Bomb the savages
vojvoda
should
simply be pointed out that Albania is the epitome of failure by just about
any
yardstick that you could care to use.
To claim the supremacy of the only, by UN standards, 'Third World' nation in
Europe is plainly fallacious and deserves only to be treated with contempt.
However deep this pitiful creature's hatred of Slavs may go it cannot be
ignored
that Yugoslavia enjoys such 'luxuries' as law enforcement extending beyond
the
confines of Belgrade and the provision of a system of basic social welfare.
This is not a denial of a 'fair crack of the whip' but merely questioning
any
claims to primacy.
"MarsVindex" <marsv...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20000315003953...@ng-da1.news.cs.com...
> May all NATO soldiers fuck your serb sisters every day and every night and
turn
> them into cheap whores sold like cows. May the darkness swallow serbia
forever.
> Our Vengance will engulf your fucking nation.
> One two three - Kosova is serb-free
MarsVindex
oN
costas
apocalyptic monk that came out from the middle ages (the ones described by
U. Eco in "the name of the rose"), having visions of Hell and prophessing
extermination and divine vengeance (through the hand of NATO or the UCK) to
the sinners (see Serbs, Greeks, etc). Could he be the last prophet send by
God before the Apocalypse, a warning to all of us to repent before the final
judgement?
Costas
MarsVindex wrote
>the day is comming for the utter anihilation of all serb flesh from this
earth.
>The flood is comming to wash away all your impure blood of slaves. The day
when
>i will consume that very blood and that very flesh.
>the greatest Military formation since the Waffen SS
Jonathan Furderer
MarsVindex wrote:
> May all NATO soldiers fuck your serb sisters every day and every night and turn
> them into cheap whores sold like cows. May the darkness swallow serbia forever.
> Our Vengance will engulf your fucking nation.
> One two three - Kosova is serb-free
I rather thought that Albania was the leading exporter of young women to the
brothels of Europe. That you should be prepared to willingly turn your own sisters
and daughters into 'cheap whores sold like cows' is a matter for your own
conciences but why you should desire that such a degrading fate be inflicted upon
other innocent girls is quite beyond me.
Exporting narcotics on an industrial scale is an unsavoury and damaging, for the
rest of us, activity but to treat your own female family members as nothing better
than livestock to sold at auction is utterly disgusting and has no place in a
civilised nation. Look to yourself and the standards that you set before wishing
the indignities that you will allow 'your' womenfolk to suffer for 'your'
commercial gain upon anyone else.
Jaywant Malik
costas <consta...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<8aoea5$dtl$2...@newssrv.otenet.gr>...
> I mean really, read samples from his post, he really does sound like some
> apocalyptic monk that came out from the middle ages (the ones described
by
> U. Eco in "the name of the rose"), having visions of Hell and prophessing
> extermination and divine vengeance (through the hand of NATO or the UCK)
to
> the sinners (see Serbs, Greeks, etc). Could he be the last prophet send
by
> God before the Apocalypse, a warning to all of us to repent before the
final
> judgement?
Ah ha! Costas does lump Serbs and Greeks together when he describes NATO
"aggression." A few weeks ago on soc.culture.french Costas told me that I
was jumping to conclusions by describing him as someone who saw Slavic and
Hellenic cultures under siege by NATO's intervention in Kosovo. And look at
him now. The nutty Mars V didn't mention Greeks at all, but that didn't
stop Costas as naming them as a victim.
Here's an update for you Costas: Greece is part of NATO and though Greeks
didn't approve of the alliance's action in Yugoslavia the Greek government
knows just what will happen if Greece gets kicked out of NATO. Greece, you
see, isn't important anymore.
That you can possibly imagine that the NATO action in Yugoslavia has
apocalyptic proportions (I realize you were jesting, but still, you brought
it up via Umberto Eco) speaks volumes of your view of the world.
JM
Jaywant Malik
NATO will be the defense arm of Western society. On the one hand it will
defend the democratic values of the nations within that society but on the
other hand it will also defend the West's exploitative capitalism.
> Is it the mini-UN, defending only American interests?
The US leads NATO, but the organization does not serve only American
interests. If you knew anything about geopolitics you'd know that Europe
has far more to gain from a stable Balkans than the US. That the US played
the leading role in NATO's Kosovo conflict had more to do with who had
better military technology than who wanted to intervene.
NATO was a defensive alliance, but no NATO countries were being threatened
in Kossovo. What gives?
That's right, NATO was a defensive alliance. Although Yugoslavia probably
would have never attacked at NATO country its barbarity was not acceptable
to Europeans in this era of human rights and globalism. In case you didn't
notice, European and American (and Russian) governments tried for years to
find a diplomatic solution to Milosevic's warmongering in the Balkans. When
it became clear that only the use of force would change things in the
former Yugoslavia
> Are we to be the police of the world... but only in places where we face
no great
> risk?
NATO will only intervene when the benefits for doing so will be high for
its member nations. If NATO succeeds in making the Balkans stable, all of
Europe will benefit (and so will the US, in a more indirect way).
> After all, you don't see any NATO warplanes flying over Beijing or
> Moscow over their similar behavior in Tibet and Chechnya, now do you?
> Isn't only picking fights small enough to win a sure indicator of a
bully?
These situations are only analogous to Kosovo insofar as they are examples
of governments violently oppression minorities within a given country. Your
analogy fails, however, when we look at what NATO has to gain by
intervening in Chechnya or Tibet. The answer is that NATO has little to
gain from Chechnya or Tibet; kicking Russia out of Chechnya or China out
Tibet will not benefit NATO member nations very much at all.
As I have stated, both Europe and the US had much to gain from intervening
in Kosovo.
Though one can argue that NATO bullied Serbia, the alternative would have
been much worse. What if NATO had the means to stop Milosevic and didn't
bother trying at all simply because Serbia was a weaker opponent? That's
called apathy, which when you think about it, is far worse than bullying.
What if you see a man who's smaller than you strike a child and you decide
not to intervene because you don't want the man's backwards friends to call
you a bully?
Also, anyone who knows anything about war knows that nations only enter
wars that they think they can win without sustaining irreparable damage.
> NATO = NOW ARMING TERRORIZE OTHERS.
Oh, is that what the acronym means? Well, if you Greeks dislike it so much
you're free to leave. But don't expect NATO to defend you from Turkey
afterwards.
> Vassilis L. Pilarinos,
> "To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also
> dream; not only plan, but also believe." - Anatole France
The first part of this above quote is true, but there are plenty of
exceptions to second part.
JM
Marko37
>> What do you think NATO's role is in the post-USSR world?
> NATO will be the defense arm of Western society. On the one hand it will
> defend the democratic values of the nations within that society but on the
> other hand it will also defend the West's exploitative capitalism.
How true!
>> Is it the mini-UN, defending only American interests?
> The US leads NATO, but the organization does not serve only American
> interests. If you knew anything about geopolitics you'd know that Europe
> has far more to gain from a stable Balkans than the US. That the US played
> the leading role in NATO's Kosovo conflict had more to do with who had
> better military technology than who wanted to intervene.
If you knew anything about Balkans you'd know that the Balkans were
"stable" before USA and Germany torn apart SFR Yugoslavia.
> NATO was a defensive alliance, but no NATO countries were being threatened
> in Kossovo. What gives?
> That's right, NATO was a defensive alliance. Although Yugoslavia probably
> would have never attacked at NATO country its barbarity was not acceptable
> to Europeans in this era of human rights and globalism. In case you didn't
> notice, European and American (and Russian) governments tried for years to
> find a diplomatic solution to Milosevic's warmongering in the Balkans. When
> it became clear that only the use of force would change things in the
> former Yugoslavia
To call someone warmonger whilst being a citizen (and supportive one) of
USA, a country that directly or indirectly took part in 85% out of over
100 wars and conflicts after WWII is pure hipocrisy.
OK, so we're barbarians. On the other hand you have Dresden, Hiroshima,
Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam - Hanoi, Hue city, Baghdad, Nis... as great
examples of your culture.
As for the Milosevic, it's your government that called him "factor of
stability and peace in the region". And do you think that USA can't
(couldn't) kill him if he's such a threat to US interests?
>> Are we to be the police of the world... but only in places where we face
> no great
>> risk?
> NATO will only intervene when the benefits for doing so will be high for
> its member nations. If NATO succeeds in making the Balkans stable, all of
> Europe will benefit (and so will the US, in a more indirect way).
There you have it! You admit that NATO intervened for their own interests,
and not because of a "great humanitarian catastrophy".
>> After all, you don't see any NATO warplanes flying over Beijing or
>> Moscow over their similar behavior in Tibet and Chechnya, now do you?
>> Isn't only picking fights small enough to win a sure indicator of a
> bully?
>
> These situations are only analogous to Kosovo insofar as they are examples
> of governments violently oppression minorities within a given country. Your
> analogy fails, however, when we look at what NATO has to gain by
> intervening in Chechnya or Tibet. The answer is that NATO has little to
> gain from Chechnya or Tibet; kicking Russia out of Chechnya or China out
> Tibet will not benefit NATO member nations very much at all.
Or maybe those 2,500 nuclear warheads had something to do with it?
> As I have stated, both Europe and the US had much to gain from intervening
> in Kosovo.
> Though one can argue that NATO bullied Serbia, the alternative would have
> been much worse. What if NATO had the means to stop Milosevic and didn't
> bother trying at all simply because Serbia was a weaker opponent? That's
> called apathy, which when you think about it, is far worse than bullying.
> What if you see a man who's smaller than you strike a child and you decide
> not to intervene because you don't want the man's backwards friends to call
> you a bully?
That "child" is the world's leading heroin smuggler. That "child" was also
heavily armed. You can all see what is that "child" doing now.
And you always talk about Milosevic like he was bombed, or he was killing
KLA terrorists. My father was involved in an action against Shiptar
terrorists in '81. as a police helicopter pilot. Just to remind: in
'81. Shiptars had very high level of autonomy on Kosovo, Milosevic was
just a bank clerk in New York, and no one claimed it was "genocide" or
"ethnic cleansing".
