Pure Racism in The Mummy
Independent History & Research
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
May 14, 1999
Movie Review: The Mummy
THE DUMMY
Hollywood's remake of the 1932 horror classic, "The Mummy" is a
racist masterpiece. How is it possible that Hollywood, whose
bosom buddy is neo-Bolshevik Bill Clinton and whose mania is
political correctness, could make a blockbuster film that is a
consummate example of bigotry?
The answer may be found in that queer hybrid, Aryan Zionism,
wherein the white man is allowed to lord it over the colored man
so long as the coloreds are political, religious or national
enemies of the Zionists.
As we all know, the Israelis are at war with--what's his
name?--oh, yes, Ahab the A-rab, and in the service of that cause
the white man gets to be a man once again (if only until the
A-rabs are permanently and totally licked).
Toward that end, the crude stereotypes of bazaar hagglers and
towel heads versus handsome, noble English and American Sir
Lancelots, have been revived in the 1999 version of "The Mummy."
It is a white man (Brendan Fraser) who saves the day. Even
feminism is shelved in favor of the traditional damsel in
distress.
Not only the Egyptian priest Imhotep is reanimated here, but also
the freewheeling days when whitey was king: "The Mummy" is
immensely entertaining Saturday afternoon fare right out of the
long dead cinema of white supremacy.
But this revival is nothing for white nationalists to celebrate,
because it is entirely beholden to Jewish fortunes and dictates.
One perceives a nearly invisible tether fastened to our white
hero, revealing his puppet status as a slave to the Jewish
agenda.
In "The Mummy" individual Arabs are filthy, greedy, slimey pigs.
The Arab masses are mindless, murderous zombies who chant the
name Imhotep--though it might as well be Khomeni.
When a frightened, fez-wearing lackey is attacked by the fearsome
Mummy, he pulls out from under his shirt an ecumenical
conglomeration of religious amulets, in order to pacify the
fiend. First he holds aloft a Christian cross, but that fails to
halt the creature; then a Muslim Crescent, which proves just as
impotent; next a Buddhist charm--yet still the Mummy continues to
march menacingly toward him. Only when the Jewish Star of David
is brandished by the man, does the Mummy miraculously halt and
spare him.
As testimony to their low opinion of the intelligence of this
movie's audience, the makers of "The Mummy" conclude the film
with a Bedouin horseman blessing the Muslim-killing white saviors
in the name of Allah, an absurdity that borders on the
blasphemous.
"The Mummy" earned $44.6 million in its opening weekend. It was
made by Universal Studios, whose President and Chief Operating
Officer is Ron Meyer. Universal is owned, in turn, by Seagram,
whose CEO is Edgar Bronfman Jr. Bronfman's father runs the World
Jewish Congress.
In a western media agog over "Serbian xenophobia," yet another
rather unsubtle example of Jewish xenophobia parades its
animatronic special effects across the theatre screens of the
American heartland, where popcorn-crunching necropolitans will
revel in the guilty pleasures this film accords them, i.e. some
hearty belly laughs at the expense of colored people.
Afterwards, the schizoid audience will inevitably parade back to
their corporate domains and schoolrooms and faithfully resume
their ADL-written racial sensitivity courses, in which they are
urged to surrender their jobs and their daughters to great god
Diversity. A more accurate name for Universal's box office smash
would take into account not only the subject matter but its
audience, in which case it would be more aptly titled, "The
Dummy."
--Michael A. Hoffman II. Copyright©1999 Independent History and
Research
Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the
Associated Press and the author of four books. He edits
"Revisionist History" newsletter.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE HOFFMAN WIRE depends for its continuation upon donations from
its readers.
***********************************
Independent History & Research
Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816
http://www.hoffman-info.com
Send $12 for Hoffman's book "They Were White and They Were
Slaves" (Overseas send US$15)
MPSpillers
derogatory references to the "fat, smelly" Egyptian character really surprised
me for this day and age. I had a feeling we'd hear about it sooner or later...
Louis
As long as the U.S. can slam Tomahawk missiles into downtown Wherever,
>they< will be catagorized as "fat, smelly" - William Jefferson Clinton has
managed to make America into the world's biggest bully.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FONE427
Mr. Hoffman.
I could not but help feel the same way, and I am half Jewish. I was a
little shocked too. I posted a shorter review/commentary that observe that
the plot to The Mummy was designed to parallel current events in Kosovo,
and perhaps have form of influence. Other than the issues you mention, the
one thing that got me was the horseman at the end blessing the 'heroes'. I
imagine this is because he represents the same faith (correct me if I am
wrong) as the people of Kosovo. And The Mummy itself (old and grumpy)
parallels communism, in this case, Serbia, China, and perhaps Russia.
I will admit I liked the movie, and despite having been bought up on
western movies, they have never influenced my opinion of a people. 'Bad
guys' are represented by all manner of race (mainly white when you think
about it, James Bond movies included), and I think that who is the bad guy
depends on the maker of the movie. I am sure that in foreign lands they
portray the white American as the villan. So, I suppose jewish hollywood
bashes their enemy.
I do agree that any attempt by hollywood to influence us is appalling, and
it has shocked me to become aware of this since arriving in the US from
England in 1991. I never really thought about it until arriving here. I
think Star Trek and many of today's TV shows also manipulate us.
'Friends', while not racist portays a lifestyle that is a total lie. 6
good looking people who never use the toilet, and have no money problems
all living together in a lovely apartment spending their whole time having
fund and talking, without spending much time at work. I wonder how many
people go into shock when they leave school and discover that life is not
like that at all in the US.
I could go on.
Alex
In article <7hgl5t$ges$1...@faile.nidlink.com>, "Independent History &
Research" <hof...@hoffman-info.com> wrote:
> --Michael A. Hoffman II. Copyright=A91999 Independent History and
> Research
>
> Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the
> Associated Press and the author of four books. He edits
> "Revisionist History" newsletter.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> THE HOFFMAN WIRE depends for its continuation upon donations from
> its readers.
> ***********************************
> Independent History & Research
> Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816
> http://www.hoffman-info.com
> Send $12 for Hoffman's book "They Were White and They Were
> Slaves" (Overseas send US$15)
--
Telephone VOICE messaging for ICQ users...
John Harkness
Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > mpspi...@aol.comnospam (MPSpillers) writes:
>
> > I'm not as knee-deep into the rhetoric as you are, but I will
admit that the
> > derogatory references to the "fat, smelly" Egyptian character
really surprised
> > me for this day and age. I had a feeling we'd hear about it
sooner or later...
>
> >>>>
>
> As long as the U.S. can slam Tomahawk missiles into downtown Wherever,
> >they< will be catagorized as "fat, smelly" - William Jefferson
Clinton has
> managed to make America into the world's biggest bully.
>
Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
exactly fair fights, were they?
John Harkness
--
Visit my movie review archive at
http://www.angelfire.com/on/Alberich/index.html
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
ELurio
the plot to The Mummy was designed to parallel current events in Kosovo,
and perhaps have form of influence. >>
Please note the date of this "scoop" from the 'Coming attractions" website:
December 29, 1997... Brendan Fraser will play an American in the French Foreign
Legion who faces off against the Mummy. Looks like the project is warming up
after nearly five years of its own death-like slumber, with Stephen
set to direct after his next foray into horror (this time in water) surfaces
early next year (Deep Rising). [Scoops sent swaddled in ancient cloth by
'sexyboy 4', Louis, and anonymously.]
How could a film that was already passed the script stage a year and a half
before the war in Kosovo even started be designed to parallel current events
in Kosovo,and perhaps have form of influence? Is Sommers a prophet?
eric l.
ELurio
Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
You mean the people of Granada supported the Cuban army's killing of the Prime
Minister and the shooting of innocent people in the streets in 1983?
Why should it be fair?
eric l.
Helen & Bob
John Harkness wrote:
> In article <2RW_2.82425$A6.40...@news1.teleport.com>,
> Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > > mpspi...@aol.comnospam (MPSpillers) writes:
> >
> > > I'm not as knee-deep into the rhetoric as you are, but I will
> admit that the
> > > derogatory references to the "fat, smelly" Egyptian character
> really surprised
> > > me for this day and age. I had a feeling we'd hear about it
> sooner or later...
> >
> > >>>>
> >
> > As long as the U.S. can slam Tomahawk missiles into downtown Wherever,
> > >they< will be catagorized as "fat, smelly" - William Jefferson
> Clinton has
> > managed to make America into the world's biggest bully.
> >
> Well, as much as I hate getting into threads like this, don't blame
> Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
> exactly fair fights, were they?
>
> John Harkness
>
Different reasons, or at least, different reasons given by the
administration. Insofar as "fair fight" is concerned, in WARFARE, "fair"
fights usually cause millions of deaths. Are you sure you want
"fair"fights?
Bob
Louis
> John Harkness wrote:
> > In article <2RW_2.82425$A6.40...@news1.teleport.com>,
> > Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > > > mpspi...@aol.comnospam (MPSpillers) writes:
> > > > I'm not as knee-deep into the rhetoric as you are, but I will
> > admit that the
> > > > derogatory references to the "fat, smelly" Egyptian character
> > really surprised
> > > > me for this day and age. I had a feeling we'd hear about it
> > sooner or later...
> > > As long as the U.S. can slam Tomahawk missiles into downtown Wherever,
> > > >they< will be catagorized as "fat, smelly" - William Jefferson
> > Clinton has
> > > managed to make America into the world's biggest bully.
> > Well, as much as I hate getting into threads like this, don't blame
> > Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
> > exactly fair fights, were they?
> Different reasons, or at least, different reasons given by the
> administration. Insofar as "fair fight" is concerned, in WARFARE, "fair"
> fights usually cause millions of deaths. Are you sure you want
> "fair"fights?
>>>>
All the same. Reagan/Clinton. They're merely representatives of the Industrial-
Military-Complex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis
> << Well, as much as I hate getting into threads like this, don't blame
> Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
> exactly fair fights, were they?-John Harkness >>
> You mean the people of Granada supported the Cuban army's killing of the Prime
> Minister and the shooting of innocent people in the streets in 1983?
> Why should it be fair?
>>>>
Ain't it just grand, fascist assholes can always find justification for Amerika
The Supreme to meddle in the affairs of smaller countries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DrZaius166
>derogatory references to the "fat, smelly" Egyptian character really
>surprised
>me for this day and age. I had a feeling we'd hear about it sooner or
>later...
>
*Nobody* is as deep into this rhetoric as Hoffman. At least, nobody who
doesn't make a habit of wearing bedsheets and burning crosses. The guy's an
anti-semitic bigot who likes to try to disguise his prejudice under the flag of
"revisionist history."
This guy has, in the past, tried to explain that "Schindler's List" is a
terrible movie because it's based the lie that Jews were subject to
state-sponsored murder in Nazi Germany.
I would bet that the only reason he objects to the percieved racism in "The
Mummy" is because his hatred of Jews overrides his hatred of non-whites.
Everywhere he looks, he sees evidence of a massive Zionist conspiracy to rule
the world. If you don't believe me, take a look at the collection of paranoid
ramblings on his website.
-Gordon Stokes
Other notable Gordons include: Flash Gordon, Commisioner Gordon, Gordon Jump,
Gordon Lightfoot, Gordon "Gordie" Howe, G. Gordon Liddy, Artemus Gordon, Gale
Gordon, General "Chinese" Gordon and "Gordon" by Barenaked Ladies.
