m.cnnespanol.com/WORLD/europe/9905/02/kosovo.01/ I consider the incident as relevant as Mig-29 rebase crash and Apache crashes since they were all related to the operatin Allied Force (USS Kearsarge was engaged in combat operations at the time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.246.238 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Damaged F-117A

The claim that a second F-117A was damaged by enemy fire is highly disputed and generally believed to be false among experts. The claim that it never flew again afterwards is certainly false. Every F-117A tail number (with the exception of the one lost) has been photographed at some point or another after 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.61.221 (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly and reliable non-news sources published by university presses

There are a few available, which should be used in this article: here are two [7], [8]. I suggest these are far better sources than news reports. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issue in the lead section

Why are my edits here, here and here attempting to balance out the lead being reverted?Gobbleygook (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You were given many answers and you either refused to recognize them or you misunderstood them. I answered you here, Peacemaker67 answered you here, and your changes indicate that you don't understand the topic and/or English isn't your first language. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Leaving a one-liner of criticism of the intervention while excluding any mention of support for the intervention (esp. when there is an entire section devoted to that) violates every imaginable wikipedia editing rule. Gobbleygook (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that criticism summarized the article per WP:LEAD. Does your current modification do that? Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it does because is happens to take into account the side that supports the NATO bombing. Gobbleygook (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright so as per original research, NPOV (undue) and poor attribution I'm going to revert this edit. It's missing in-line attributions, nowhere in the Chicago tribune article does it support the Wikipedia assertion that "the bombing campaign was criticized, especially for the number of civilian casualties that resulted from the bombing." (as I write in my comment, it's about the intent of NATO forces to kill civilians, and by extension commit war crimes) By excluding mention of the support for the intervention, the lead as it is currently written is NPOV (undue). On the other hand, my edit makes the proper in-text attributions, takes both opinions about the intervention into account and cites only what is written in the sourced material. So in a nutshell, the edits will be made because the unedited lead is: WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE and fails WP:INTEXT. Gobbleygook (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about the lead. ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia#Attitudes towards the campaign has content that is supportive and that is critical of the bombing campaign. As Viriditas has stated the lead is suppose to summarize the content within the article; therefore neutrally brief wording summarizing both subsections should be included in the lead if proper summarization is to occur. Furthermore, per WP:CITELEAD as the content maybe challenged by individuals depending on their POV of the event, the content should be properly cited (preferably by using references already used within the article). RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Talbott citation source

The source given for the Talbott citation does not exist. A book with the title and another author exists, but no such citation was found. Please provide correct reference and page number for the citation. 23 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.194.191 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014

Add the following text under 'criticism of the campaign':

The KLA is a terrorist organization and murdered Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija. Every country has a right to fight organisations like the KLA within its borders.

Source: see Wikipedia: Kosovo Liberation Army, including section on 'status as terrorist group'.

The USA bombed significant civilian structures, including an embassy, power plants, water processing plants, the Serbian broadcaster and caused significant civilian casualties, including at least 500 civilian deaths. The US took the lives of Serbian civilians in response to violence in Kosovo and Metohija.

Source: earlier in the article: casualty list and targets.

The US intervened using military force in a foreign country outside any established international framework. This is like another country intervening in the US in response to the US's actions against US citizens.

Source: existing footnotes 111 and 112 of the article.

Dv603 (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Claim That Strobe Talbott Denied That Ethnic Cleansing Was Not The Reason For The Bombings Was A Noam Chomsky Fabrication

In the text which Chomsky cited, Talbott had claimed that the continuation of Milosevic's ethnic cleansing policies in the Balkan region were what led to the NATO intervention. Noam Chomsky is a known critic of military intervention and it is logical to assume that he twisted the words which Talbott had stated in order to try and strengthen his propaganda.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

"Pourtugal" must be corrected to "Portugal" 82.155.28.233 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate link

We've a duplicate link (Air University) which is both in the references and the external links, I think. What do we do with duplicate links? Shall I delete it from external links? Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Background

"After its autonomy was quashed, Kosovo was faced with state organized oppression: since the early 1990s, Albanian language radio and television were restricted and newspapers shut down, whereas Kosovar Albanians were fired in large numbers from public enterprises and institutions, including banks, hospitals, the post office and schools.[41]"

Unsubstantiated claims, with a source that does not load anywhere. Furthermore, the word quashed is unreasonable to say the least. If sources are not provided I will edit the article accordingly to give it a neutral standpoint. -21.03.2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.213.119 (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

NATO bombing of chemical factories in Pancevo

Why there's no info about this in the English article? http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/jeaton.htm Also usage of depleted uranium. This would fit in the aftermath section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.14.72 (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Arguments against strategic air power

"The Rambouillet Agreement prior to the war gave NATO forces the right of transit, bivouac, manoeuvre, billet, and utilisation across Serbia. "

This is very misleading, perhaps deliberately so. The Rambouillet Agreement was never agreed by Yugoslavia so it did not give NATO forces the right of transit etc. This should be re-worded to "The Rambouillet Agreement, had it ever been agreed by Yugoslavia, would have given NATO forces the right of ..."

However if it was worded correctly it would lose its point, hence I think it is deliberately misleading. Non agreement of an agreement does not by definition allow things in the agreement.

Generally this article is very poor and biased. For example it omits the crucial point that the NATO attack on Yugoslavia was not pre authorised by the UN. 2.30.145.179 (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done my best to balance this out a little. Any article on a bombing campaign of this scale should begin with some indication to the reader of the damage and death caused, as well as information about its legality or otherwise (eg missing UN authorisation). Dbdb (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Military casualties

Military casualties on the Yugoslavia side - not a single number. What were the numbers reported by Yugoslavia side? What was NATO estimate? --Shufel (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

increase of cancer after bombing

[9] , [10] 178.221.108.205 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)