So maybe Shiptars weren't after "democracy" or "human rights" after all?
Jaywant Malik
> "stable" before USA and Germany torn apart SFR Yugoslavia.
You of all people should know that any knowledgable person won't fall for
this one. Even though US, UK, French, and German involvement excacerbated
the situation, Yugoslavia disintegrated largely on its own. I'll even go
one step further and argue that Serbs were responsible for the lion's share
of violence in the region.
> > NATO was a defensive alliance, but no NATO countries were being
threatened
> > in Kossovo. What gives?
>
> > That's right, NATO was a defensive alliance. Although Yugoslavia
probably
> > would have never attacked at NATO country its barbarity was not
acceptable
> > to Europeans in this era of human rights and globalism. In case you
didn't
> > notice, European and American (and Russian) governments tried for years
to
> > find a diplomatic solution to Milosevic's warmongering in the Balkans.
When
> > it became clear that only the use of force would change things in the
> > former Yugoslavia
>
> To call someone warmonger whilst being a citizen (and supportive one) of
> USA, a country that directly or indirectly took part in 85% out of over
> 100 wars and conflicts after WWII is pure hipocrisy.
When a nation is as large as the US it can't help but be involved in world
affairs, and that includes wars.
Much of US involvement in Third-World wars must be viewed in the context of
the Cold War; that is, they were part of a larger struggle between the USSR
and the USA.
> OK, so we're barbarians. On the other hand you have Dresden, Hiroshima,
> Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam - Hanoi, Hue city, Baghdad, Nis... as great
> examples of your culture.
Any logic professor can tell you that tu quoque rhetoric does not a valid
argument make. All of the atrocities you listed can be interpreted as
humanitarian acts because they averted bloodshed in the long run (though
this is not to say that I believe this.) How did Nis slip in there? In
terms of bloodshed, it's at least an order of magnitude smaller than even
Baghdad...
That said, I will now challenge your assertion that I'm a hypocrite:
Because I'm not a Serb nationalist I cannot see the good side of ethnic
cleansing. It's purely an act of aggression.
I don't see how I'm a hypocrite if I support dropping the A-Bomb on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prevent much bloodier land invasion and also
criticize Yugoslavia for its atrocities in Kosovo.
> As for the Milosevic, it's your government that called him "factor of
> stability and peace in the region". And do you think that USA can't
> (couldn't) kill him if he's such a threat to US interests?
The West wants stability in the Balkans. At one point Milosevic did appear
to want to keep the region stable. He claimed numerous times that he wanted
nothing but stability (Hitler used this tactic to dupe Chamberlain before
WWII) and sadly, the US believed him.
There was a time when Milosevic was just a talker and the US wrongly
figured that his desire to achieve "Greater Serbia" was a merely rhetoric
meant to appease the more militant elements
But then his actions proved that his promises of stability were empty.
> There you have it! You admit that NATO intervened for their own
interests,
> and not because of a "great humanitarian catastrophy".
NATO is not and never was a humanitarian organization per se. That NATO
bombed Yugoslavia for
> >> After all, you don't see any NATO warplanes flying over Beijing or
> >> Moscow over their similar behavior in Tibet and Chechnya, now do you?
> >> Isn't only picking fights small enough to win a sure indicator of a
> > bully?
> >
> > These situations are only analogous to Kosovo insofar as they are
examples
> > of governments violently oppression minorities within a given country.
Your
> > analogy fails, however, when we look at what NATO has to gain by
> > intervening in Chechnya or Tibet. The answer is that NATO has little to
> > gain from Chechnya or Tibet; kicking Russia out of Chechnya or China
out
> > Tibet will not benefit NATO member nations very much at all.
>
> Or maybe those 2,500 nuclear warheads had something to do with it?
Nukes do indeed have something to do with it. But so does distance.
Yugoslavia is right in Europe's backyard whereas Chechnya and Tibet are
thousands of kilometers away.
> > As I have stated, both Europe and the US had much to gain from
intervening
> > in Kosovo.
>
> > Though one can argue that NATO bullied Serbia, the alternative would
have
> > been much worse. What if NATO had the means to stop Milosevic and
didn't
> > bother trying at all simply because Serbia was a weaker opponent?
That's
> > called apathy, which when you think about it, is far worse than
bullying.
> > What if you see a man who's smaller than you strike a child and you
decide
> > not to intervene because you don't want the man's backwards friends to
call
> > you a bully?
>
> That "child" is the world's leading heroin smuggler. That "child" was
also
> heavily armed. You can all see what is that "child" doing now.
The "child" I was refering to is the unarmed Kosovar of Albanian descent
who was removed from his land simply for belonging to the wrong ethnic
group.
NATO support of KLA is vastly over-rated as anyone who followed the Kosovo
conflict closely can tell you. Despite the KLA's failure as a moral group,
it does share the NATO goal of stopping Serbia from carrying out crimes
against humanity in Kosovo.
Ask yourself this: what does the USA have to gain from supporting a bunch
of narco-terrorists in their struggle to gain autonomy from economically,
politically, and militarily insignificant Serbia?
Answer: not much.
> And you always talk about Milosevic like he was bombed, or he was killing
> KLA terrorists. My father was involved in an action against Shiptar
> terrorists in '81. as a police helicopter pilot. Just to remind: in
> '81. Shiptars had very high level of autonomy on Kosovo, Milosevic was
> just a bank clerk in New York, and no one claimed it was "genocide" or
> "ethnic cleansing".
This sounds interesting but I don't follow you. Did Yugoslav forces expel
hundreds of thousands of Albanians from Kosovo in the early 1980s? Nope.
Why didn't the NATO intervene then? Short answer: 1.) it wasn't the same
situation; 2.) it was a different world in those days.
> So maybe Shiptars weren't after "democracy" or "human rights" after all?
I don't think the Kosovo situation of the early 1980s is analogous to that
of 1999.
Okay, that's enough for now.
JM
p.s. - you're the first person I've seen in quite some time to post from
ShellYeah...I used to have an account with them but was very frustrated
with its sluggishness (it took me 2+ minutes to get emacs up and running
and it was only case where I found pine less than 100% reliable). Have they
improved access speed?
Jaywant Malik
> > interests. If you knew anything about geopolitics you'd know that
Europe
> > has far more to gain from a stable Balkans than the US. That the US
played
> > the leading role in NATO's Kosovo conflict had more to do with who had
> > better military technology than who wanted to intervene.
>
> US/NATO interventions in the Bosnian and Kossovo affairs did more harm to
> stability than good. Now that the United States has guaranteed autonomy
> for "persecuted minorities" within an independent country, what message
do
> you think that sends to the Albanians in FYROM, to Hungarians in
> Vojvodina (and heck, practically every country they border), etc?. I'll
> tell you -- "Take up arms, but if you get your tail handed to you we'll
> come in and save the day."
Okay, so Kosovo and Bosnia did not work out the way the US wanted. But that
does _not_ mean that they intended for Kosovo to slip into chaos or for
Bosnians to be butchered by Serbs.
As for US de facto support of Greater Albania, even the Albanians know it
won't happen. The persecution of Albanians in Serbia (and pretty much every
other minority in Central and Eastern Europe) is a far cry from the
outright slaughter of Albanians in Kosovo.
The only way for persecuted minorities to get US support is for them to
struggle against anti-US elements.
> Face it. US/NATO legitimized armed uprise in democratic nations. They've
> lost the moral high ground and have no right to complain about the Osama
> bin Ladens of the world.
Tsk. Tsk. We all know that these places are only nominally democratic. Real
democracies don't have dictators. Milosevic's opponents have far more
popular support than Milosevic does now but do they have any power? No. Do
they have the right to even express their opinions without fear of violent
persecution? No. How many TV stations has "democratic" Serbia shut down in
the last couple of weeks? It was five by my last count.
Sorry, but battling nominal democracies and republics does not strip me of
the right to complain about fundamentalist nuts who want to destroy the
USA.
> >> NATO was a defensive alliance, but no NATO countries were being
> >> threatened in Kossovo. What gives?
> >
> > That's right, NATO was a defensive alliance. Although Yugoslavia
probably
> > would have never attacked at NATO country its barbarity was not
acceptable
> > to Europeans in this era of human rights and globalism. In case you
didn't
> > notice, European and American (and Russian) governments tried for years
to
> > find a diplomatic solution to Milosevic's warmongering in the Balkans.
When
> > it became clear that only the use of force would change things in the
> > former Yugoslavia
>
> It was not acceptable to which Europeans? Most Europeans (as were most
> Americans) were against the bombings. Poll after poll proved that. It
> wasn't the people that were outraged -- heck, it wasn't even the
> politicians. Outrage wasn't what motivated the bombings, but greed.
> It was nothing omre than western powers looking for satellite nations to
> use and discard when the political climate changes. They got in with
> Bosnia and soon the "Autonomous Albanian Province of Kossovo".
Most Americans supported the bombing but were strongly opposed to it if it
led to further involvement (e.g. a long-term air campaign or a ground war).
I don't know what polls you're citing, but I got my information from the AP
and Reuters, which used Gallup and other accredited polls. If there was
some special Greek or Tanjug poll that convinced you that the Kosovo war
was solely about greed I'd like to see it, but don't expect me to believe
it because it isn't in synch with reality.
FYI the Gallup polls were brutally honest: more than half of American
adults polled were outraged by what they saw on TV about Kosovo and thought
that the US should intervene even if it risking American lives... but less
than 5% knew where Kosovo was; most thought it was somewhere in the Middle
East.
Now let me tell you something about American greed: if the US wanted to get
more "stuff" there were far better ways to get that stuff than by saving a
bunch of Albanians from Serb mass-murderers.
In the 70-odd days of bombing the US technological sector alone added
something like $250 billion to the GNP; that's far more than the US would
get in 50 years if it utterly conquered Serbia and cleaned up the region
and set up Western-style societies there. _The Economist_ estimated that
the Kosovo conflict, when all is said and done, will cost more than $100
billion. Spending that kind of money to bail about a bunch of analphabets
is hardly the mark of greed, not by capitalist societies that know a thing
or two about making money.