Wretch
> > Different reasons, or at least, different reasons given by the
> > administration. Insofar as "fair fight" is concerned, in WARFARE, "fair"
> > fights usually cause millions of deaths. Are you sure you want
> > "fair"fights?
>
> >>>>
>
> All the same. Reagan/Clinton. They're merely representatives of the Industrial-
> Military-Complex.
And you are the prototype symbolic icon for absurdly unknowing
generalized blankets.
AC
Independent History & Research
below, is itself a lie and a fabrication, probably intended to
derail any exposé of anti-Arab racism in Hollywood. I have never
contested the fact that Jewish people were, in certain
circumstances, murdered by the Third Reich.
My revisionism is based on a criticism of wild and unconscionable
exaggeration of the facts for political and monetary gain.
--Michael A. Hoffman II
***********************************
Independent History & Research
Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816
http://www.hoffman-info.com
----------
In article <19990514191535...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
FONE427
In article <19990514161617...@ng-cl1.aol.com>, elu...@aol.com
(ELurio) wrote:
> << I posted a shorter review/commentary that observe that
> the plot to The Mummy was designed to parallel current events in Kosovo,
> and perhaps have form of influence. >>
>
> Please note the date of this "scoop" from the 'Coming attractions" website:
> December 29, 1997... Brendan Fraser will play an American in the French
Foreign
> Legion who faces off against the Mummy. Looks like the project is warming up
> after nearly five years of its own death-like slumber, with Stephen
> set to direct after his next foray into horror (this time in water) surfaces
> early next year (Deep Rising). [Scoops sent swaddled in ancient cloth by
> 'sexyboy 4', Louis, and anonymously.]
>
> How could a film that was already passed the script stage a year and a half
> before the war in Kosovo even started be designed to parallel current events
> in Kosovo,and perhaps have form of influence? Is Sommers a prophet?
The war was planned a long time ago. This was accidentally admited by
Defence Secretary William Cohen last week when he was answering questions
during an interview somewhere.
Alex
Dark`Shard
"Independent History & Research" <hof...@hoffman-info.com> wrote:
Get over yourself. Listen hypocrite, you are quite obviously as
anti-semitic as the Mummy is anti-arab (if it is at all. After all, the
movie takes place in Egypt. Would it make any sence to have Egypt
populated by white people? The story is about an Englishman going to
Egypt. Obviously the Englishman will be white and the Arabs will be
Arabs [Maybe we should say the movie is sterotyping the English. After
all not all English people are white]). If your so worried about hate,
take a look at yourself. --DS
DrZaius166
>below, is itself a lie and a fabrication, probably intended to
Mr. Hoffman, if I truly believed that your goal was to expose anti-Arab racism
in Hollywood, I would applaud you and ask what I could do to help.
However, having read your website, being a person smart enough to read between
the lines and recognize prejudice when I see it, I feel that that is not your
goal.
I have read your words, Mr. Hoffman.
I have read the passage in which you describe Abraham Lincoln as, "a champion
killer of white men." Are those not the words of a racist?
I have read your quibbling with the definition of the word, "holocaust," and
why it does not apply to the state-sponsored murder of the Jewish people in
Germany and its conquered territories, and yet you apply the word to numerous
other situations where it is no more correct.
I have read your explanations and justifications for just why the Third Reich
had crematoriums and large supplies of Zyklon-B at their concentration camps.
A rough paraphrase: "They were saving lives, the gas was to kill lice."
Everything you write drips with anti-semitism. Your hatred of the Jews for
their simple acts of existing and practicing their religion shines through.
You make baseless accusations; in your paranoia, you assume that my assertion
about what you said is "a lie and a fabrication." My words may not have been
exact, but they were not far from correct, either. No, you do not deny that
"Jewish people were, in certain circumstances, murdered by the Third Reich."
Answer this: Do you deny that six million people were murdered by the Third
Reich, simply because of who they were?
John Harkness
Helen & Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> John Harkness wrote:
>
> > In article <2RW_2.82425$A6.40...@news1.teleport.com>,
> > Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > > > mpspi...@aol.comnospam (MPSpillers) writes:
> > >
> > admit that the
> > > > derogatory references to the "fat, smelly" Egyptian character
> > really surprised
> > > > me for this day and age. I had a feeling we'd hear about it
> > sooner or later...
> > >
> > > >>>>
> > >
Wherever,
> > > >they< will be catagorized as "fat, smelly" - William Jefferson
> > Clinton has
> > > managed to make America into the world's biggest bully.
> > >
> > Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
> > exactly fair fights, were they?
> >
> >
>
> Different reasons, or at least, different reasons given by the
> administration. Insofar as "fair fight" is concerned, in WARFARE,
"fair"
> fights usually cause millions of deaths. Are you sure you want
> "fair"fights?
>
>
That wasn't what I was saying -- I was saying that you can hardly talk
about America the bully being a fault of the Clinton administration --
America has been bullying countries since long before Clinton --
Granada, Panama, the Dominican Republic, tried it with Cuba -- it's
virtually a tradition.
John
--
Visit my movie review archive at
http://www.angelfire.com/on/Alberich/index.html
Hot4Hose
(stupid rant deleted in its entirety)
>Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the
>Associated Press and the author of four books. He edits
>"Revisionist History" newsletter.
I take it that we can safely assume that "Revisionist History" is code-bullshit
for "the Holocaust never happened"???
Louis
[snip]
> That wasn't what I was saying -- I was saying that you can hardly talk
> about America the bully being a fault of the Clinton administration --
> America has been bullying countries since long before Clinton --
> Granada, Panama, the Dominican Republic, tried it with Cuba -- it's
> virtually a tradition.
>>>>
Yeah, but we're here NOW, not there then. And Slime Ball Willy is
currently the President. Apologists for the Chief Screw-Up keep
pointing to previous events as though they somehow have anything
to do with NOW. They don't. Face it, Swilly hasn't a clue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TemplerSay
Face it, everyone, this guy is a racist. He thinks deep down inside his
heartless soul, that he can convert everyone over to his bland, yet evil
interpretation of history.
Another thing -
More than just "six million people" died! Why does everyone keep forgetting
that?
There were other victims as well. Catholics, Gypsies, Russians, convicted war
criminals, Italians, handicapped individuals, homosexuals,
etc....................
But, unfortunately, as time goes by, only six million seemed to be remembered
as the "only" victims of the Nazi atrocities.
And that is sad...........
MasonBarge
most noble characters in the movie were both Egyptians, the desert leader with
the cool blue face tattoos/decorations, and Evie's boss, the literate and
sophisticated library manager.
- Mason Barge
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee." -- Abraham Lincoln
DrZaius166
>code-bullshit
>for "the Holocaust never happened"???
More or less, though Hoffman is very careful about his words.
He does not deny that "under certain circumstances, Jewish people were murdered
by the Third Reich."
He does, however, quibble with the use of the word "Holocaust," which, strictly
defined, means "death by fire." Ergo, in his warped worldview, the murder of
the Jews by the German government was not a "Holocaust."
He does deny that there was an actual, systematic, attempt at genocide
committed on the Jewish people of Europe by Hitler and his government. He will
tell you that the vast amount of Zyklon-B found at the camps after they were
liberated was used mostly to kill lice, and was therefore a lifesaving measure,
preventing the spread of typhus.
He doesn't bother to mention where 6,000,000 people simply vanished to
according to this view of history.
As I said previously, my guess is that he objects to the percieved racism in
"The Mummy" only because his hatred for Jews is stronger than his hatred for
non-whites.
DrZaius166
>that?
That's true...
>There were other victims as well. Catholics, Gypsies, Russians, convicted war
>criminals, Italians, handicapped individuals, homosexuals,
>etc....................
>
>But, unfortunately, as time goes by, only six million seemed to be remembered
>as the "only" victims of the Nazi atrocities
Well, Mr. Hoffman would undoubtedly tell you that it is because of the massive
Zionist conspiracy to rule the world, and Simon Wiesenthal and Steven Spielberg
have used their vast power to suppress all other figures in order to make it
appear that only the Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I donno...the murder of the Jews is
certainly the most publicized of the Nazi atrocities, and they made up the
majority of the victims. That is what people will tend to remember.
But you are correct, it is important to remember that the Nazis were
equal-opportunity haters. They didn't just reserve it for one group, they
hated *everyone* who didn't fit their ideal.
Scott Zolnoski
>Yeah, but we're here NOW, not there then. And Slime Ball Willy is
>currently the President. Apologists for the Chief Screw-Up keep
>pointing to previous events as though they somehow have anything
>to do with NOW. They don't. Face it, Swilly hasn't a clue.
And fanatical Clinton-haters like to pretend that he's doing outrageous
things when in fact he's simply repeating the same mistakes Reagan and Bush
made. That doesn't make Clinton any better of a President, but it does make
the knee-jerk hatred of Clinton by the very same people who deify Reagan a
bit difficult to understand...
Charles Hill
> --Michael A. Hoffman II. Copyright©1999 Independent History and
> Research
>
> Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the
> Associated Press and the author of four books. He edits
> "Revisionist History" newsletter.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> THE HOFFMAN WIRE depends for its continuation upon donations from
> its readers.
> ***********************************
> Independent History & Research
> Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816
> http://www.hoffman-info.com
Louis
>>>>
And Klinton-Kultists just can't stop apologizing for their leader by, once again,
pointing to past screw-ups. Pathetic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trent
>
> >From: "Independent History & Research" <hof...@hoffman-info.com>
>
> (stupid rant deleted in its entirety)
>
> >Associated Press and the author of four books. He edits
> >"Revisionist History" newsletter.
>
> for "the Holocaust never happened"???
Hoffman's a dick. He did the same schtick when Saving Private Ryan came
out.
----> Trent
Puzz
Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > John Harkness <john_h...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > That wasn't what I was saying -- I was saying that you can hardly talk
> > about America the bully being a fault of the Clinton administration --
> > America has been bullying countries since long before Clinton --
> > Granada, Panama, the Dominican Republic, tried it with Cuba -- it's
> > virtually a tradition.
>
> >>>>
>
> Yeah, but we're here NOW, not there then. And Slime Ball Willy is
> currently the President. Apologists for the Chief Screw-Up keep
> pointing to previous events as though they somehow have anything
> to do with NOW. They don't. Face it, Swilly hasn't a clue.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They only bring up those points because people like yourself seem to think 'Slime Ball Willy'
invented this crap. Here's a news flash: He didn't. This kind of shit from the presidency was
been happening since this country was created.
Puzz
Helen & Bob
Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > elu...@aol.com (ELurio) writes:
>
> > << Well, as much as I hate getting into threads like this, don't blame
> > Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
> > exactly fair fights, were they?-John Harkness >>
>
> > You mean the people of Granada supported the Cuban army's killing of the Prime
> > Minister and the shooting of innocent people in the streets in 1983?
>
> > Why should it be fair?
>
> >>>>
>
> Ain't it just grand, fascist assholes can always find justification for Amerika
> The Supreme to meddle in the affairs of smaller countries.
And Idiots can always find some way to damn America, and do. If you live in America, you have the right to
leave. Many places, you do not. You have the right to criticize, without fear of a Secret Police taking you
in the night. Many places, you do not. But the "cute" k in your spelling of America shows what you are, and
the propaganda you have swallowed.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > Helen & Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > John Harkness wrote:
> > > In article <2RW_2.82425$A6.40...@news1.teleport.com>,
> > > Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > > > > mpspi...@aol.comnospam (MPSpillers) writes:
>
> > > > > I'm not as knee-deep into the rhetoric as you are, but I will
> > > admit that the
> > > > > derogatory references to the "fat, smelly" Egyptian character
> > > really surprised
> > > > > me for this day and age. I had a feeling we'd hear about it
> > > sooner or later...