> Quick. Name me even one time that Western Europeans messed with the
> Balkans that didn't wind up flaming the fuels of war a few years later.
> This is no different.
Tito had support of the West (they treated Yugoslavia much better than
other Communist nations)
Dayton Peace Accords is a step in the right direction. The problem is not
the Western intervention but the hatred between the locals.
> No stability was gained from this Clintonist farce.
Republicans here say that no farce is complete without a cameo by Jesse
Jackson.
> >> After all, you don't see any NATO warplanes flying over Beijing or
> >> Moscow over their similar behavior in Tibet and Chechnya, now do you?
> >> Isn't only picking fights small enough to win a sure indicator of a
> >> bully?
> >
> > These situations are only analogous to Kosovo insofar as they are
examples
> > of governments violently oppression minorities within a given country.
Your
> > analogy fails, however, when we look at what NATO has to gain by
> > intervening in Chechnya or Tibet. The answer is that NATO has little to
> > gain from Chechnya or Tibet; kicking Russia out of Chechnya or China
out
> > Tibet will not benefit NATO member nations very much at all.
>
> You forget to mention that what little support NATO did get from the
> citizens of its members was directly because of leadership talking about
> the "moral duty" to protect people. When one talks about "moral duty", he
> can't be selective.. morality does not care that China and Russia have
> nukes.
>
> > As I have stated, both Europe and the US had much to gain from
intervening
> > in Kosovo.
> >
> > Though one can argue that NATO bullied Serbia, the alternative would
have
> > been much worse. What if NATO had the means to stop Milosevic and
didn't
> > bother trying at all simply because Serbia was a weaker opponent?
That's
> > called apathy, which when you think about it, is far worse than
bullying.
> > What if you see a man who's smaller than you strike a child and you
decide
> > not to intervene because you don't want the man's backwards friends to
call
> > you a bully?
>
> If the child threw an egg on the adult and the adult slapped the child,
> I'd shake his hand. Albanians picked the fight, and the consequences of
> that was them getting beaten.
I don't want to get into the whole which-came-first-the-chicken-or-egg
debate, but I think a reasonable person could make a solid argument that
the Albanians were defending themselves.
> As far as apathy is concerned, how is that so wrong? Why does it bother
> you in Kossovo, but not Chechnya, Tibet, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, etc etc
> etc?
The US did try to intervene in Somalia but the anarchy there made the
situation utterly hopeless. The US is also the single largest supporter of
the rebels in Sudan, who are trying to topple that nation's Islamic regime
and put an end to the Africa's last bastion of the slave trade.
None of these "etc etc" places are in Europe. Only Kosovo has that dubious
honor.
> If they want to kill themselves, let them.
This is exactly the enlightened attitude that allowed World Wars One and
Two to take place. Americans are certainly guilty of this apathy but we
learned the hard way consequences of such thinking.
> > Also, anyone who knows anything about war knows that nations only enter
> > wars that they think they can win without sustaining irreparable
damage.
>
> The Albanians knew that and ignored it. Why did NATO bail them out?
I should have put a little asterisk by my claim (I took this from
Clausewitz, who also qualified this claim) and qualified by saying that
"nations only fight wars that they think they can win except in the case
where war is absolutely the only viable alternative.
To paraphrase _The Economist_ "NATO wanted to clean up the Western world
for the new millenium and the KLA had the fortune to benefit from this
situation, but if they're not careful they'll soon find themselves stuck in
the same rubbish bin as Milosevic."
> >> NATO = NOW ARMING TERRORIZE OTHERS.
> >
> > Oh, is that what the acronym means? Well, if you Greeks dislike it so
much
> > you're free to leave. But don't expect NATO to defend you from Turkey
> > afterwards.
> Greece does not need NATO to defend her from anyone. And the opposition
to
> NATO is growing in most nations, including the US.
Greeks don't seem to like NATO. The populace doesn't like it and the
government doesn't like it. But it's still a NATO member. Why? Because
Turkey is a NATO member. If Greece drops out and Turkey attacks it, Greece
will be struggling against a Turkey with NATO backing. Whoever's running
things in Greece has enough sense to know this.
But don't worry there are plenty of second-hand MiG-23s for sale, cheap.
While there is plenty of opposition to NATO in the complacent West due the
collapse of the USSR, there are plenty of countries that are eager to join.
In case you didn't know, when a nation joins NATO, it pays the expenses for
upgrading the weapons and communications networks, but even that daunting
factor has not discouraged dirt-poor Ukraine from repeatedly asking to
join.
JM
Kostas Giannopoulos
> you're free to leave. But don't expect NATO to defend you from Turkey
> afterwards.
*** NATO did nothing to prevent the turkish invasion in Cyprus, on the
contrary, and for decades now
NATO helps turkish expansionism. We expect nothing from NATO. The only
reason we stay in NATO is not to worsen
it's one-sided approach in Greek-turkish relations.
> JM
Myron Kaisides
Athens
Jaywant Malik
If NATO truly had a one-sided approach to Greek-Turkish relations then
Turkey would have taken as much of Cyprus as it wanted and Greek Cypriots
would all be refugees. Think of all of those islands that Turkey and Greece
both claim; Turkey would've received all of them if it had unconditional
NATO backing vis-à-vis Greece.
Any worsening of Turkish-Greek relations would spell much more trouble for
Greece than Turkey at this juncture. The idea that Greece is altruistically
staying in NATO in order to save the world from a Greek-Turkish conflict is
absurd. NATO protects Greece and although the vice-versa is supposed to be
true, it isn't.
JM
Robert the 'erbert
Giannopoulos) wrote:
> > Oh, is that what the acronym means? Well, if you Greeks dislike it so much
> > you're free to leave. But don't expect NATO to defend you from Turkey
> > afterwards.
>
> *** NATO did nothing to prevent the turkish invasion in Cyprus, on the
> contrary, and for decades now
> NATO helps turkish expansionism. We expect nothing from NATO. The only
> reason we stay in NATO is not to worsen
> it's one-sided approach in Greek-turkish relations.
The reason why you Greeks want to stay in NATO is because the majority of Greeks
want it.
Marko37
access to 31K newsgroups. It is SLOOOOOOW. Our NNTP server is acting
rather strange. A week ago it was completly down, and no new posts could
be seen. It was "fixed" last week after almsot a month. Although it seems
as it's working now, some posts can't be seen. I guess it's political not
technical problem.
Anyway I'm now back on my NNTP cause it takes up to 10 seconds sometimes
from pressing the button to action here on ShellYeah. I posted this Via SY
only so you can see it.
kirill
Vasilios Pilarinos wrote:
>
snip
>
> You actually believed those pictures --
> unfocused satellite pictures will little or no details.
Actually there was quite a bit of detail but the problem is that
there was no evidence on the ground, proving that they were fakes.
Also, why didn't NATO produce satellite pictures of all the other
"mass grave" sites it was claiming to know about...
> The government
> can take pictures of your license plate from a satellite but can't take
> any better pictures than that? Come on! :)
This is not true. The problem isn't the optics and detectors on
the satellite, but scattering of light by atmospheric turbulence.
There is actually a maximum resolution beyond which details are
no longer resolvable. So stories about satellites reading the
newspaper in someone's hands or licence plates are urban myths.
For the Pusto Selo case, the "satellite showed" three rows of
"graves" for a total of about 150 in a field. The BBC then
produced a video purporting to show the bodies being buried,
but the video only had a handful of "graves" of the wrong size and
no Serbs in sight. The bodies didn't look dead and the video
reeked of a student project. I have not seen the NATO media do a
follow up on this alleged site. I conclude that it is a hoax.
costas
>In soc.culture.greek Jaywant Malik
>>> What do you think NATO's role is in the post-USSR world?
>> NATO will be the defense arm of Western society. On the one hand it will
>> defend the democratic values of the nations within that society but on
the other hand it will also defend the West's exploitative capitalism.
OK, lets see Maliks dialectic applied elsewhere: On one hand, Spanish
conquistadores were spreading Christian faith to savages, on the other hand
they were looting and slaughtering millions of Indians. On one hand Hitler
was defending the German-Aryan legacy and values against judeo-bolshevism,
on the other hand he was systematically exterminating millions of people for
their race, ideas, political views, etc.. Feel free to give more exemples...
>>. If you knew anything about geopolitics you'd know that Europe
>> has far more to gain from a stable Balkans than the US.
We can all see how stable are the Balkans now... If YOU knew about
geopolitics, you could see Germanny's responsibility in the beginning of the
Yugoslavia crisis (1991) and the US one in the Kossovo affair (the
Rambouillet hegociations were consciously lead to an dead end by the USA.
The knew that the Yugoslavian side could never accept the terms proposed...)
>> That's right, NATO was a defensive alliance.
Major BS. This "defencive" argument could fool people during the cold war
era, with the Warsaw Pact scarecrow, now it can only fool those who want to
be fooled like you...
>It was not acceptable to which Europeans? Most Europeans (as were most
>Americans) were against the bombings. Poll after poll proved that. It
>wasn't the people that were outraged -- heck, it wasn't even the
>politicians. Outrage wasn't what motivated the bombings, but greed.
>It was nothing omre than western powers looking for satellite nations to
>use and discard when the political climate changes. They got in with
>Bosnia and soon the "Autonomous Albanian Province of Kossovo".
>>>> Are we to be the police of the world... but only in places where we
face
>>> no great risk?
>>
>>> After all, you don't see any NATO warplanes flying over Beijing or
>>> Moscow over their similar behavior in Tibet and Chechnya, now do you?
>>> Isn't only picking fights small enough to win a sure indicator of a
>>> bully?
>>> NATO = NOW ARMING TERRORIZE OTHERS.
Very true. Costas
Jaywant Malik
<8blhvc$n...@journal.concentric.net>...
> > As for US de facto support of Greater Albania, even the Albanians know
it
> > won't happen. The persecution of Albanians in Serbia (and pretty much
every
> > other minority in Central and Eastern Europe) is a far cry from the
> > outright slaughter of Albanians in Kosovo.
>
> Outright slaughter? The tree years prior to NATO intervention saw some
> 1200-1300 Albanians killed in fighting. Cause for concern, but hardly a
> "slaughter", especially considering there was an armed insurrection by
the
> Albanians. It's called a civil-war. Look it up. Or did you think the KLA
> magically appeared after NATO intervened?
And why were Albanians shooting at Serbs in the first place? Because they
were defending themselves
That factor aside, Albanians were armed and were murdering Serb policemen.
The Serb response was to kill a whole bunch of Albanian civilians and hoped
the terrorists were among the dead. This method proved quite effective so
they used it frequently. As you know, there were several massacres in which
the Serbs claimed to kill terrorists but when reporters showed up they
found nothing but dead civilians (including babies). The Serb solution to
this problem was to forbid media access to Kosovo "battlefields".
> > The only way for persecuted minorities to get US support is for them
to
> > struggle against anti-US elements.
>
> Yugoslavia was never an anti-US element. Even post-Tito Yugoslavia was
> America-friendly. Serbs couldn't believe that the same Americans they
> helped in WWII were bombing them. Just because they didn't become
American
> lackeys doesn't mean that they were anti-US.
Right. This is why the KLA never had much US support and what little
support they received came only after much hesitation.
> >> Face it. US/NATO legitimized armed uprise in democratic nations.
They've
> >> lost the moral high ground and have no right to complain about the
Osama
> >> bin Ladens of the world.
> >
> > Tsk. Tsk. We all know that these places are only nominally democratic.
Real
> > democracies don't have dictators. Milosevic's opponents have far more
> > popular support than Milosevic does now but do they have any power? No.
Do
> > they have the right to even express their opinions without fear of
violent
> > persecution? No. How many TV stations has "democratic" Serbia shut down
in
> > the last couple of weeks? It was five by my last count.
>
> And how many had they shut down prior to the NATO bombing? Desperate
times
> called for desperate measures. If Milosevic was such a dictator why was
it
> that Albanian-speaking TV station was left up and running in Pristina up
> until the NATO bombing?
Reporters in Yugoslavia were systematically persecuted long before NATO
arrived on the scene. The only way an Albanian station could survive in
Yugoslavia is if it were pro-Serb.
> Milosevic has many enemies but also a lot of friends. BTW -- before you
> say I am a supporter of Milosevic, I was never a fan of the commie. But
he
> was (or is) no more a dictator than any politician who uses the law to
his
> advantage to stay in power.
That's where you're wrong. Tony Blair doesn't shut down the BBC or ITN
every time he's criticized. I can't think of a single US station that was
closed because it threatend the leaders.
In free nations, one can publically denounce the government without fear of
being hurt by said government. Any Serb can tell you that this is not the
case in Belgrade.
Sorry, but silencing the opposition through violent is not the hallmark of
a democratic leader.
> > Sorry, but battling nominal democracies and republics does not strip me
of
> > the right to complain about fundamentalist nuts who want to destroy the
> > USA.
>
> In both 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton failed to get a majority vote. He
> simply got the plurality. I'd say that's a nominal democrasy! Maybe,
> like you, Osama bin Laden, wants to destroy the US so that a REAL
> democracy succeeds it. His goals are as noble as yours vis a vis
> Yugoslavia. ;-)
Bill Clinton never got the majority of votes, and that, my dear ignorant
Visilios, is why the US has two other branches of government: the
Legislative and the Judicial. Unlike in nominal democracies, Congress has
real power in the US.
> > FYI the Gallup polls were brutally honest: more than half of American
> > adults polled were outraged by what they saw on TV about Kosovo and
thought
> > that the US should intervene even if it risking American lives... but
less
> > than 5% knew where Kosovo was; most thought it was somewhere in the
Middle
> > East.
>
> Hey Jaywant, by your name I'll take it you are black. Does it bother you
> any that white-America could give two shits about black Africans hacking
> each other to pieces?
Well, this shows what you know. Jaywant is a Sikh name and Malik is Arabic;
my grandparents fled Kashmir (which makes the Balkans look like a utopia)
to Europe, but they faced a lot of prejudice there. Then they came to the
US, where they also faced prejudice (but not nearly as much as in Europe),
and eventually settled there.
As for whites not caring about blacks... that's certainly true for many
individuals. But there are plenty of whites who do care, as is evident in
their participation and support of the Civil Rights movement and other
forms of progressive thinking.
> Also, do you think people that can't place Kossovo on a map can really
> form any sort of educated INDEPENDENT opinion? Do you think any of those
> people looked up French, Brittish, German news sources to see someone
> else's point of view?
We're drifting offtopic. But the news they received on the American TV
networks consists of reports by American, British, French, German, and
Serbian journalists. I saw the American coverage of the conflict and it was
actually pretty balanced. People who opposed the NATO intervention were
given plenty of time to express their views on TV, because the networks
found that it made for a better show. Sorry, but there is no state-run
media here.
> > Now let me tell you something about American greed: if the US wanted to
get
> > more "stuff" there were far better ways to get that stuff than by
saving a
> > bunch of Albanians from Serb mass-murderers.
>
> Mass-murderers? In case you aren't up to your news, those infamous "mass
> graves" with the "thousands of corpses" were never found. You were
> suckered. The propaganda that helped feed sheepish support by people like
> you ensured you believed that they were "mass murderers".
Tanjug said we were suckered because there wasn't a single mass grave (ie
100 people in a grave). Instead, forensics teams found lots of little
graves (with a dozen or less people in them) in which . There were also
reconaissance photos of Serbs digging up a mass grave and then re-burying
the bodies in numerous smaller graves. Even worse, the Serbs didn't bother
to bury many of the Albaians they killed; they simply shot a bunch of
Albanians and let the survivors take care of the bodies.
Sorry, but you're the sheep in this case, and Milosevic is your shepherd.
> > In the 70-odd days of bombing the US technological sector alone added
> > something like $250 billion to the GNP; that's far more than the US
would
> > get in 50 years if it utterly conquered Serbia and cleaned up the
region
> > and set up Western-style societies there. _The Economist_ estimated
that
> > the Kosovo conflict, when all is said and done, will cost more than
$100
> > billion. Spending that kind of money to bail about a bunch of
analphabets
> > is hardly the mark of greed, not by capitalist societies that know a
thing
> > or two about making money.
>
> Think before you write, man. If the 70-odd days of bombing added 250
> billion dollars to the economy and the Kossovo conflict will cost 100
> billion dollars over the course of X years, can you not see that's a
> profit of over 150 billion dollars?
No, you're the one who should think before you write.
Nowhere did I indicate that the $250 billion was added _because_ of Kosovo;
it was added _despite_ of Kosovo. This money has nothing to do with Kosovo,
so you can't say that there was $150 billion profit from the conflict.
The $100 billion spent in Kosovo is money down the drain. The Economist
argued against the intervention because it was a "poor investment."
> Do you still think this was done for humanitarian reasons?
Well, NATO wasn't in it for the money. It wasn't trying to stop Russia from
expanding. It wasn't threatend by Yugoslavia. They way I see it is that the
only choice left was to stop a humanitarian disaster.
> >> Quick. Name me even one time that Western Europeans messed with the
> >> Balkans that didn't wind up flaming the fuels of war a few years
later.
> >> This is no different.
> >
> > Tito had support of the West (they treated Yugoslavia much better than
> > other Communist nations)
> >
> > Dayton Peace Accords is a step in the right direction. The problem is
not
> > the Western intervention but the hatred between the locals.
>
> Western intervention exasperates local hatred because it doesn't allow
> for people to accept the results. Both sides will believe they were
> hurt by the process; in this case Albanians believe they would have won
> 100% independence, and Serbs thought they would have taken back
> control from the KLA. If they are not happy with the "status quo"
> imposed by the West, when the West removes it's presence from the
> region, which it will eventually have to, the warring will inevitably
> resume.
I agree. Although the West has the best of intentions for Kosovo, their
method of intervention is not suitable for the situation there. The only
thing that would work is if the West cleans out the region the way they did
post-war Germany and Japan.
> >> No stability was gained from this Clintonist farce.
> >
> > Republicans here say that no farce is complete without a cameo by Jesse
> > Jackson.
>
> I *am* "here", bro.
The whole Jesse Jackson thing reveals that there is a dimension to the
Kosovo conflict that even the most enlightened member of the general public
does not know about. We can speculate all we want about it, but both sides
are very quiet about the details.
> >> If the child threw an egg on the adult and the adult slapped the
child,
> >> I'd shake his hand. Albanians picked the fight, and the consequences
of
> >> that was them getting beaten.
> >
> > I don't want to get into the whole which-came-first-the-chicken-or-egg
> > debate, but I think a reasonable person could make a solid argument
that
> > the Albanians were defending themselves.
>
> LOL. Ok there, Mr. Reasonable. The KLA began this war with the murder
> of Serb police officers and the daily harassment of the Serb minority.
> Serbs went in there to impose order. It's their country -- they have
> that right. Would you allow the Miami Cubans to murder American police
> officers because they don't recognize their rules? Of course not. The
> National Guard would be in there in no time and you'd be rooting them
> on. Quit being a hypocrite.
The KLA was shooting Serb police because the police were shooting and
otherwise abusing Albanians. Ordinary, happy, unrepressed people do not
start up or support terrorist organizations in their homelands.
In order to make your analogy to Miami police and Cuban-Americans fit,
there would have to be massacres of Miamians by the police and another huge
list of atrocities and injustices before the Miamians took up arms against
the police. And when they did take up arms, Clinton would respond by
invoking the draft and sending in the National Guard to rid Florida of
Cuban-Americans. Sound farfetched? It sure does...
> >> As far as apathy is concerned, how is that so wrong? Why does it
bother
> >> you in Kossovo, but not Chechnya, Tibet, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, etc
etc
> >> etc?