>
> > > > As long as the U.S. can slam Tomahawk missiles into downtown Wherever,
> > > > >they< will be catagorized as "fat, smelly" - William Jefferson
> > > Clinton has
> > > > managed to make America into the world's biggest bully.
>
> > > Well, as much as I hate getting into threads like this, don't blame
> > > Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
> > > exactly fair fights, were they?
>
> > Different reasons, or at least, different reasons given by the
> > administration. Insofar as "fair fight" is concerned, in WARFARE, "fair"
> > fights usually cause millions of deaths. Are you sure you want
> > "fair"fights?
>
> >>>>
>
> All the same. Reagan/Clinton. They're merely representatives of the Industrial-
> Military-Complex.
>
Nice non-sequeter. Did you want to respond to the "fair fight" statement?
Helen & Bob
John Harkness wrote:
> In article <373C8E36...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Helen & Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > John Harkness wrote:
> >
> > > In article <2RW_2.82425$A6.40...@news1.teleport.com>,
> > > Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > > > > mpspi...@aol.comnospam (MPSpillers) writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not as knee-deep into the rhetoric as you are, but I will
> > > admit that the
> > > > > derogatory references to the "fat, smelly" Egyptian character
> > > really surprised
> > > > > me for this day and age. I had a feeling we'd hear about it
> > > sooner or later...
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > As long as the U.S. can slam Tomahawk missiles into downtown
> Wherever,
> > > > >they< will be catagorized as "fat, smelly" - William Jefferson
> > > Clinton has
> > > > managed to make America into the world's biggest bully.
> > > >
> > > Well, as much as I hate getting into threads like this, don't blame
> > > Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
> > > exactly fair fights, were they?
> > >
> > > John Harkness
> > >
> >
> > Different reasons, or at least, different reasons given by the
> > administration. Insofar as "fair fight" is concerned, in WARFARE,
> "fair"
> > fights usually cause millions of deaths. Are you sure you want
> > "fair"fights?
> > Bob
> >
> >
> That wasn't what I was saying -- I was saying that you can hardly talk
> about America the bully being a fault of the Clinton administration --
> America has been bullying countries since long before Clinton --
> Granada, Panama, the Dominican Republic, tried it with Cuba -- it's
> virtually a tradition.
>
> John
Well, then John, given the situations involved, what you have done?
Nothing? Obviously, we have found that "peaceful" solutions (embargoes,
etc), generally have no effect, nor deter "rogue" nations in their
actions. Let us hear YOUR solutions to the problems of the world. What,
there is a dictator in the Western Hemisphere killing innocent people? Let
show HIM. We'll wring our hands and say how terrible it is..and let the
murders continue. Is that your solution? I hear a lot of bullpucky about
what is so wrong about what America does. I hear no EFFECTIVE suggestions
for alternative solutions.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Scott Zolnoski wrote:
> >
> >Yeah, but we're here NOW, not there then. And Slime Ball Willy is
> >currently the President. Apologists for the Chief Screw-Up keep
> >pointing to previous events as though they somehow have anything
> >to do with NOW. They don't. Face it, Swilly hasn't a clue.
>
> And fanatical Clinton-haters like to pretend that he's doing outrageous
> things when in fact he's simply repeating the same mistakes Reagan and Bush
> made. That doesn't make Clinton any better of a President, but it does make
> the knee-jerk hatred of Clinton by the very same people who deify Reagan a
> bit difficult to understand...
And visa versa. I do not like clinton as a president or a person. That is the
exact reversal of my opinions in 93. IMHO, clinton does not have an honest bone
in his body, and neither did Nixon. To quote Mr. John L. Lewis, " A plague on
both their houses.
Bob
Louis
> Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > > John Harkness <john_h...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
> > > That wasn't what I was saying -- I was saying that you can hardly talk
> > > about America the bully being a fault of the Clinton administration --
> > > America has been bullying countries since long before Clinton --
> > > Granada, Panama, the Dominican Republic, tried it with Cuba -- it's
> > > virtually a tradition.
> > Yeah, but we're here NOW, not there then. And Slime Ball Willy is
> > currently the President. Apologists for the Chief Screw-Up keep
> > pointing to previous events as though they somehow have anything
> > to do with NOW. They don't. Face it, Swilly hasn't a clue.
> They only bring up those points because people like yourself seem to think 'Slime Ball
> Willy' invented this crap. Here's a news flash: He didn't. This kind of shit from the
> presidency was been happening since this country was created.
>>>>
And who said:
"We have the highest ethical standards in this White House, you can be assured
of that."
AL GORE - 1995 Dipshit - Isn't it a bitch that people have memories?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis
> > > << Well, as much as I hate getting into threads like this, don't blame
> > > Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
> > > exactly fair fights, were they?-John Harkness >>
> > > You mean the people of Granada supported the Cuban army's killing of the Prime
> > > Minister and the shooting of innocent people in the streets in 1983?
> > > Why should it be fair?
> > Ain't it just grand, fascist assholes can always find justification for Amerika
> > The Supreme to meddle in the affairs of smaller countries.
> And Idiots can always find some way to damn America, and do. If you live in America,
you have the right to
> leave. Many places, you do not. You have the right to criticize, without fear of a Secret
Police taking you
> in the night. Many places, you do not. But the "cute" k in your spelling of America shows
what you are, and
> the propaganda you have swallowed.
>>>>
Kiss my ass. When I spell "Amerika" I mean the Industrial-Military-Complex Amerika.
When I spell it America I mean the country Washington/Jefferson/Adams/Monroe had
in mind. Got that?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viriatha
> what is so wrong about what America does. I hear no EFFECTIVE suggestions
> for alternative solutions.
> Bob
leave them alone and let them solve their own problems like the adults
their supposed to be instead of trying to be everybody's parent. I
diidn't murder the guy down the street, let the police (or the un)
handle it, anything else is vigilantism - even on a nationwide scale.
Helen & Bob
Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > Helen & Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > > > elu...@aol.com (ELurio) writes:
>
> > > > << Well, as much as I hate getting into threads like this, don't blame
> > > > Clinton. I mean, the Reagan-Bush wars on Panama and Granada weren't
> > > > exactly fair fights, were they?-John Harkness >>
>
> > > > You mean the people of Granada supported the Cuban army's killing of the Prime
> > > > Minister and the shooting of innocent people in the streets in 1983?
>
> > > > Why should it be fair?
>
> > > Ain't it just grand, fascist assholes can always find justification for Amerika
> > > The Supreme to meddle in the affairs of smaller countries.
>
> > And Idiots can always find some way to damn America, and do. If you live in America,
> you have the right to
> > leave. Many places, you do not. You have the right to criticize, without fear of a Secret
> Police taking you
> > in the night. Many places, you do not. But the "cute" k in your spelling of America shows
> what you are, and
> > the propaganda you have swallowed.
>
> >>>>
>
> Kiss my ass.
Take off your hat, I don't like to work in the shade.
> When I spell "Amerika" I mean the Industrial-Military-Complex Amerika.
OH? And you assign a difference. Very interesting.
> When I spell it America I mean the country Washington/Jefferson/Adams/Monroe had
> in mind. Got that?
And I am sure you have complete knowledge of what they had in mind. Tell me, are you sure that those four (for whom I
have the greatest respect) all agreed on all areas?
Now, if you would like to continue this discussion without vituperation, I will do so gladly. If you want to be a name
calling spoiled child, adios.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Viriatha wrote:
Therefore, we should have let the "etchnic cleansing " go on in Yugoslavia go
on, just crying and saying how horrible it is. And who ARE the international
police we would send in to stop it?
But you're OK when mass murder takes place, because YOU didn't do it.
Bob
Louis
[who knows how to use the Delete key]
> > When I spell "Amerika" I mean the Industrial-Military-Complex Amerika.
> OH? And you assign a difference. Very interesting.
> > When I spell it America I mean the country Washington/Jefferson/Adams/Monroe had
> > in mind. Got that?
> And I am sure you have complete knowledge of what they had in mind. Tell me, are you
> sure that those four (for whom I have the greatest respect) all agreed on all areas?
>>>>
Read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
They agreed on those.
Of course they're trite, out of date documents...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mann
Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote in message
<3Tt%2.84399$A6.41...@news1.teleport.com>...
>
>Kiss my ass. When I spell "Amerika" I mean the Industrial-Military-Complex
Amerika.
>When I spell it America I mean the country
Washington/Jefferson/Adams/Monroe had
>in mind. Got that?
Minor nit-pick: do you mean Madison (not Monroe)? Madison was far more
important than Monroe to our founding (and frankly I think he may have been
more important that Jefferson -- Madison had all of Jefferson's ideals but
also had a pragmatic side that made him a better legislator and President).
***************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Where would conversation be, if we were not allowed to exchange
our minds freely and to abuse our neighbours from time to time?
-- Dr. Stephen Maturin
Jim Mann
Viriatha wrote in message <373EB3FD...@tir.com>...
>bullpucky about
>> what is so wrong about what America does. I hear no EFFECTIVE
suggestions
>> for alternative solutions.
>> Bob
>
>leave them alone and let them solve their own problems like the adults
>their supposed to be instead of trying to be everybody's parent. I
>diidn't murder the guy down the street, let the police (or the un)
>handle it, anything else is vigilantism - even on a nationwide scale.
Over the years, we've heard many people complain about how people in some
big cities look the other way when crimes occur. People made a big deal
years ago about New Yorkers ignoring muggers and rapists, and their not
wanting to get involved. We pointed to this as an example of a decline in
the cities. Yet many advocate doing the same on the international scale.
"What, those guys with the army over their are murdering thousdands of
people? Not our problem, let's just ignore them."
Helen & Bob
Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > Helen & Bob <chil...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
>
> [who knows how to use the Delete key]
>
> > > When I spell "Amerika" I mean the Industrial-Military-Complex Amerika.
>
> > OH? And you assign a difference. Very interesting.
>
> > > When I spell it America I mean the country Washington/Jefferson/Adams/Monroe had
> > > in mind. Got that?
>
> > And I am sure you have complete knowledge of what they had in mind. Tell me, are you
> > sure that those four (for whom I have the greatest respect) all agreed on all areas?
>
> >>>>
>
> Read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
>
> They agreed on those.
>
> Of course they're trite, out of date documents...
>
>
And I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America (no K). I still abide by my oath, although
no longer in the military. Now, if you want to continue the discussion without vituperation, lets go for it.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Viriatha wrote:
> bullpucky about
> > what is so wrong about what America does. I hear no EFFECTIVE suggestions
> > for alternative solutions.
> > Bob
>
> leave them alone and let them solve their own problems like the adults
> their supposed to be instead of trying to be everybody's parent. I
> diidn't murder the guy down the street, let the police (or the un)
> handle it, anything else is vigilantism - even on a nationwide scale.
How many Divisions of Soldiers does the UN have (not counting, of course, the
NATIONAL soldiers of The USA, Britain, etc?
Bob
Louis
[snip]
> Over the years, we've heard many people complain about how people in some
> big cities look the other way when crimes occur. People made a big deal
> years ago about New Yorkers ignoring muggers and rapists, and their not
> wanting to get involved. We pointed to this as an example of a decline in
> the cities. Yet many advocate doing the same on the international scale.
> "What, those guys with the army over their are murdering thousdands of
> people? Not our problem, let's just ignore them."