> >
> > The US did try to intervene in Somalia but the anarchy there made the
> > situation utterly hopeless. The US is also the single largest supporter
of
> > the rebels in Sudan, who are trying to topple that nation's Islamic
regime
> > and put an end to the Africa's last bastion of the slave trade.
>
> Last bastion of the slave trade? Slavery is rampant throughout Africa.
There is a problem of slavery in Africa and Sudan is the chief offender, by
a longshot. No other African nation has an institutionalized slave-trade
the way Sudan does, not by an order of magnitude.
> > None of these "etc etc" places are in Europe. Only Kosovo has that
dubious
> > honor.
NATO's job is to defend Europe, US, and Canada.
> Once again, selective "morality". IOW, no morality at all.
My point is that the other places fall outside of NATO's sphere of
interest. To be called immoral by someone who supports Serbia's actions in
Kosovo is absurd, but I guess you can't see this...
> >> If they want to kill themselves, let them.
> >
> > This is exactly the enlightened attitude that allowed World Wars One
and
> > Two to take place. Americans are certainly guilty of this apathy but we
> > learned the hard way consequences of such thinking.
>
> WWI and WWII both started because of alliances which saw themselves as
> bastions of "righteousness" and attempted to impose their rule over
> people who didn't recognize that rule. That expansionism can be seen in
> NATO, not Milosevic's Yugoslavia.
Why would NATO want to control Yugoslavia? The place is a dump and a black
hole in terms of investment. There are plenty of more lucrative places that
are eager to join NATO without putting up a fight at all.
> What authority does NATO have to "clean up the Western world"? Who gave
> them that authority? Themselves?
We all have a duty to make the world a better place in which to live.
That's the root of NATO's authority.
> > Greeks don't seem to like NATO. The populace doesn't like it and the
> > government doesn't like it. But it's still a NATO member. Why? Because
> > Turkey is a NATO member. If Greece drops out and Turkey attacks it,
Greece
> > will be struggling against a Turkey with NATO backing. Whoever's
running
> > things in Greece has enough sense to know this.
>
> Are you implying that if a NATO member attacked a non-member without
> provokation it would have NATO backing? This alliance is more dangerous
> than I had originally thought. :-)
Who said anything about no provokation? Greeks do plenty to provoke the
Turks and the only thing that keeps Turkey from giving Greece a pounding is
that they are both part of an alliance.
> > But don't worry there are plenty of second-hand MiG-23s for sale,
cheap.
>
> I'd take a 3rd generation Russian fighter over a 4th generation Western
> plane any day of the week.
You must know something that every military planner in the world doesn't.
The generation of NATO-built fighters after Mig-23s consists of the F-14,
F-15, and F-16. I don't think a MiG-23 has ever shot down one of these
planes. An F-14 with AWACS backing can destory a slow target (like MiG-23)
at range of over 50 kilometers.
> > While there is plenty of opposition to NATO in the complacent West due
the
> > collapse of the USSR, there are plenty of countries that are eager to
join.
> > In case you didn't know, when a nation joins NATO, it pays the expenses
for
> > upgrading the weapons and communications networks, but even that
daunting
> > factor has not discouraged dirt-poor Ukraine from repeatedly asking to
> > join.
>
> Ukrainians are paranoid about Russian influence over them. That
> paranoia has led them to make some bad decisions. Those that know NATO
> best, citizens of the West, are starting to oppose NATO in greater and
> greater numbers. Soon European citizens will realize that their
> interests are different than those of the US and will scrap NATO for a
> EU military force.
I would hardly call Ukraine's desire not to be absorbed by Russia a form a
paranoia. They haven't done well since the USSR broke up but they know the
root of their suffering was being stuck in the USSR in the first place.
NATO membership is the best way to avoid this. Ukraine rightly sees NATO
membership as a ticket to a better future.
As for NATO, it'll be around for quite some time to come, I'm afraid. This
EU security force currently lacks unity and technology. This, alongside the
fact that Britain and Germany stand to gain more from an American-led NATO
and a French-led EU force, means that it will be decades before this EU
forces becomes a viable alternative to NATO. By then, NGOs will run
everything, so it won't matter.
Jaywant Malik
<%hpD4.1118$6S6.3...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>...
> Access speed? What is it :)
Sorry, local jargon. Access speed = speed of telnet terminal (measured in
echo response time) taking into account modem speed (if present). In other
words, time between keystroke and the appearance of character on the
screen.
> No, I'm using ShellYeah only cause I have full
> access to 31K newsgroups. It is SLOOOOOOW. Our NNTP server is acting
> rather strange. A week ago it was completly down, and no new posts could
> be seen. It was "fixed" last week after almsot a month. Although it seems
> as it's working now, some posts can't be seen. I guess it's political not
> technical problem.
Okay, so ShellYeah is still slow. That's too bad, because I really liked
it. Well, you get what you pay for...
> Anyway I'm now back on my NNTP cause it takes up to 10 seconds sometimes
> from pressing the button to action here on ShellYeah. I posted this Via
SY
> only so you can see it.
Thanks for taking the trouble to do that.
If you can run a newer version of Netscape or Internet Explorer, you can
post to any Usenet newsgroup via http://www.deja.com. It's not good for
reading the news, though, and it doesn't work well with lynx.
JM
Jaywant Malik
> Vasilios Pilarinos wrote
> >In soc.culture.greek Jaywant Malik
> >>> What do you think NATO's role is in the post-USSR world?
> >> NATO will be the defense arm of Western society. On the one hand it
will
> >> defend the democratic values of the nations within that society but on
> the other hand it will also defend the West's exploitative capitalism.
>
> OK, lets see Maliks dialectic applied elsewhere: On one hand, Spanish
hand
> they were looting and slaughtering millions of Indians. On one hand
Hitler
> was defending the German-Aryan legacy and values against
judeo-bolshevism,
> on the other hand he was systematically exterminating millions of people
for
> their race, ideas, political views, etc.. Feel free to give more
exemples...
Man, the dialectic is sooooo dead as a way of thinking. Any educated social
scientist knows that it died as legitimate means of discourse just after
World War II. Furthermore, what I claimed about NATO is no way dialectical
other than it has two aims (but these aims are not contradictory enough to
constitute a dialectic).
It's funny that you accuse me of thinking like a Marxist (or a Hegelian)
when you yourself don't seem to grasp the nature of the dialectic. You did
set up some nice dialectics for the Spanish and Nazi examples, but then you
made the mistake of trying to compare them to the post-modern (nobody
really knows what this word means, but they do know what it doesn't mean,
and one of it's non-meanings is "dialectic") NATO position.
> >>. If you knew anything about geopolitics you'd know that Europe
> >> has far more to gain from a stable Balkans than the US.
>
> We can all see how stable are the Balkans now... If YOU knew about
> geopolitics, you could see Germanny's responsibility in the beginning of
the
> Yugoslavia crisis (1991) and the US one in the Kossovo affair (the
> Rambouillet hegociations were consciously lead to an dead end by the USA.
> The knew that the Yugoslavian side could never accept the terms
proposed...)
Are you one of these "warm water port" theorists? This is the idea that
following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Germany and Russia wanted
access to a warm water port. Yugoslavia has lots of these ports. Germany
tried to get access to the ports by supporting Croatians; Russia tried to
gain access by backing Serbs. Meanwhile, the US, Britain, and France saw
their economic interests threatened if either Croatia (Germany) or Serbia
(Russia) had access to the ports, so they backed the Bosnians.
> >> That's right, NATO was a defensive alliance.
>
> Major BS. This "defencive" argument could fool people during the cold war
> era, with the Warsaw Pact scarecrow, now it can only fool those who want
to
> be fooled like you...
I think "was" is the operative word here... though even today it serves a
defensive purpose both externally and internally. Think of how Russia would
bully Poland if it didn't belong. Think of how the US would push around UK
and France if all three didn't belong.
<SNIP>
JM
p.s. - what's "judeo-bolshevism"? I've only seen that concept in Nazi
propaganda speeches. Do you seriously think it exists? If so, don't expect
me to take you seriously.
Amigocabal
IF ALL YOUR BULLSHIT IS TRUE, THAN ZLOB, MLADIC AND OTHERS DO NOT HAVE
THING TO WORRY ABOUT THEY CAN COME OUT OF HIDING AND HIBERNATION AND
VISIT THE HAGUE!
--
Chechnia belongs to Chechens, Russia belongs to Tatars!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ji...@my-deja.com
they did and the Albanians are equally bad. The Albanians started the
violence and the Serbs escalated it. In the beginning the Serbs threw
the Albanians out of Kosovo and then after NATO's intervention the
Albanians threw the Serbs out of Kosovo. I fail to see the point as far
as stability is concerned.
And don't tell me that NATO didn't know that this was going to happen.
Morally both sides have proven to be the same. Thus NATO simply chose
who is going to own Kososvo. But why the Albanians?
Dimitris
Robert the 'erbert
Pilarinos) wrote:
> In soc.culture.greek Lucifer <Anonymous...@see.comment.header> wrote:
> > In article <8blhvc$n...@journal.concentric.net>
> > Vasilios Pilarinos <vpil...@hellas.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Outright slaughter? The tree years prior to NATO intervention saw some
> >> 1200-1300 Albanians killed in fighting.
> >
> > Actually, slobodan Milosevic and his merry band of thugs are
> > responsible for about 250,000 deaths in the former Yugoslavia
> > over the past ten years. You may wish to gloss over vukovar, and
> > Sarajevo, and Srebrenica, but we won't let you.
>
> And NATO and their merry band of bullies are responsible for more
> deaths than that in Iraq due to malnutrition and starvation.
>
> If you're not willing to discuss each individual case there's no point
> in dicussing this with you. You think that the Bosnian Muslims had a
> right to an independent Bosnia but that the Bosnian Serbs, who
> outnumbered the Muslims, did not. Logic is not your strong point, is
> it?
Accuracy isn't yours. The last census of numbers of Bosnians clearly state that
muslims were in the majority.