>>>>
And look what a wonderful job NATO is doing, killing people left and right, all
for "Good Cause". If the New York City police used the same "tactics" they'd
blow up whole apartment complexes because one murderer or rapist happened
to rent one room...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagen Sulewski
>> "Jim Mann" <jm...@transarc.com> writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Over the years, we've heard many people complain about how people in some
>> big cities look the other way when crimes occur. People made a big deal
>> years ago about New Yorkers ignoring muggers and rapists, and their not
>> wanting to get involved. We pointed to this as an example of a decline in
>> the cities. Yet many advocate doing the same on the international scale.
>> "What, those guys with the army over their are murdering thousdands of
>> people? Not our problem, let's just ignore them."
>
>>>>>
>
>And look what a wonderful job NATO is doing, killing people left and right, all
>for "Good Cause". If the New York City police used the same "tactics" they'd
>blow up whole apartment complexes because one murderer or rapist happened
>to rent one room...
It's a war. Casualties will happen. I don't know why people have
expected this to be totally bloodless.
Helen & Bob
Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > "Jim Mann" <jm...@transarc.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Over the years, we've heard many people complain about how people in some
> > big cities look the other way when crimes occur. People made a big deal
> > years ago about New Yorkers ignoring muggers and rapists, and their not
> > wanting to get involved. We pointed to this as an example of a decline in
> > the cities. Yet many advocate doing the same on the international scale.
> > "What, those guys with the army over their are murdering thousdands of
> > people? Not our problem, let's just ignore them."
>
> >>>>
>
> And look what a wonderful job NATO is doing, killing people left and right, all
> for "Good Cause". If the New York City police used the same "tactics" they'd
> blow up whole apartment complexes because one murderer or rapist happened
> to rent one room...
>
Again, its sooooo easy to sit back and complain. Its a damn sight harder to come up with something constructive.
All I've heard from you is "they're doing it all wrong". OK, whats right? Sit there and let murder go on? You
sound like those people in NY who let a woman get murdered on the street while screaming. They did nothing because
"they didn't want to get involved" Translation - they resigned from their humanity. OK, lets hear your suggestions,
and we can evaluate them.
Bob
Viriatha
I don't expect it to be bloodless - I expect us to exhaust other
alternatives before war, and I'm not sure we've done that in this case?
Regards, Lady V
> >> Over the years, we've heard many people complain about how people in some
> >> big cities look the other way when crimes occur. People made a big deal
> >> years ago about New Yorkers ignoring muggers and rapists, and their not
> >> wanting to get involved. We pointed to this as an example of a decline in
> >> the cities. Yet many advocate doing the same on the international scale.
> >blow up whole apartment complexes because one murderer or rapist happened
> >to rent one room...
>
Viriatha
> >leave them alone and let them solve their own problems like the adults
> >their supposed to be instead of trying to be everybody's parent. I
> >diidn't murder the guy down the street, let the police (or the un)
> >handle it, anything else is vigilantism - even on a nationwide scale.
>
> Over the years, we've heard many people complain about how people in some
> big cities look the other way when crimes occur. People made a big deal
> years ago about New Yorkers ignoring muggers and rapists, and their not
> wanting to get involved. We pointed to this as an example of a decline in
> the cities. Yet many advocate doing the same on the international scale.
> "What, those guys with the army over their are murdering thousdands of
> people? Not our problem, let's just ignore them."
To some extent yes. 1) I wasn't one of those people complaining about
New York. 2) I lived in a violent area just a year ago, I lived there
for 8 years. If I got involved when I wasn't trained I could've been
killed.
Also, please note, I never said the police - or on the national scale
the UN - shouldn't get involved, only that individuals doing so is
vigilantism. And it is, whether such is right or wrong is for the
individual to decide. Apparently, the US has decided it's right. Ok. I
can deal with that. Right until I see how little good all these little
wars has actually done. As a country, we have had less effect than we
would have liked, perhaps we need a different strategy? Perhaps we can
do more embargoes? It may have taken alot of time, but it worked in
South Africa and we didn't even need to send troops, only exercise
patience.
Please also keep in mind, this was in response to a person asking about
alternatives. There's the alternative, can we implement it or not? Can
it be effective? We may decide that it won't be what we want to do, but
we should think about it first before assuming military action is our
best course of action.
Regards,
Lady V
Helen & Bob
Viriatha wrote:
>
>
> Please also keep in mind, this was in response to a person asking about
> alternatives. There's the alternative, can we implement it or not? Can
> it be effective? We may decide that it won't be what we want to do, but
> we should think about it first before assuming military action is our
> best course of action.
>
> Regards,
> Lady V
Why do you assume that TPTB did not consider other actions. Do you really
think it was a knee jerk reaction to start bombing? I really do not like the
current administration, But I will not accuse them of that. I do think there
was a lot of careful thought about it, especially among the JCS. Insofar as
clintons thoughts, I do not know. It seems to me he is repeating the error of
Viet Nam, which is, if you are going to war, GO TO WAR. Half hearted attempts
do not get it.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Reagen Sulewski wrote:
>
>
> Me, I wonder where the hell we (By we, I mean NATO, I'm Canadian, not
> American) were in Rwanda/Burundi.
Wrong continent for NATO. Where the hell was the UN?
Next point. IF we were wrong in NOT going into Rwanda/Burundi, and we are wrong
in Kosovo, when in the hell can we be right?
Bob
Puzz
Viriatha wrote:
> Puzz wrote:
>
> > I think that was done. This guy, Milly, was given every opportunity to end this,
> > but he didn't. I recall Clinton making demands and Milly saying (basically), kiss
> > my ass. I guess they could take so much of his pissing in their faces.
> >
> > Puzz
>
> Hmmm, isn't it *thier* country?
>
> Regards,
> Lady V
Yes. But are we to stand by and let him slaughter people just because it's 'thier'
country?
Puzz
Mark.J.Desocio
On Sun, 16 May 1999, Helen & Bob wrote:
> Therefore, we should have let the "etchnic cleansing " go on in
> Yugoslavia go on, just crying and saying how horrible it is. And who
> ARE the international police we would send in to stop it?
>
> But you're OK when mass murder takes place, because YOU didn't do it.
> Bob
We know what you think of (the) war(s), Bob. We know what CNN and Prez
Clinton and ABC and NBC (owned by GE - one of the world's largest military
contractors; has a direct interest in the bombing as a supplier of engines
for NATO jet fighters) and the Wash Post and the NY Times think of it as
well. (Basically, higher ratings). Thought you might like to read what
many scholars, intellectuals, poets, novelists, etc. have to say about it
- which you WON'T find in your morning edition of the newspaper.
And while I realize that we live in about the most anti-intellectual
country the world has ever seen, where poets have no voice and scholars
have no medium for their views to reach the mainstream (especially if
they're unpopular or demonstrate critical thinking), and where being
"ordinary," conforming and mediocre is a virtue rather than a vice, I
still thought (although God knows why) you might be interested...
(Go ahead, accuse me again of having no ideas of my own! Ha ha...)
* * *
ROBERT GREENBERG, author and professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures
at the University of North Carolina: "Milosevic is looking for an exit
strategy, with the cease-fire proposal and the possibility of the U.S.
soldiers being released. We just don't seem to want to deal with him. I
don't see the benefit of continuing to risk killing Yugoslav civilians and
to risk losing any of our pilots. We should have some sort of resumption
of negotiations; it's an opportunity to cooperate with the Russians in
finding a way out... Rambouillet was a take-it-or-be-bombed deal. That is
not giving diplomacy a fair chance to succeed."
GEORGE KONRAD, Hungarian prize-winning novelist and essayist: "The West's
actions in Yugoslavia reflect not merely the arrogance of power but a
fundamental misunderstanding of the Balkans."
ROBERT HAYDEN, Director of the Center for Russian and East European
Studies at the University of Pittsburgh: "This mission, supposedly
designed to prevent a massive humanitarian catastrophe, has instead
produced it. We have now shown that NATO is 'credible' for doing something
incredibly irresponsible. Apparently 'winning it' means destroying the
Balkans to save NATO for its upcoming 50th birthday...Having provoked the
catastrophe with bombing, NATO's 'remedy' is more bombing."
MICHAEL MOORE, documentary filmmaker: "Dear friends, as we file our taxes
today (procrastinators, all of us), and we sign our names on the bottom
line of our 1040 tax forms, perhaps we should ask ourselves if what we are
doing is signing a death warrant for people we don't even know. Because
each night, for the past three weeks, millions of dollars of bombs and
missiles -- that you and I paid for -- are being used to kill people in
the former Yugoslavia. That makes you and I culpable in their execution."
[http://www.commondreams.org/kosovo/views/mmoore.htm]
VERAN MATIC, Yugoslavian political dissident and pro-democracy activist:
"The air strikes against Yugoslavia were supposed to stop the Milosevic
war machine. The ultimate goal is ostensibly to support the people of
Kosovo, as well as those of Serbia, who are equally victims of the
Milosevic regime. In fact the bombing has jeopardised the lives of 10.5
million people and unleashed an attack on the fledgling forces of
democracy in Kosovo and Serbia. It has undermined the work of reformists
in Montenegro and the Serbian entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina and their
efforts to promote peace... NATO is fulfilling the prophecy of its own
doomsaying: each missile that hits the ground exacerbates the humanitarian
disaster that NATO is supposed to be preventing."
DMITRI GLINSKI VASSILIEV, author and research associate at George
Washington University: "The American-led operation against Yugoslavia is
an egregious violation of international law. The Clinton administration
and its allies have arrogated the authority of the virtually defunct
United Nations. The aggravation of the humanitarian disaster as a result
of the bombing undermines the claims that Cold War institutions could be
converted to humanitarian purposes."
MICHAEL KLARE, author, professor at Hampshire College in Massachusetts:
"The U.S. has essentially replaced the UN Security Council, and that's
disastrous."
ROBERT WEIL, author: "There is apparently real outrage in China, as there
is in Russia, about the bombing of Yugoslavia. They've been concerned
about what they see as U.S. bullying -- a throwback to the 'great power'
of the past, which the Chinese have a long history with. Broadly, the
Chinese resent the drift of U.S. policy with Albright's 'we're the
indispensable nation' view of the U.S. using force to pursue its global
interests. Specifically, they're concerned about the U.S. intervening in a
sovereign state while citing humanitarian reasons."
EDWARD SAID, U.S. historian, professor at Columbia University: "What I
find most distressing is that destruction is being wrought from the air
with a fastidiousness about loss of American life that is positively
revolting. Clinton knows that Americans will not tolerate Americans dying.
Yet he can destroy Yugoslav lives with modern airpower technology,
sanitising horror with the illusion of safety and distance. When will
smaller, lesser, weaker people realise America is to be resisted at all
costs, not naively pandered to?"
HAROLD PINTER, English playwright and poet, a candidate for the Nobel
Prize in Literature in 1998: "Nato's action is ill thought out, ill
considered, misjudged, miscalculated, disastrous. It is also totally
illegal and probably represents the last nail in the coffin of the UN. The
justification for the action - 'humanitarian considerations' - is clearly
a very bad joke. It also demonstrates a profound hypocrisy on the part of
the US and UK. Sanctions on Iraq - led by those countries - have killed
nearly one million Iraqi children. That's genocide for you - in no
uncertain terms... The US is now a highly dangerous force, totally out of
control." MORE:
http://www.zoran.net/afp/text/telegraph/we_are_bandits_guilty_of_murder.htm
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3851195,00.html
JULIANNE SMITH, senior analyst at the European Security desk at BASIC
(British American Security Information Council): "Bombing is not a
preventive tool, it is a consequence of not having any preventive tools.