> >> Cause for concern, but hardly a "slaughter", especially considering
> >> there was an armed insurrection by the Albanians. It's called a
> >> civil-war. Look it up. Or did you think the KLA magically appeared
> >> after NATO intervened?
> >
> > No, they achieved success only after Slobodan Milosevic gave the
> > Albanians a *reason* to support the KLA.
>
> Not quite. The KLA was having their ass handed to them by the Serbs up
> until NATO decided to be the KLA's air force.
Can you say that again?
> >> Yugoslavia was never an anti-US element. Even post-Tito Yugoslavia was
> >> America-friendly. Serbs couldn't believe that the same Americans they
> >> helped in WWII were bombing them.
> >
> > When they started behaving like the Nazis who were *responsible* for
> > WWII, they should have been able to figure out that they would be
> > treated just like those Nazis. And they have been.
>
> Actually those responsible for WWII were the "victors" of WWI that
> crippled Germany to the point that someone like Hitler could gain
> power.
Your understanding of history and responsibility is primitive and flawed.
What you are doing is absolving responsibility for dictators actiosns from some
grievance from the past. This isn't good enough.
> Unfortunately the "West" is not smart enough NOT to apply those
> same harsh conditions of "peace" on Serbia and they will pay for it
> 20-30 years down the line.
I doubt it. You sound like you believe Serbian nationalist propaganda.
> >> And how many had they shut down prior to the NATO bombing? Desperate
> >> times called for desperate measures.
> >
> > Yes, that's true. And so Kosova has been taken away from the Serbs.
>
> To everything turn turn turn.. it's only a matter of time until the
> Albanians too get fed up with the NATO presence and hack a few
> Americans to pieces. Then, like in Somalia, US will put it's tail
> between it's legs and bring the guys home. Serbia will then take what's
> rightfully theirs.
No, what you have said is what you would like. It has the about as much chance
of coming true as all the other idle Serbian boasts.
> >> In both 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton failed to get a majority vote. He
> >> simply got the plurality. I'd say that's a nominal democrasy!
> >
> > Perhaps you don't understand the concept of democracy very well.
>
> Better than you. I don't go through loops to hide my identity from
> anyone like you do. I guess you don't have a lot of confidence on the
> 1st Ammendment, do you?
<yawn>
> >> Hey Jaywant, by your name I'll take it you are black. Does it bother you
> >> any that white-America could give two shits about black Africans hacking
> >> each other to pieces?
> >
> > Nice try. But you cannot determine a person's race by his name. In
> > fact, you cannot determine much about him at all.
>
> Why don't you let him answer that? Find me a white person with a name
> of Jaywant Malik and I'll show you a man with some serious identity
> issues.
>
> >> Also, do you think people that can't place Kossovo on a map can really
> >> form any sort of educated INDEPENDENT opinion? Do you think any of those
> >> people looked up French, Brittish, German news sources to see someone
> >> else's point of view?
> >
> > The people who have determined the fate of the former Yugoslavia
> > know where it is; they were able to place 30,000 bombs there with
> > great precision. Their citizens believe that the punitive actions
> > against Serbia were not only justified, but were, in fact, a moral
> > duty.
>
> Great precision? Tell that to the Chinese. LOL.
There was nothing wrong with the guidance system.
> > The Serbs have been sigularly unconvincing in their attempts to
> > persuade anyone else.
>
> I'd venture to say that the majority of the world's public opinion is
> on the side of the Serbs.
Then you need to prove it.
> China, India, and Russia all condemned the
> air attacks. Right there you have 50 percent. Where you referring to
> yourself when you said "anyone else"?
Support is usually measured in deeds rather than words.
> >> Mass-murderers? In case you aren't up to your news, those infamous "mass
> >> graves" with the "thousands of corpses" were never found.
> >
> > Actually, they have. And we've seen the pictures.
>
> We've seen nothing. Post a URL with these pictures.
>
> %
> NATO photos of of Kosovo mass graves are fake: report
> THE HAGUE, April 24 (AFP) - Several photos distributed by NATO and said
> to show possible mass graves in Kosovo could be fake, the Dutch daily
> Algemen Dagblad said Saturday.
>
> The paper based its claims on analyses carried out by a map expert
> specialising in the study of satellite photos, who examined four
> pictures taken over the Kosovo villages of Pusto Selo and Izbica.
> % (snip)
>
> This is just a sample of news stories I read. I'm sorry to say this,
> but you were suckered. You actually believed those pictures --
> unfocused satellite pictures will little or no details. The government
> can take pictures of your license plate from a satellite but can't take
> any better pictures than that? Come on! :)
>
> >> You were
> >> suckered. The propaganda that helped feed sheepish support by people like
> >> you ensured you believed that they were "mass murderers".
> >
> > As I say,
>
> I don't care what you say. I care about what you can PROVE.
>
> > the Serbs haven't convinced anyone of anything other than
> > the fact that they're in deep denial, much like the Germans were
> > when forced to visit the death camps after the end of the war.
> > Perhaps it's time to take the *rest* of Serbia
> > and force the Serbs to walk through the killing filed of Vukovar and
> > Srebrenica and Kosova.
>
> You are welcome to try and take it. That would require troops in
> the land. The Serbs will make Vietnam look like a stroll through the
> park.
You do get overexcited when reading your Cetnik Book of Heroic Deeds, don't you?
> >> Do you still think this was done for humanitarian reasons?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> You are a product of tv pop culture. Of course you would.
And you are clearly someone with a logic by-pass.
> >> Western intervention exasperates local hatred because it doesn't allow
> >> for people to accept the results.
> >
> > You're quite right. The Croatians will never accept Vukovar as
> > "necessary". The Bosnians want to see the butchers of
> > Srebrenica tried and punished. The Kosovars will never permit the
> > serb authorities to return to Kosova.
>
> Croatians, Serbs, Kosovars and _s_erbs. LOL. Yeah, you really are
> offending them by using small letters. Grow up.
>
> >> Both sides will believe they were
> >> hurt by the process; in this case Albanians believe they would have won
> >> 100% independence, and Serbs thought they would have taken back
> >> control from the KLA. If they are not happy with the "status quo"
> >> imposed by the West, when the West removes it's presence from the
> >> region, which it will eventually have to, the warring will inevitably
> >> resume.
> >
> > Serbia has ten million inhabitants. Thanks to slobodan Milosevic,
> > it is surrounded by bitter enemies. If NATO abandons the region
> > entirely, Serbia will cease to exist. But NATO has no intention of
> > abandoning the area.
>
> Which of it's neighbors do you think can threaten Serbia? :-)
>
> >> I'd take a 3rd generation Russian fighter over a 4th generation Western
> >> plane any day of the week.
> >
> > You've had two opportunities to see those in action in the past ten years.
>
> It speaks more on the quality of the pilots than the airplanes. Pilots
> flight time is almost directly correlated with pilot quality. The
> poorer a nation, the less time it can afford its pilots in the air.
Then perhaps the Serbs should have thought of this before they decided to take
on NATO.
______________________________________________________________________
"Shell the presidency and the Parliament.
Target Muslim neighborhoods - not many Serbs live there.
Shell them 'till they're on the edge of madness."
/Mladic instructing his 'brave' Serb troops overlooking Sarajevo/.
"Just before a great Serb holy day, we give this town to the Serb Nation.
Remembering the uprising against the Turks, the time has come to take revenge
against the Muslims."
General Ratko Mladic, Bosnian Serb Army commander on entering Srebrenica, July
1995.
'Srebrenica: A Cry From the Grave' BBC2 documentary.
Jaywant Malik
> A simple question is, why was NATO so one-sided? The Serbs did what
> they did and the Albanians are equally bad. The Albanians started the
> violence and the Serbs escalated it. In the beginning the Serbs threw
> the Albanians out of Kosovo and then after NATO's intervention the
> Albanians threw the Serbs out of Kosovo. I fail to see the point as far
> as stability is concerned.
Did the Albanians really start the violence? The Serbs (and Greeks)
certainly say so but I think the KLA is more a symptom of Serbia's
oppression of Albanians than the cause of it.
When NATO intervened, it was clear that the Kosovo Albanians were victims
of violence organized by the government of Serbia.
So NATO intervened and stopped the Serbs from killing the Albanians but
then were bitterly disappointed by Albanian brutality towards Serbs and
other minorities in Kosovo. Problem was that Albanians didn't want to
forgive and forget; they wanted (and exacted) revenge.
> And don't tell me that NATO didn't know that this was going to happen.
> Morally both sides have proven to be the same. Thus NATO simply chose
> who is going to own Kososvo. But why the Albanians?
NATO knew the consequences of intervening but it also knew the much worse
consequences of not intervening. Nobody intervened in Bosnia, nobody
intervened in Rwanda and look what happened. Just imagine: no NATO
intervention but the Serbian oppression mounts as the Albanian population
in Kosovo continues to grow and the Serbian population continues to shrink.
Before long, there'd be an extremely bloody revolt in which the Albanians
kill most of the Serbs in Kosovo and the Serbs kill as many Albanians as
they can.
I think if you line everything up, the Albanians come out ahead morally.
It's bad if a band of terrorists kills Serbs but it's much worse if a
modern government organizes the systematic oppression of Albanians. What
really annoyed NATO was that in this era of increased international and
inter-ethnic cooperation and peace, the Yugoslav government was
purposefully moving backwards.
JM
ji...@my-deja.com
cultural characteristics grew a lot faster than the Serb population in
the last decades. As a result the Albanians started oppressing the
Serbs, whith the aim of getting away from Serbia and unite with Albania.
*IF* this is so, how would that affect your point of view?
Jaywant Malik
> Let us make a *hypothesis*: The albanian population having moslem
> cultural characteristics grew a lot faster than the Serb population in
> the last decades. As a result the Albanians started oppressing the
> Serbs, whith the aim of getting away from Serbia and unite with Albania.
Muslim cultural characteristics? Do you really think that Albanian families
have ten children each because they are Muslim? If so, you're wrong. The
reason they (and many other Muslim societies) have some many children is
that they are trapped in a rural way of thinking; there is a high mortality
rate of children in such societies and children provide a cheap form of
labor for the family farm. In other words, it's cultural, not religious.