It's clear that the NATO bombings are not saving lives, instead they are
contributing to the escalation of the conflict."
STEPHEN R. SHALOM, author and professor of political science at William
Paterson University: "Humanitarianism has never been the driving force in
U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. denied access to Jews trying to flee
Hitler's Europe and refused to bomb the rail links to Auschwitz. In Rwanda
in 1994, Washington pressured the UN to withdraw a peacekeeping force that
could have averted that genocide." Shalom added that we need to have
"skepticism toward intervention by the United States, which has tolerated
and even supported ethnic massacres when carried out by its allies: for
example, Turkey against the Kurds, Israel against the Palestinians, and
Indonesia against the Timorese."
NORMAN STONE, U.K. historian: "Do you want Slovakian peacekeepers in
Northern Ireland, backed by threats of car park bombings in Letchworth?
That is the logical outcome of this nonsense."
JACQUELINE CABASSO, executive director of the Western States Legal
Foundation: "The situation in Kosovo is ominous with respect to prospects
for nuclear disarmament. The U.S.-led NATO bombing is opposed by Russia,
China, India and Indonesia; three are nuclear powers, making up almost
half the world's population. There are reports that India is considering a
possible alliance with China and Russia in response. Russia has terminated
its Y2K compliance program with the U.S., and Ukraine is reportedly
contemplating reversal of its non-nuclear status...We seem to be heading
straight backwards into the Cold War."
GERMAINE GREER, Australian/British essayist, philosopher, university
lecturer: "Milosevic is a warlord. He doesn't care how many people get
killed and it seems to me extraordinary that NATO thinks that if we throw
enough bombs at this man he will stop. In view of his aims this is a
godsend. I just find it unbelievably stupid that we could have fallen for
it."
NAT HENTOFF, U.S. jazz music critic, essayist, author: "It wasn't only the
students who protested [the Vietnam War], of course. Across the spectrum
of race, age, class, gender, and sexual preference, huge numbers of people
awakened to the necessity of resistance to illegitimate authority. But
where are the survivors of those movements now especially those on the
Left, who provided much of the anger and energy for a historic
confrontation with a murderous American government?"
KANI XULAM, Director of the American Kurdish Information Network: "Clinton
says he deplores the Serbian government because it is denying the Kosovars
'their right to speak their language, run their schools, shape their daily
lives,' yet he calls Turkey one of our 'allies.' But Turkey does these
exact same things to the Kurds there, but the U.S. arms them. Is that a
'moral imperative'?"
WILLIAM HARTUNG, author and Senior research fellow at the World Policy
Institute: "The bombings may or may not 'degrade' Milosevic's forces, as
the Pentagon intends; but they have certainly degraded the standing of the
United States as a world leader. The air war in Kosovo underscores the
weakness of the 'Clinton Doctrine,' which involves calling in the cruise
missiles to deal with any and every problem. During this decade, the
United States has degenerated from the world's sole superpower to its
designated bomber. The use of NATO forces to intervene in an internal
conflict without UN approval has raised anxieties not only in Russia, but
in other major powers such as India and China which face their own
internal ethnic and territorial disputes."
PATRICIA AXELROD, A John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Award recipient
and executive director of the Desert Storm Think Tank: "We are seeing only
those hits that the military would like us to see. We are not seeing the
misguided missiles. There are cases when it took 34 hits to bring down a
bridge in Iraq. But hitting infrastructure is itself a form of civilian
terrorism. When you want to win a war like this, you terrorize and disturb
the civilian population..."
MARY ROBINSON, former president of Ireland, head of the United Nations
Human Rights Commission: "In the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, large numbers of civilians have been incontestably killed,
civilian installations targeted on the basis that they are or could be of
military application, and NATO remains the sole judge of what is or is not
acceptable to bomb."
MICHAEL BEER, director of Nonviolence International: "NATO bombing of
the civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia is immoral and will surely lead
to much suffering. In a vengeful response to Milosevic's pogrom in Kosovo,
bridges, fuel depots, factories and power plants are being targeted under
a broad 'mixed use' interpretation. It stretches the imagination to
believe that bridges north of Belgrade are essential to the Serbian war on
Kosovo. Precision bombing which destroys the food delivery and electricity
of modern city life provides no bloody pictures for TV because death is
indirect through starvation, malnutrition and disease. The bombs may be
tactically accurate, but they are strategically impotent... Defeating
Milosevic requires a civil society; we helped kill that too."
ARTHUR KROKER, Canadian philosopher, professor at Concordia University,
editor of C-Theory Journal: "You can almost hear NATO planners wishing
that Kosovo Albanians would mutate into stealth flesh and fly away from
the scene, leaving NATO free to play its aerial games of B-2 tech."
STEPHEN ZUNES, professor at the University of San Francisco: "The debate
thus far has been limited to those advocating military intervention and
those who believe we should do nothing. As many people predicted, the
threat of military force has made matters worse, since it forced the
withdrawal of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
monitors whose unarmed presence was an effective deterrent against many of
the worst Serbian government-backed violence. In the time since the
monitors' withdrawal, the violence against the civilian population has
escalated. The big fear now is that, unable to challenge NATO air power,
the Serbs will seek vengeance on the ethnic Albanian population. We should
return -- and increase the presence of -- unarmed international monitors,
give greater support to the democratic opposition in Serbia, support
direct dialogue between the Albanian majority and the Serb minority in
Kosovo to develop a formula where the legitimate needs of both are met and
give greater support to the nonviolent Kosovo Albanian movement."
NELSON MANDELA, South African President, scholar, Nobel Prize recipient:
"In the wake of a devastating conflict that inflicted enormous economic
damage and cost millions of lives the United Nations was established as a
world body responsible for collective action for the resolution of
conflict. What is happening in relation to Kosovo, in these final years of
the twentieth century, is deeply disturbing...The United Nations Security
Council is being ignored by the unilateral and destructive action of some
of its permanent members, under the banner of Nato. This must be condemned
in the strongest terms. This is a matter that troubles us not only because
of its immediate impact. Like the challenge of development, it raised
questions about our international institutions. Can the world afford, at
the end of a century that has seen so much pain and suffering, to risk
damaging the authority of the world body that has the task of maintaining
international peace and security on the basis of respect for the
sovereignty of nations?"
[http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mandela/1999/nm0506.html]
BRIAN WILLSON, former Air Force captain who served in Vietnam and co-chair
of the Monterey (Calif.) chapter of Veterans for Peace: "Any healthy human
being would respond with empathy and outrage about what is happening to
the Albanians. But we're being manipulated to focus on only one of a
number of many places where human rights are severely being violated...
We're focusing on these refugees because of the NATO bombing -- which
changed a serious problem into a humanitarian catastrophe... Through NATO,
our government has usurped the United Nations and international law. This
bombing and the expansion of NATO is a boondoggle for the military
contractors and a very dangerous omen to world peace."
JASMINKA UDOVICKI, literary editor: "NATO has provided a cover for
Milosevic to carry out the 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo. Now in Belgrade
martial law is in effect. For someone to speak to foreign journalists and
voice concern for the Albanians in Kosovo is viewed as treason and
would risk being shot. Officials in the West are trying to portray
opposition to the NATO bombing as support of Milosevic." In reference to
NATO blowing up a bridge over the Danube in Novi Sad, Udovicki said: "This
is in the capital of the northern province with a large Hungarian
community, which has opposed Milosevic. It's extremely cynical that NATO
is now alienating the constituencies that could have been allies of the
West. People are very worried that it will not just be military targets,
that NATO will hit the civilian infrastructure."
JEAN BAUDRILLARD, French philosopher, on the U.S.-Iraq War: "One of the
two adversaries is a rug salseman, the other an arms salesman: they have
neither the same logic nor the same strategy, even though they are both
crooks."
CAMILLE PAGLIA, U.S. essayist: "I write this as multimillion-dollar
missiles and bombs are falling yet again, unleashed far from America's
bustling, indifferent shopping malls and decaying inner-city schools,
which can't even afford books. How, in this century of Picasso's great
1937 protest painting, 'Guernica,' can American and European bureaucrats
still so blithely order terror tactics from the air? Barbarism deployed
against tyrants makes us equally barbaric."
NIALL FERGUSON, British historian: "The effect of Nato's bombing has been
to radicalise and unite Serbian opinion to such an extent that it is hard
to imagine the refugees ever being allowed to return to their homes."
PHYLLIS BENNIS, author and a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies:
"After the human costs, the next danger is that the U.S. is replacing the
UN with NATO as its favored instrument of international legitimacy. This
bombing campaign, which is achieving nothing towards stopping the brutal
attacks against the Albanian Kosovars, stands in violation of the UN
Charter's mandate that the Security Council -- not NATO or any other
regional organization -- must authorize such military force."
HOWARD ZINN, U.S. historian: "The rhetoric of Clinton and other government
officials reveals an utter lack of intelligence as well as an indifference
to human suffering. Clinton, speaking to a miitary audience, again and
again talked about making Milosovic "pay a price". The assumption that we
will bomb him into submission makes no sense. The "price" is not being
paid by Milosovic but by the Kosovars and Serbs alike as both are victims
of our bombing campaign. This is comparable to the notion that we are
making Saddam Hussein "pay a price" by the economic sanctions that have
killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. They have paid the price.
The terrible consequences of the sanctions constitutes powerful evidence
that U.S. foreign policy is indifferent to large-scale suffering, and
suggests its declared concern for the Kosovars is sheer hypocrisy."
KAREN THROSBY: "It is ironic that a helicopter named after native
Americans (Apache) is being touted as our latest weapon against ethnic
cleansing."
BARBARA EHRENREICH, essayist, author: "The historical analogies are far
from encouraging. When the Luftwaffe bombed London, you may recall that
the English failed to rise up against Winston Churchill. Similarly, the
obsessive bombing of Iraq by the United States has yet to produce a mighty
pro-democracy, anti-Saddam, movement on the ground...The Nato assault has
so far been conducted against a single individual, just as the US likes to
imagine that Iraq contains only one occupant, Saddam Hussein. It's the
one-man theory of the nation state, and its effect is to transform war
into an S&M psychodrama: now that we've degraded 'his' infrastructure and
knocked out 'his' supply lines, will he finally break? Will he cry uncle?
No one in Nato seems to have realised that when Milosevic looks out of his
window, he doesn't just see mangled bridges and smashed ministries, he
sees the same militant crowds that we do. Imagine the warm feeling it must
give him to know that this time the crowds aren't calling for him to be
ousted, they're hailing him as the saviour of his country."
SETH ACKERMAN, media analyst with Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting: "The
Rambouillet talks were a farce. The U.S. consistently refused to
negotiate; for example, Madeleine Albright told the Serbs, 'We accept
nothing less than a complete agreement, including a NATO-led force.' There
is evidence that a peaceful solution was possible, but the U.S. has
blocked that route."
JERRY STARR, author, professor of sociology at West Virginia University:
"In President Clinton's current game of international jeopardy, bombing is
his answer, but what is the question? In recent months, Clinton has
rejected a world ban on land mines and a proposal for an international
criminal court. He has committed intentional acts of war on four separate
nations (Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia) and ignored United
Nations mediation and peacekeeping forces in favor of a bombing campaign
by a military alliance left over from the Cold War. Whatever the claimed
justification, I don't think the President's question could be 'How do we
promote peace and human rights in the world?' -- but it should be ours."