Another problem with this hypthothesis is that it isn't the complete story.
In the 1970s and 1980s when the Albanian population was begining to explode
and Serbs were leaving Kosovo (for economic reasons, mainly) the Serb
elements in the Yugoslav government saw that if current demographic trends
were going to continue, Kosovo would eventually be dominated by Albanians.
So they tried to reverse these trends through legislative means (see
Kosovo's consitution and the quota system there) and the use of force
against ordinary Albanians (it's no accident that Serb paramilitary groups
were allowed to maraud Kosovo as they pleased). If Serbs couldn't be the
majority, they figured, they could still arrange things so that they have
political, military, and economic control of the region.
The Albanians challenged this situation by the means of violent acts
against Serb civilians, but instead of just going after the terrorists,
Belgrade used these attacks as an excuse for implementing a general
oppression of the Albanian populace. By 1998 Serbs were clearing out whole
villages and sending thousands of Albanians into the woods to fend for
themselves. This drove ordinary Albanians into the arms of the KLA. It was
only with this popular support that the KLA became a serious threat to Serb
control of Kosovo.
> *IF* this is so, how would that affect your point of view?
The problem is that your hypothesis is a lie by omission; that is, it lies
by omitting a critical part of the story. If I were to accept the
hypothesis I'd not only reverse my view of Kosovo but of any other lie by
omission, thus making me just the sort of person that corrupt governments
love to exploit.
ji...@my-deja.com
ji...@my-deja.com
"Jaywant Malik" <jma...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> ji...@my-deja.com wrote in article <8bq76p$lq7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > Let us make a *hypothesis*: The albanian population having moslem
> > cultural characteristics grew a lot faster than the Serb population
in
> > the last decades. As a result the Albanians started oppressing the
> > Serbs, whith the aim of getting away from Serbia and unite with
Albania.
>
> Muslim cultural characteristics? Do you really think that Albanian
families
> have ten children each because they are Muslim? If so, you're wrong.
The
> reason they (and many other Muslim societies) have some many children
is
> that they are trapped in a rural way of thinking; there is a high
mortality
> rate of children in such societies and children provide a cheap form
of
> labor for the family farm. In other words, it's cultural, not
religious.
>
Hey when did I say that it was religious?
> Another problem with this hypthothesis is that it isn't the complete
story.
> In the 1970s and 1980s when the Albanian population was begining to
> explode
Here you state the source of the problem
> and Serbs were leaving Kosovo (for economic reasons, mainly) the Serb
> elements in the Yugoslav government saw that if current demographic
trends
> were going to continue, Kosovo would eventually be dominated by
Albanians.
> So they tried to reverse these trends through legislative means (see
> Kosovo's consitution and the quota system there) and the use of force
> against ordinary Albanians (it's no accident that Serb paramilitary
groups
> were allowed to maraud Kosovo as they pleased).
You ommit an important factor here which is that the Kosovo Albanians
where and are supported by Albania... with what aim? Stop trying to
present the Albanians as the poor innocent angels who got viciously
attacked by the evil Serbs. Are you really that naive? Don't you know
that Albania is Colombia of Europe? The country of the kalashnikov
democracy? Those innocent Albanian angels would never ever provoke the
Serbs and in that way mediate the election of Nationalist-Fascist
Milosevic who had the 'right' medicine for this sort of problem...
> If Serbs couldn't be the
> majority, they figured, they could still arrange things so that they
have
> political, military, and economic control of the region.
>
> The Albanians challenged this situation by the means of violent acts
> against Serb civilians, but instead of just going after the
> terrorists,
That's an inacurate assertion. They were not terrorists, they were
separatist rebelions. Thedifference is that they where not a distinct
group of slefrighteous 'soldiers' but an expression of a popular
demand. These 'terrorists' where the top of a pyramid rooting down to
the heart of the Albanian population. That's what makes it impossible
to attack only the 'terrorists'. Because the attack would have no
ending.
> Belgrade used these attacks as an excuse for implementing a general
> oppression of the Albanian populace. By 1998 Serbs were clearing out
whole
> villages and sending thousands of Albanians into the woods to fend for
> themselves. This drove ordinary Albanians into the arms of the KLA.
It was
> only with this popular support that the KLA became a serious threat
to Serb
> control of Kosovo.
>
As you said the source of the problem was the explosion of the Albanian
population. And I added the support from albania that stirred
separatist visions in the Kosovo population. These two caused a chain
reaction in the region.
> > *IF* this is so, how would that affect your point of view?
>
> The problem is that your hypothesis is a lie by omission; that is, it
lies
> by omitting a critical part of the story.
You just added a fiew more details in favour of the Albanians. I
presented a case where the problem in Kosovo is a balanced
respocibility which started by the explosion of the Albanian population
plus their separatist intentions that caused a savage reaction by the
Serb regime. You on the other hand pick your vocabulary in a way that
the Albanians are always the good guys defending them selves and the
Serbs use 'excuses' to attack. In other words in your picture of the
events, what the Albanians did was a justified reaction but the Serbs
used unjustified excuses... Your bias is of monster dimensions. You
don't sound like a liar, you sound like a victim of CNN housewive
propaganda.
> If I were to accept the
> hypothesis I'd not only reverse my view of Kosovo but of any other
lie by
> omission, thus making me just the sort of person that corrupt
governments
> love to exploit.
>
I take note here that if you were to accept that the albanians also
carry a signifficant part of the responsibility then you would go as
far as REVERSING your view. I wouldn't go that far mate. Milosevic and
his followers are still a bunch of thugs. But they are not the only
thugs in the neighbourhood...
If NATO/USA were morally sensitive as you imply, they would have
intervened in Turkey long ago. The fact that Turkey as a NATO member
gloriously participated in the destruction of it's mirror immage, is an
obscene moral inconsistency on behalf of NATO/USA. This proves beyond
no doubt that the main reason behind NATO's actions is the support of
its geopolitical interests.
0U812
Jaywant Malik wrote in message <01bf9772$8f515040$54b7b3c7@newmicronpc>...
>Vasilios Pilarinos <vpil...@hellas.org> wrote in article
><8blhvc$n...@journal.concentric.net>...
>
>> > As for US de facto support of Greater Albania, even the Albanians know
>it
>> > won't happen. The persecution of Albanians in Serbia (and pretty much
>every
>> > other minority in Central and Eastern Europe) is a far cry from the
>> > outright slaughter of Albanians in Kosovo.
>>
>> Outright slaughter? The tree years prior to NATO intervention saw some
>> 1200-1300 Albanians killed in fighting. Cause for concern, but hardly a
>> "slaughter", especially considering there was an armed insurrection by
>the
>> Albanians. It's called a civil-war. Look it up. Or did you think the KLA
>> magically appeared after NATO intervened?
>
>And why were Albanians shooting at Serbs in the first place? Because they
>were defending themselves
>
>That factor aside, Albanians were armed and were murdering Serb policemen.
>The Serb response was to kill a whole bunch of Albanian civilians and hoped
>the terrorists were among the dead. This method proved quite effective so
>they used it frequently.
That's funny and ironic. Within the last 2 weeks the KLA have
staged raids into southern Serbia against government forces in hopes that
the Serbs would kill off the albanian civilians in that area. If the KLA was
a "force" interested in the saftey and well being of their people ( as you
have outrightly stated and implied in your posts) then why are they hoping
that their own people get killed in southern Serbia ? HMMMMMMMM. Maybe there
is a bigger picture here ? one that you will not or cannot understand. The
fact is that the KLA is only interested in expansion, expansion that it
could never hope to get on it's own due to the fact that the Serbian Army
would annihilate them. The KLA is trying to get NATO involved in it's
expansion and you are too myopic to see that. NATO ( U.S.) has now found
itself in an unenviable position and has realized that it has failed
miserably in it's bombing of Serbia because:
1) Milosevic is still in power, another miscalculation
and failed "objective" by U.S. foreign policy "experts" and "advisors" who
said that he would be "finished" immediately following the end of the
bombing of Serbia.
2) There is still no peace in Kosovo , now with the
KLA ethnically cleansing the Serbs. Another U.S. "objective" gone south.
3) The U.S. has created a new potential enemy to fight
in the Balkans, the KLA which has become a real loose cannon and now
threatens the entire Balkan region with new and much larger wars ( and more
prolific heroin trade) due to it's expansionist policy. Possible new wars
that would not have been possible without NATO support of the KLA which now
thrives in the power vaccuum created by NATO.
4) Some European nations involved in the NATO are
seeing the mistakes made and are pissed at the unfulfilled
promises/comittments by the U.S. to the NATO mission in Kosovo. The U.S.
has undoubtedly lost some clout and the cracks in NATO are expanding,
evidence of this is a new security force planned for Kosovo that will have
the _Europeans_ in charge .
5) U.S. foreign policy makers have yet to come up with
an "end game" in Kosovo with no end or solution in sight and now look like
clowns that have put the U.S. into a position to lose some face, with little
or no room to maneuver.
6) Russia has become galvanized and is now determined
to become a major player once again thanks to U.S. military arrogance and
illegal actions in Serbia. For the U.S., the Bear was better left in
hibernation. Another new headache.
7) NATO action in Kosovo influenced Russia's Chechnya
policy and increased Russian resolve.
8) U.S. threw it's high hopes for certain vital oil
pipelines in the Caucasus out the window due to resurgent Russian resolve
and assertiveness in the region. This is directly influenced by U.S. action
in Kosovo.
9.) Russia and China have realized that the U.S./NATO
are breaking and making new rules to international law as they go. U.S.
foreign policy has sounded alarm bells in Beijing and Moscow, prompting the
2 to forge a historically much closer relationship in all fields aimed at
competing with the U.S. and/or iritating the U.S. where they see fit.
10) Incompetent "policy makers" in Washington have now
succeeded in bringing Russia and China together and making the world a much
more dangerous place and with new security threats for the U.S. to consider.