JULIE BURCHILL, The London Guardian columnist: "Blair keeps telling us
that it's legit, because it's just like the second world war. He's right.
It is. Except this time, by reducing Serbia to rubble, side by side with
our buddies, the Luftwaffe, we're the fascists."
NORMAN SOLOMON, author and essayist: "The war coverage is becoming
routine. Missiles fly, bombs fall. Live briefings from the Pentagon --
featuring talkative generals, colorful charts and gray videos -- appear on
cable television like clockwork. The war on Yugoslavia is right in front
of us and very far away. The media atmosphere is numbing. Early this
month, the anniversary of the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. came and
went. In the media world, he's presented as a dreamer, a martyr on a
postage stamp. But in the real world, during his last years, America's
resources flowed toward war -- and he insisted on speaking forthrightly.
'I never intend to adjust myself to the madness of militarism,' King said.
But adjustment to that madness is all around us... For all the lip-service
that journalists have devoted to Martin Luther King during the 1990s, few
seem interested in his vital messages about the madness of military zeal.
If he'd been a booster of militarism, then his views on the subject would
be cited by top politicians and pundits in Washington -- especially at a
time like this. Instead, what he had to say remains deeply buried in the
nation's memory hole."
TARIQ ALI, British historian, author: "I am totally against the bombing.
It won't solve anything because it is not going to get the Serbs to accept
any settlement. It is degrading for a British Prime Minister to follow
wherever America leads. The matter should have been resolved by the UN and
Europe should have its own security force."
WALTER J. ROCKLER, Former prosecutor, Nuremberg war crimes trials: "As the
bombs, smart and dumb, fall ceaselessly on Serbs, Montenegrins and
sometimes Albanians, on bridges, waterworks, electric generation plants
and factories, and on trains, trucks and homes, the remorseless crusade
for 'humanitarianism' presses forward to the applause of journalistic and
academic shills. To paraphrase the Roman historian Tacitus, we are busy
creating a desert, which we can then call peace. For the United States,
alias "NATO," the planning and launching of this war by the president
heightens the abuse and undermining of warmaking authority under the
Constitution. (It seems to be accepted that the president can order his
personal army to attack any country he pleases.) The bombing war also
violates and shreds the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter and
other conventions and treaties; the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the
most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to
prevent "Polish atrocities" against Germans. The United States has
discarded pretensions to international legality and decency, and embarked
on a course of raw imperialism run amok."
http://www.lbbs.org/aggression.htm
ZOLTAN GROSSMAN, geographer at the University of Wisconsin: "NATO claims
the bombing of Yugoslavia is a 'humanitarian intervention' to prevent the
ethnic cleansing, but the bombing and the ethnic cleansing actually feed
off of each other. NATO claims that it favors a multi-ethnic future for
Kosovo and the rest of the Balkans -- yet a 1995 offensive by the Croatian
army ethnically cleansed at least 100,000 Serbs from the Krajina region.
Washington not only failed to object to that violent ethnic cleansing but
actually helped facilitate it. Some of those expelled Serbs resettled in
Kosovo, exacerbating the ethnic tensions that have now erupted into war.
In the Dayton Accords, the U.S. continued to undermine the prospects for
multi-ethnic cooperation in Bosnia. Now we are told that the NATO bombers
are attacking Milosevic and 'the Serbs.' Yet bombs have fallen on neutral
Montenegro, the ethnically Hungarian northern region of Vojvodina in
Yugoslavia and Serbian democratic opposition cities such as Nis. The war
may yet result in the ethnic partition of what remains of Yugoslavia into
two or three countries."
TERESA CRAWFORD, a university fellow at Syracuse University, arrested and
expelled by Serbian authorities last March while engaging in the
nonviolent peace movement in Kosovo: "That the international community has
resorted to bombing as the only way to deal with Milosevic and his regime
jeopardizes the future of the region. Bombing or no bombing, all the
people of Kosovo whose communities are being destroyed will have to live
together."
GERALD SHENK, professor at Eastern Mennonite Seminary: "The U.S.-led NATO
intervention in the Balkans seems to have provoked the humanitarian
disasters it was intended to prevent. As widely expected, aerial
bombardment of military targets in Serbia failed to deter a bitter
retaliation by forces on the ground, resulting in a river of freshly
displaced civilians and untold slaughter across the Kosovo countryside."
RICHARD GOTT, literary editor: "Far worse is to come. The bombing of
Yugoslavia has already destroyed the UN, mortally wounded by its
pusillanimous role in smashing up Iraq. A hundred years of radical and
well-intentioned effort, to establish an international system capable of
setting limits to the imperial ambitions of great powers, has been
brought to an abrupt end. It will take years to devise a replacement. The
collusion of the governments of Western Europe with the US bombing, and
their participation in this evil air campaign, has destroyed what's left
of European social democracy, closing down a century and a half of
progressive thought and action originally designed to establish rational
governments in individual states, to promote social and economic justice
at home - and peace abroad. You do not need the mechanistic approach of a
fresh century to perceive that the 200-year-old dreams of the French
Revolution of 1789, and the 100-year-old aspirations of the Russian
Revolution of 1917, have all been swept away in the past decade. Now the
bombing has rubbed the slate entirely clean. We are in a new world."
DAVID McREYNOLDS, staffer of the War Resisters League: "Any democratic
opposition in Serbia -- and it does exist -- will be largely destroyed by
bombing. The same is true of any hope for nonviolent alternatives in
Kosovo." [http://www.sojourners.com/soj9905/990541a.html]
POPE JOHN PAUL II: "I ask insistently that everything be undertaken to
establish peace in the region and that people be able to live in
fellowship in their land. Answering violence with violence is never the
way to get out of a crisis. What must be done is to silence arms and acts
of vengeance in order to undertake negotiations."
NOAM CHOMSKY, linguistics professor at MIT: "The threat of NATO bombing,
predictably, led to a sharp escalation of atrocities by the Serbian Army
and paramilitaries, and to the departure of international observers, which
of course had the same effect. Commanding General Wesley Clark declared
that it was 'entirely predictable' that Serbian terror and violence would
intensify after the NATO bombing, exactly as happened... While the
Reaganites broke new ground, under Clinton the defiance of world order has
become so extreme as to be of concern even to hawkish policy analysts. In
the current issue of the leading establishment journal, Foreign Affairs,
Samuel Huntington warns that Washington is treading a dangerous course. In
the eyes of much of the world -- probably most of the world, he suggests
-- the US is 'becoming the rogue superpower,' considered "the single
greatest external threat to their societies.' Realist 'international
relations theory,' he argues, predicts that coalitions may arise to
counterbalance the rogue superpower. On pragmatic grounds, then, the
stance should be reconsidered. Americans who prefer a different image of
their society might call for a reconsideration on other than pragmatic
grounds."
BENJAMIN SCHWARZ, correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly and the Former
Executive Editor of World Policy Journal: "America's missionary
impulse--the conviction that we are obliged to inflict our conscience upon
the world--engenders a reckless and cruel pride. A sense of righteous
omnipotence is usually the mark not of a balanced and enlightened state
but of the fanatic and the crusader, from whose civilizing zeal brutality
seems inevitably to flow. If we choose to be morality's avenging angel in
Kosovo, we may at first be pleased to see ourselves, like Kurtz in
Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness,' as 'an emissary of pity and progress.' But
as warriors for right, faced with those we have demonized, we will
eventually succumb to Kurtz's conclusions as well: 'Exterminate the
brutes.'" [http://www.commondreams.org/kosovo/views/schwarz.htm]
BARRY POSEN, professor of Political Science at MIT: "[It's] time for an
olive branch in Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic has declared a cease-fire in
Kosovo. NATO leaders have ever so slightly weakened the conditions that
Serbia must accept in order to end NATO's air campaign. The scent of
diplomacy is in the air, but the sides are still far apart, and NATO
clearly expects Milosevic to make most of the concessions. NATO's rhetoric
remains very strong, reflecting an optimistic but not unreasonable
calculation of the balance of power. The western alliance simply dwarfs
Serbia - economically, militarily, and politically. NATO spends 300 times
as much on defense. At some point, however, NATO may need to make a few
concessions of its own."
DIANA JOHNSTONE, U.S. columnist, author: "Of course NATO had no option but
force. It is a military organization. The only language it knows or
understands is force. The assumption underlying the question is that
Kosovo was NATO's problem, that NATO had to do SOMETHING about Kosovo.
This assumption is totally false and far-fetched. NATO's moral imperative
was to stay the hell out. Bringing in NATO has escalated the Kosovo
conflict into a full-scale human, moral and world political catastrophe.
As for various foreign political leaders, notably the Clinton
administration, they indeed had plenty of options left. They could have
tried negotiations. Yes, negotiations. Because that option was not tried."
LORD CARRINGTON, former foreign secretary and NATO secretary general: "I
think that the policy is both mistaken and ill-conceived. I have the
gravest misgivings on the course on which we are set. We got ourselves
into the position by the threat we made... I don't know what we do now.
We've got ourselves in a terrible mess."
RAMSEY CLARK, former Attorney General of the United States, founder of the
International Action Center: "I have just returned from Serbia where I
surveyed civilian damage and saw civilian casualties. The targeting by
U.S. and NATO outside of Kosovo was clearly directed at terrorizing and
crippling civilian society, as was the case with Iraq in 1991 and now.
Schools; agricultural equipment; manufacturing; a bridge over the Danube
at Novi Sad for local traffic (chosen instead of a rail bridge and
international highway bridge); a plant producing materials to restore a
historic monastery in Greece; an electrical appliances factory; and a
factory producing insulation board for housing with labor from Turkey,
Macedonia, Kosovo and Serbia; were among the earlier civilian facilities
damaged by the bombing. These targets confirm what the U.S. has now
announced - it will strike at food, fuel and other civilian essentials.
The use of hunger as a weapon is, of course, prohibited by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and Protocol I Additional of 1977 to the
Geneva Conventions. The U.S. and NATO attacks on Yugoslavia are acts of
war which violate the U.N. Charter and the most basic international and
humanitarian law. They replace the peacekeeping purposes of the United
Nations with the military power of rich, caucasian countries, including
virtually all the colonial powers, past and present, which have
systematically repressed and exploited poor and underdeveloped countries.
The attacks on Serbia outside Kosovo cannot possibly affect the struggle
in Kosovo in any significant way for months, or longer."
GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE, former commander of the UN in Bosnia: "Bombs
never have and never can solve complex political or humanitarian problems
of the world. History shows us no successful examples in such
circumstances and I am afraid it will be the same story now."
JESSE JACKSON: (from the wire) Beaming at the success of his trip which
had been discouraged by Washington officialdom, Jackson called the release
of the soldiers "a bold decision," noting that it had occured despite the
fact that NATO bombed a passenger bus killing 60 people. "Diplomacy
deserves reciprocity," the Baptist preacher said in a speech, urging the
"lion," or the US and NATO, to negotiate with the "lamb," or Yugoslavia.
Images of Jackson, hand-in-hand with Milosevic and apparently praying,
were prominently displayed by U.S. media and led to speculation that that
signal alone might shake public support for the bombing." MORE:
http://www.wald.com/opinion/columnists/jackson051199.cfm
CLAYTON RAMEY, coordinator of the Fellowship of Reconciliation's National
Disarmament Program: "NATO, a relic of the Cold War, has been recast as a
violent instrument of Western foreign policy, and not as a defensive
alliance. Far from bringing relief to the Albanian Kosovars, the NATO
bombing of Serbia will only fill more mass graves with Muslims and
Christians alike. In practical political terms, this military violence,
already responsible for the deaths of so many Serbs and Kosovars, will
only serve to harden the anti-NATO resistance and fan the flames of even
more extreme ethnic hatred in the region. There is no such thing as
'humanitarian' bombing. There is no such thing as a war that does not
slaughter innocent non-combatants."
SIMONA SHARONI, professor at American University and director of its Peace
and Conflict Resolution Semester Program: "Students in my peace and
conflict resolution seminar found Clinton's response to the Colorado
shooting ironic. It's hypocritical to expect adolescents to explore
alternative solutions to violence while their leaders are so quick to pull
the trigger."
REGIS DEBRAY, French writer: ""We are not fighting against the people".
Don't you know that in the heart of Belgrade, close to the RTS TV
building, there is a children's theatre "Dusan Radovic", and that the
projectile that blasted the TV building also destroyed the theatre? Three
hundred schools all over Serbia have been hit by missiles. Pupils, left on
their own, are not going to schools anymore. In the villages, there are
kids who are collecting yellow explosive pipes in shapes of toys (model
CBU 87). Those are dispersive bombs. Soviets used to throw them in
Afghanistan." http://www.zoran.net/afp/text/misc2/a_traveller.htm
STEPHEN ZUNES, professor of politics and chair of the Peace and Justice
Studies Program at the University of San Francisco: "There was something
incongruous on the evening news about seeing President Clinton condemn the
violence in Colorado followed immediately by scenes of NATO's devastation
in Yugoslavia overlayed with the tired old rationalizations for it. Unable
to show any political gains from the bombing, such as an end to Serbian
atrocities, many are wondering if the bombing campaign may be just as
senseless as the high school shootings..."
DAVID HARTSOUGH, has worked in Kosovo and Yugoslavia for three years. In
March 1998, David accompanied Albanians in their nonviolent demonstrations
in Kosovo. He was arrested, jailed, and later expelled from the country by
the Yugoslav authorities: "NATO's ongoing, massive bombing of Yugoslavia
has not established its goals, either to bring Milosevic to the
negotiating table or to stop the violence against the Kosovar civilian
population. Rather, it has all but destroyed the one force that could have
accomplished both: the democratic opposition to Milosevic inside
Serbia... NATO's increasingly violent intervention is predictably driving
millions of Serbs -- including those who opposed Milosevic's dictatorial
and nationalistic policies just months ago -- to rally behind their flag
and government."
http://www.motherjones.com/total_coverage/kosovo/peace.html
TOM HAYDEN, U.S. war protester, senator: "The moral rationale provided by
the Clinton administration at the outset of the bombing was that the
brutal ethnic cleansing of Kosovo could be stopped in a short military
campaign. That promise was either a deception or a delusion. The war has
turned into a horrific quagmire, and yet even liberal Democrats remain
strangely tongue-tied about the suffering, which our government lamely
calls "collateral damage."
http://www.zoran.net/afp/text/latimes/as_the_innocent_die.htm
LINDA CHAVEZ, former editor of The American Educator, president of the
Center for Equal Opportunity: "NATO bombs killed three persons and injured
20 more at the Chinese embassy in Belgrade last week, but the casualties
from this appalling blunder continue to mount. The Chinese government has
already announced suspension of high-level military ties with the United
States, and postponement of arms control and nuclear proliferation talks
in response to the bombing, in addition to canceling its dialogue on
human-rights issues. But the repercussions could hit hard within the
Chinese government itself, too, as those in Beijing who have urged closer
ties to the Clinton administration get their comeuppance..."
http://38.201.154.108/commentarchive.shtml?a=1999/5/11/065813
Reagen Sulewski
>Please also keep in mind, this was in response to a person asking about
>alternatives. There's the alternative, can we implement it or not? Can
>it be effective? We may decide that it won't be what we want to do, but
>we should think about it first before assuming military action is our
>best course of action.
>
This at least, has some merit for debate rather than the "NATO is
Satanist pig baby killers" 'argument' that some people favour. :)
To me, the situation here is more urgent than in most cases, as if we
wait, there may be no point in acting. If we waited long enough, there
wouldn't be any Kosovars to save. Embargos rarely work, and if they
do, they take a loooooong time (we're still waiting on Cuba, huh?). In
a situation like this, I think military action is well warranted.
Sometimes you have time to sit and hem and haw and wonder if you're
doing the right thing (for years!), and sometimes you have to make a
quick decision and get into action.
This is quite a different situation than South Africa, since they were
not in a process of systematically exterminating or expelling an
entire ethnic group. Not that what they were doing was a good thing
by any means, just that it was less evil by a few degrees. And really,
a lot of countries (including the U.S. and Canada) have been guilty in
the past of many of the same things that S.A. was doing. Very few have
been guilty of what Serbia is doing.
Puzz
Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > "Jim Mann" <jm...@transarc.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Over the years, we've heard many people complain about how people in some
> > big cities look the other way when crimes occur. People made a big deal
> > years ago about New Yorkers ignoring muggers and rapists, and their not
> > wanting to get involved. We pointed to this as an example of a decline in
> > the cities. Yet many advocate doing the same on the international scale.
> > "What, those guys with the army over their are murdering thousdands of
> > people? Not our problem, let's just ignore them."
>
> >>>>
>
> And look what a wonderful job NATO is doing, killing people left and right, all
> for "Good Cause". If the New York City police used the same "tactics" they'd
> blow up whole apartment complexes because one murderer or rapist happened
> to rent one room...
>
But that analogy stinks because there isn't one murderer or rapist in this. If we were to use your 'apartment
complex', then we'd have to conclude that everyone in the complex were culpable (which is the case in Belgrade).
And if that's the case, ... blow the damn thing up!
Puzz
Puzz
Louis, Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
Yeah having a memory is nice. Can you tell me who said, "I am not a crook!"? >sigh< Boo, there have been corrupt
politicians since the beginning. Maybe you don't want to see it, but it's true.
Puzz
Puzz
Viriatha wrote:
> I don't expect it to be bloodless - I expect us to exhaust other
> alternatives before war, and I'm not sure we've done that in this case?
>
I think that was done. This guy, Milly, was given every opportunity to end this,
Viriatha
> I think that was done. This guy, Milly, was given every opportunity to end this,
> but he didn't. I recall Clinton making demands and Milly saying (basically), kiss
> my ass. I guess they could take so much of his pissing in their faces.
>
> Puzz
Hmmm, isn't it *thier* country?
Regards,
Lady V
Louis
> Puzz wrote:
> > I think that was done. This guy, Milly, was given every opportunity to end this,
> > but he didn't. I recall Clinton making demands and Milly saying (basically), kiss
> > my ass. I guess they could take so much of his pissing in their faces.
>>>>
I think it's "their" country...
In any event, how would have been of say France or England had invaded the
U.S. to stop the slaughter of +/-500,000 Americans during the Civil War?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis
> > And look what a wonderful job NATO is doing, killing people left and right, all
> > for "Good Cause". If the New York City police used the same "tactics" they'd
> > blow up whole apartment complexes because one murderer or rapist happened
> > to rent one room...
> But that analogy stinks because there isn't one murderer or rapist in this. If we were to
> use your 'apartment complex', then we'd have to conclude that everyone in the complex
> were culpable (which is the case in Belgrade).
> And if that's the case, ... blow the damn thing up!
>>>>
In that case, why bother with all the silly cruise missiles and air flights? One H-bomb
all those damn Serbs would be toast.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helen & Bob
Viriatha wrote:
> Puzz wrote:
>
> > I think that was done. This guy, Milly, was given every opportunity to end this,
> > but he didn't. I recall Clinton making demands and Milly saying (basically), kiss
> > my ass. I guess they could take so much of his pissing in their faces.
> >
> > Puzz
>
> Hmmm, isn't it *thier* country?
>
> Regards,
> Lady V
Oh. That makes murder, "ethnic cleansing", and genocide OK. Its their country. Wow, I
just love the logic. So it was OK to have Death Camps and Gas Chambers to kill Jews,
Gypsies, and whomever as long as the Jews, etc were German Jews, because it was "their
country". Lady V, please tell me more of this logic.
Bob
Helen & Bob
Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 1999, Helen & Bob wrote:
>
> > Therefore, we should have let the "etchnic cleansing " go on in
> > Yugoslavia go on, just crying and saying how horrible it is. And who
> > ARE the international police we would send in to stop it?
> >
> > But you're OK when mass murder takes place, because YOU didn't do it.
> > Bob
>
> We know what you think of (the) war(s), Bob. We know what
No, Mark , you have no Idea what I think of the situation in Kosovo and
Yugoslavia. I wish to hell we were not there. I really do not want to see
this country involved in the Balkans. At the same time, I am torn, because to
me, it is an act of moral cowardice to stand aside while innocents are being
exterminated (its called genocide), and wring your hands about how terrible it
is, but do nothing to stop it. And that is where I am torn by the situation.
And I see you have sent me 631 lines without one bit of your own thinking
again, just mouthing what other people say. As a Doctoral candidate, you
really have very little originality. Based on that lack of originality,
perhaps you should stay in the ivory tower of academia, rather than try to
compete in the real world.
Bob
David Homerick
Helen & Bob wrote:
>
> Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 May 1999, Helen & Bob wrote:
> >
> > > Therefore, we should have let the "etchnic cleansing " go on in
> > > Yugoslavia go on, just crying and saying how horrible it is. And who
> > > ARE the international police we would send in to stop it?
> > >
> > > But you're OK when mass murder takes place, because YOU didn't do it.
> > > Bob
> >
> > We know what you think of (the) war(s), Bob. We know what
>
> No, Mark , you have no Idea what I think of the situation in Kosovo and
> Yugoslavia. I wish to hell we were not there. I really do not want to see
> this country involved in the Balkans. At the same time, I am torn, because to
> me, it is an act of moral cowardice to stand aside while innocents are being
> exterminated (its called genocide), and wring your hands about how terrible it
> is, but do nothing to stop it. And that is where I am torn by the situation.
There's an assumption in your statement that you have not examined.
You are assuming that it is *possible* to stop the situation, and to
stop it in such a way as not to cause greater suffering. You are not
assessing the possibility that there may be NO action that we can take
that will not worsen the situation.
This, I believe, is the situation in the Balkans. And I believe that
our actions should be guided by a variation of the physician's dictum:
first, do no harm. It is not moral cowardice to recognixe that our
actions may exacerbate the situation we want to solve, or create a worse
one. It is simple humility.
You ask: is there a better solution than the bombing? The proper
question is this: is the bombing a solution? I think it clearly is
not. I also do not think ground troops are a solution, in that the only
way to win such a war is to conquer Yugoslavia, with much bloodshed, and
make it subjugated nation. In fact, I think there is no solution, no
way to stop the "ethnic cleansing" without inflicting harm far out of
proportion to the good we wish to do.
-- David
Helen & Bob
David Homerick wrote:
> Helen & Bob wrote:
> >
> > Mark.J.Desocio wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 16 May 1999, Helen & Bob wrote:
> > >
> > > > Therefore, we should have let the "etchnic cleansing " go on in
> > > > Yugoslavia go on, just crying and saying how horrible it is. And who
> > > > ARE the international police we would send in to stop it?
> > > >
> > > > But you're OK when mass murder takes place, because YOU didn't do it.