11) Oh yeah and then there is that "June"
thing................you know the one that the Serbs are waiting
for.....interesting.
All of this for the KLA that is now biting the U.S. hand that
feeds it, hardly worth the new and more volatile atmosphere created. Kosovo
is turning into one of the most bonehead U.S. foreign policy decisions since
Viet Nam. Btw, keep supporting these U.S. braindead foreign policy
decisions, it makes you look as silly as the policy makers themselves,
actually sillier since you atleast _know_ the outcome, one that they had no
idea would happen.
Paraskevas
0U812
Jaywant Malik wrote in message <01bf98f0$e26c8900$98adb3c7@newmicronpc>...
>ji...@my-deja.com wrote in article <8bq76p$lq7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> Let us make a *hypothesis*: The albanian population having moslem
>> cultural characteristics grew a lot faster than the Serb population in
>> the last decades. As a result the Albanians started oppressing the
>> Serbs, whith the aim of getting away from Serbia and unite with Albania.
>
>Muslim cultural characteristics? Do you really think that Albanian families
>have ten children each because they are Muslim? If so, you're wrong.
"wrong?" did you know that if an Albanian family does not have
atleast 5 children the local mufti will not visit?.
Paraskevas
The
>reason they (and many other Muslim societies) have some many children is
>that they are trapped in a rural way of thinking; there is a high mortality
>rate of children in such societies and children provide a cheap form of
>labor for the family farm. In other words, it's cultural, not religious.
>
>Another problem with this hypthothesis is that it isn't the complete story.
>In the 1970s and 1980s when the Albanian population was begining to explode
>and Serbs were leaving Kosovo (for economic reasons, mainly) the Serb
>elements in the Yugoslav government saw that if current demographic trends
>were going to continue, Kosovo would eventually be dominated by Albanians.
>So they tried to reverse these trends through legislative means (see
>Kosovo's consitution and the quota system there) and the use of force
>against ordinary Albanians (it's no accident that Serb paramilitary groups
>were allowed to maraud Kosovo as they pleased). If Serbs couldn't be the
>majority, they figured, they could still arrange things so that they have
>political, military, and economic control of the region.
>
>The Albanians challenged this situation by the means of violent acts
>against Serb civilians, but instead of just going after the terrorists,
>Belgrade used these attacks as an excuse for implementing a general
>oppression of the Albanian populace. By 1998 Serbs were clearing out whole
>villages and sending thousands of Albanians into the woods to fend for
>themselves. This drove ordinary Albanians into the arms of the KLA. It was
>only with this popular support that the KLA became a serious threat to Serb
>control of Kosovo.
>
>> *IF* this is so, how would that affect your point of view?
>
>The problem is that your hypothesis is a lie by omission; that is, it lies
>by omitting a critical part of the story. If I were to accept the
>hypothesis I'd not only reverse my view of Kosovo but of any other lie by
>omission, thus making me just the sort of person that corrupt governments
>love to exploit.
>
esrevnI eilrahC
ji...@my-deja.com wrote:
> A simple question is, why was NATO so one-sided?
Here is one answer: The U.S. supported the KLA
for the same reason the U.S. supported the _contras
in Central America, the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, and
the Mung in Laos. The common denominator (going all
the way back to the 1940s, actually, in Corsica) is
drugs: Although the U.S. pretends to be fighting a
"drug war", it often intervenes in behalf of drug
dealers (According to Interpol, the KLA are major
heroin suppliers for most of Western Europe. See,
for example:
//// KLA Linked To Enormous Heroin Trade
//// Police suspect drugs helped finance revolt
//// Frank Viviano,
//// Chronicle Staff Writer
//// Wednesday, May 5, 1999
//// San Francisco Chronicle
//// http:/www.sfgate.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/05/05/MN40517.DTL
Officers of the Kosovo Liberation Army and
their backers, according to law enforcement
authorities in Western Europe and the United
States, are a major force in international
organized crime, moving staggering amounts of
narcotics through an underworld network that
reaches into the heart of Europe.
In the words of a November 1997 statement
issued by Interpol, the international police
agency, "Kosovo Albanians hold the largest
share of the heroin market in Switzerland, in
Austria, in Belgium, in Germany, in Hungary,
in the Czech Republic, in Norway and in
Sweden."
Before the war, 2 tons of heroin were moving
through Kosovo each month; now it's 4.5 tons.
See
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=605792976&CONTEXT=954997036.754450443&h
itnum=1
....
"It's the hardest narcotics ring
to crack because it is all run by
families and they even have their
own language. Kosovo is set to become
the cancer centre of Europe, as western
Europe will soon discover," he said.
He estimates that the province's
traffickers are now handling between
4.5 and five tonnes of heroin a month
and growing fast.
This compares to the two tonnes they
were shifting before the Kosovo war
of March-June last year, when NATO
bombing forced Serbia's regime to
pull out of the largely ethnic-Albanian
province.
"It's coming through easier and cheaper,
and there's much more of it," Mr Nicovic
said. "The price is going down and if
this goes on we are predicting a heroin
boom in western Europe as there was in
the early 80s."
....
Here is another answer: The NATzO-bloc has been
trying to break up Yugoslavia since 1989 (at least).
See:
http://x35.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp
?AN=606327235&CONTEXT=954899084.765853711&thitnum=94
//// KOSOVO: ONE YEAR LATER
/// Norman F. Ness
....
In 1989, the US encouraged Ante Markovic,
Yugoslavia's Prime Minister, to launch radical
economic reforms. Instead of providing
economic support, US actions served to
encourage incipient nationalism. In 1990,
Senators Dole and Nickles sponsored Public
Law 103. Future aid to Yugoslavia's 6
Republics was conditioned upon each holding
separate elections but none countrywide.
Also, there was to be no aid to the Federal
Government. This clearly told individual
Republics they would benefit by distancing
themselves from the Federal Gov. Civil war
ensued when Slovenia and Croatia seceded in
....
Serbia stood in the way of that break-up;
Albania did not. Thus NATzO targeted Serbia.
> The Serbs did what they did
Nobody knows exactly "what the Serbs did", since
much of what we have been told has turned out to
be black propaganda, unsubstantiated or demonstrably
false.
> and the Albanians are equally bad.
Why do we talk about "THE Albanians" or "THE
Serbs", as if all members of a particular
ethnicity are alike? In fact SOME Muslims
fought alongside Serbs in the Tuzla region
of Bosnia, and SOME Serbs fought alongside
Muslims in Sarajevo, and SOME Albanians stood
WITH Serbs (and others) AGAINST KLA terrorists.
Why are we so inclined to adopt this racialist
or tribalist perspective? Who encourages us
to ignore all of the important issues behind
the way -- secession, economic strangulation,
outside fomentation -- and see ONLY ethnic
rivalries?
I grew up believing in INDIVIDUALS, not in
races. But in recent years, the propaganda
system here in the U.S. has all but eliminated
the concept of the individual -- now the group
is all. Why is this racialist perspective being
fed to us?
> The Albanians
SOME Albanians, namely, the KLA, with backing
from the NATzO-bloc!
> started the violence and the Serbs
Yugoslavia contains 20 different nations. Why
is it that we reduce this 20 to just "The Serbs"?
> escalated it.
I.e., attempted to restore order and protect
innocent people from the terrorists
> In the beginning the Serbs threw
> the Albanians out of Kosovo
The exodus started AFTER the NATzO bombing started.
SOME Albanians (the KLA) invited NATzO to bomb. Military
necessity required Yugoslav forces to evict this Albanian
"fifth column". We in the U.S. would do the same or worse,
if a minority in the U.S. helped another country to launch
cruise missiles at us.
> and then after NATO's intervention
I.e., naked lawless aggression
> the Albanians threw the Serbs out of Kosovo.
> I fail to see the point as far as stability
> is concerned.
We naively believe that NATzO is a humanitarian
organization, just like CARE or OXFAM. The reality
we do no seem to be able to grasp is that NATzO is
a military organization. It NEEDS war to justify
its own existence; war, moreover, is extremely
profitable for the military contractors who lobby
our governments. Because the average person welcomes
stability, we think NATzO must welcome stability too
-- but in reality, NATzO and the powers behind it
gain far more from INstability.
> And don't tell me that NATO didn't know
> that this was going to happen.
> Morally both sides have proven to
> be the same. Thus NATO simply chose
> who is going to own Kososvo. But why
> the Albanians?
1. U.S. always intervenes on behalf of the drug dealers.
2. U.S. sought dismemberment of Yugoslavia.
3. U.S. may hope to destabilize Europe -- good for the U.S.
economy!
4. Albanians are Muslims -- U.S. gains a card to play in the
Middle East "game"
5. Albanians become dependent on U.S. for support, and thus
serve as cat's paw.
kirill
>
> In article <8bnpl1$vej$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ji...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > A simple question is, why was NATO so one-sided?
>
> Here is one answer: The U.S. supported the KLA
> for the same reason the U.S. supported the _contras
> in Central America, the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, and
> the Mung in Laos. The common denominator (going all
> the way back to the 1940s, actually, in Corsica) is
> drugs: Although the U.S. pretends to be fighting a
> "drug war", it often intervenes in behalf of drug
> dealers (According to Interpol, the KLA are major
> heroin suppliers for most of Western Europe. See,
> for example:
>
> //// KLA Linked To Enormous Heroin Trade
> //// Police suspect drugs helped finance revolt
>
> //// Frank Viviano,
> //// Chronicle Staff Writer
>
> //// Wednesday, May 5, 1999
> //// San Francisco Chronicle
> //// http:/www.sfgate.com
Further evidence for the drug corruption in the USA is the
existence of coca plantations in Columbia.
It is possible to identify these plants via satellite imagery
and then to defoliate them with any of the assorted agents
on the market. On top of this dope sit various guerrilas
who very much resemble the KLA and who aren't being dealt
with by the Columbian government (like for example the Kurds
are being dealt with by the Turkish government). These
"Maoist rebels" may have had some popular roots in the past
but look like CIA stooges today.