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > > We know what you think of (the) war(s), Bob. We know what
> >
> > No, Mark , you have no Idea what I think of the situation in Kosovo and
> > Yugoslavia. I wish to hell we were not there. I really do not want to see
> > this country involved in the Balkans. At the same time, I am torn, because to
> > me, it is an act of moral cowardice to stand aside while innocents are being
> > exterminated (its called genocide), and wring your hands about how terrible it
> > is, but do nothing to stop it. And that is where I am torn by the situation.
>
> There's an assumption in your statement that you have not examined.
>
> You are assuming that it is *possible* to stop the situation, and to
> stop it in such a way as not to cause greater suffering. You are not
> assessing the possibility that there may be NO action that we can take
> that will not worsen the situation.
>
> This, I believe, is the situation in the Balkans. And I believe that
> our actions should be guided by a variation of the physician's dictum:
> first, do no harm. It is not moral cowardice to recognixe that our
> actions may exacerbate the situation we want to solve, or create a worse
> one. It is simple humility.
>
> You ask: is there a better solution than the bombing? The proper
> question is this: is the bombing a solution? I think it clearly is
> not. I also do not think ground troops are a solution, in that the only
> way to win such a war is to conquer Yugoslavia, with much bloodshed, and
> make it subjugated nation. In fact, I think there is no solution, no
> way to stop the "ethnic cleansing" without inflicting harm far out of
> proportion to the good we wish to do.
>
> -- David
Unfortunately, David, you may be entirely correct. I probably feel this thing a
little more than most people on the NG, not that I lost any relatives in the
concentration camps in WWII, but because of some unpublished photos I have seen. My
neighbor "round the corner, about 10 years older than I, was one of the first GI's
into a liberated concentration camp. Some of the photos he has, which have never
been published, will make you sick to look at. To think that people can do that to
each other. Then, to think that its starting again, and there is noting we can do
to stop it beyond bombing utilities and trying to take out their infrastructure. It
is so damn frustrating.
Bob
Dan Bongard
: To think that people can do that to each other. Then, to think
: that its starting again, and there is noting we can do to stop
: it beyond bombing utilities and trying to take out their
: infrastructure. It is so damn frustrating.
It isn't "starting again" -- it never stopped. Genocide, in one
form or another, has been going on continuously in some part of
the world for all of human history.
The only reason we are intervening in Bosnia is because the
media decided This Must Be Stopped -- and since nobody in the
United States government has the courage to tell the public
"we CANNOT solve all your problems" we are currently engaged
in a pathetic attempt to "resolve the crisis".
What are we going to do? Occupy Yugoslavia for a few centuries?
The people in that area have been butchering each other since
the dark ages.
-- Dan
Jim Mann
Dan Bongard wrote in message ...
>>
>The only reason we are intervening in Bosnia is because the
>media decided This Must Be Stopped -- and since nobody in the
>United States government has the courage to tell the public
>"we CANNOT solve all your problems" we are currently engaged
>in a pathetic attempt to "resolve the crisis".
>
Why blame the media? (Yeah, I know, everything that happens is the media's
fault.) There were many people both inside and outside of the government
who felt that we had to do something to stop what was going on. They didn't
need the media to tell them so.
nigh_postal
Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> > Viriatha <vict...@tir.com> writes:
> > Puzz wrote:
>
> > > I think that was done. This guy, Milly, was given every
opportunity to end this,
> > > but he didn't. I recall Clinton making demands and Milly saying
(basically), kiss
> > > my ass. I guess they could take so much of his pissing in their
faces.
>
>
> >>>>
>
>
> In any event, how would have been of say France or England had
invaded the
> U.S. to stop the slaughter of +/-500,000 Americans during the Civil
War?
>
Last I remembered, the Civil War wasn't a one-sided slaughter like what
we are experiencing in Yugoslavia. And remember, NATO/America doesn't
wade into every war in existence. Believe me, ask around. You'll find
many places that _wish_ we would intervene on their behalf. I DO
however believe it's true that we ought to keep out of most conflicts,
but if you take a good look around, you'll realize that we actually
do. We only get involved in "humanitarian" causes. My main problem
with
our policy is that in the past we have reserved our intervention to
only those humanitarian causes in which we have a vested interest (in
one way or another). I mean yes, it makes sense to do so. But in
restricting our aide to those causes, we make ourselves look like
assholes and hypocrites. But I have NO problem whatsoever with our
moving into the Balkians(sp?). We can't afford as a world to allow
anything remotely akin to the Holocaust to happen again.. and make no
mistake, that's what Millie here is doing. What _DOES _ need to happen
is that we have to keep from any more really stupid things like the
Chinese Embassy bombing from happening again. Yes, there are going to
be casualties. People need to live with that. Anybody who attempts to
delude him/herself that it can be otherwise is, frankly, on Crack. And
as for the people who use this fact as a very reason not to get
involved, especially in this case, to you I say "fuck you". Pardon me,
but regardless of how much you try to tell yourself that American lives
are worth more than others, you are so very wrong. They aren't worth
and damn penny more, or less for that matter. In cases like this, you
HAVE to take action, and you HAVE to stop it. If we do it right, we
can minimize the deaths, with the maximum effect. That's the beauty
of modern warfare. But for those of you who think that modern warfare
means that our army can just sit back and enjoy fig neutons from some
beach in Hawaii while they push little buttons labeled "Liberate
Kosovo", you are seriously demented. Things have prices folks. It's a
fact of life. Get used to it. Yes, it's a horrible thing for a human
being to die. But it's much worse for nothing to be done and to have
hundreds of thousand die as a result. Not hundreds of thousands of
soldiers mind you, but innocent people such as you or me. And I
guarantee you that if it were you out there getting cleansed, you would
be talking a much different talk. I ask you to keep that in mind when
you knock on NATO's efforts. We are _trying_ to do the right thing
here. Cut them some slack. War is horrible, yes, but anybody who
believes that we can end war is wrong. We can't stop war. We can't
have world peace. There will always be some nutcase somewhere in the
world who wants more than he's got. Simple fact of nature. Man is
greedy. We want what we don't have. It will always be this way. No,
violence is not always the answer, but unfortunately, sometimes force
is the only feasible answer. I know that people will disagree with
this, and that's fine. It is only my opinion. Force is a last resort,
but it is sometimes the only weapon (metaphorically speaking) that have
to get the job done. Geez this is long (sorry about going on somewhat
of a tirade). Well, I will end it here then.
-Cody
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Dan Bongard
: Dan Bongard wrote in message ...
:> The only reason we are intervening in Bosnia is because the
:> media decided This Must Be Stopped -- and since nobody in the
:> United States government has the courage to tell the public
:> "we CANNOT solve all your problems" we are currently engaged
:> in a pathetic attempt to "resolve the crisis".
: Why blame the media? (Yeah, I know, everything that happens
: is the media's fault.)
I blame the media because they put a spin on everything. It
isn't "witnesses report genocide in Bosnia". It is "Genocide
in Bosnia! Viewer polls say most of you think this is naughty.
Tonight on 'Talking Heads Tonight', five so-called experts you
have never heard of before will babble about what the government
obviously MUST do. Later that evening, Geraldo 'I have no ethics,
but my hair is GREAT!' Rivera will explain why the Republicans
are responsible for bungling Bosnia, followed by the McLaughlin
group assigning 1-10 rankings to How Badly Clinton is Failing
to Solve the Bosnia Problem." Yadda yadda yadda. It goes from
"something is happening" being news, to "what people think
we should be doing about this something that is happening" as
news, to "hey, we're doing something, and here's how we are
screwing it up" as news. It makes me sick. This is NOT the
point of having a free press. The free press exists to permit
the free flow of information, not the free flow of public
relations bullshit and rampant speculation.
The Columbine shootings are a perfect example. Weeks of media
hype, endless hours and hours of yammering about "oh no, how
can we stop all this violence" -- all basically a bunch of
bullshit. The actual news ended when the bodies were counted.
The rest of it was just pandering for ratings -- pandering
that, might I point out, inspired a copycat shooting in
Georgia last week.
: There were many people both inside and outside of the
: government who felt that we had to do something to stop
: what was going on.
Yes, such as Christiane Amanpour, the CNN journalist who
has staked her entire career on making Bosnia into the
next Holocaust in the minds of Americans. Did I mention
that her husband, James Rubin, is the State Department
spokesman assigned to the crisis? Gee, nice work there.
I'm sure we'll get some nice, unbiased reporting out
of that.
: They didn't need the media to tell them so.
Yes, actually, they did. Genocide has been occurring
constantly. The Serbs have been victims as often as
oppressors. The ONLY reason we are bombing them is
because the television told us to. Otherwise we would
have had the wits not to get involved.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
: In article <gmd03.86811$A6.43...@news1.teleport.com>,
: Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
: > > Viriatha <vict...@tir.com> writes:
: > > Puzz wrote:
: >
: > > > I think that was done. This guy, Milly, was given every
: opportunity to end this,
: > > > but he didn't. I recall Clinton making demands and Milly saying
: (basically), kiss
: > > > my ass. I guess they could take so much of his pissing in their
: faces.
: >
: > > Hmmm, isn't it *thier* country?
: >
: > >>>>
: >
: > I think it's "their" country...
: >
: > In any event, how would have been of say France or England had
: invaded the
: > U.S. to stop the slaughter of +/-500,000 Americans during the Civil
: War?
: >
: Last I remembered, the Civil War wasn't a one-sided slaughter
: like what we are experiencing in Yugoslavia.
What is happening in Yugoslavia isn't a one-sided slaughter
either, I hate to tell you. The Serbs are just winning. If
the Serbs we the weaker party, THEY would be getting butchered.
: And remember, NATO/America doesn't wade into every war in
: existence.
It wades into every war that gets a lot of coverage on CNN.
Remember Somalia?
-- Dan
Puzz
Dan Bongard wrote:
> nigh_postal (nigh_...@my-dejanews.com) wrote:
> : In article <gmd03.86811$A6.43...@news1.teleport.com>,
> : Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> : > > Viriatha <vict...@tir.com> writes:
> : > > Puzz wrote:
> : >
> : > > > I think that was done. This guy, Milly, was given every
> : opportunity to end this,
> : > > > but he didn't. I recall Clinton making demands and Milly saying
> : (basically), kiss
> : > > > my ass. I guess they could take so much of his pissing in their
> : faces.
> : >
> : > > Hmmm, isn't it *thier* country?
> : >
> : > >>>>
> : >
> : > I think it's "their" country...
> : >
> : > In any event, how would have been of say France or England had
> : invaded the
> : > U.S. to stop the slaughter of +/-500,000 Americans during the Civil
> : War?
> : >
>
> : Last I remembered, the Civil War wasn't a one-sided slaughter
> : like what we are experiencing in Yugoslavia.
>
> What is happening in Yugoslavia isn't a one-sided slaughter
> either, I hate to tell you. The Serbs are just winning. If
> the Serbs we the weaker party, THEY would be getting butchered.
>
If it weren't one sided then why are all the refuges from one group? Where
are all the refuges from the other side? These people weren't losing some
noble battle (IIRC, the battle in question happened 600+ years ago). No this
was the case of systematic purges.
>
> : And remember, NATO/America doesn't wade into every war in
> : existence.
>
> It wades into every war that gets a lot of coverage on CNN.
> Remember Somalia?
Did we intervene in Burundi? I didn't think so. That got lots of coverage
on CNN, and the major networks, but no air strikes from us.
Puzz