US vs BALKANS

[Vlad]

US BOMBED YUGOSLAVIA (a EUROPEAN friendly nation) in 1997-1998-1999.
To this day, the fact that US BOMBED YUGOSLAVIA, SHALL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN. Yugoslavia, under TITO, helped in pushing the Germans out of Balkans, and fought hard for their territories in WWII. US made movies about the valiant fight of the Yugoslavs, for God's sake.

US BOMBED YUGOSLAVIA.
FOR WHAT?? FOR WHOM?? WHO BENEFITED?
A bunch of muslims, ALLOWED to establish themselves in KOSOVOPOLIE (today's KOSOVO), back in
1400's. ???? GREAT SHOW NATO/US !!
I remember HUMAN CHAINS on BELGRADE bridges, so that US would not destroy those bridges.
I remember teachers asking students in US, if they have relatives there, telling them that what US was
doing was NOT right.
THIS IS HISTORY, AND PLEASE COPY this and pass it ON, because it should NEVER BE SWEPT UNDER THE
CARPET, as US and the NEW WORLD ORDER handles everything.
USA BOMBED YUGOSLAVIA in 1997-1998-1999.
THIS SHALL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN, and USA GOV has YET to EXPLAIN their SHITTY ATTITUDE, especially
after finding out that those who attacked the NY towers were muslims.

Do we know if the hijacking fellows had any ties to the muslims of Kosovo?? The newly independent state of KOSOVO??
And what if a faction of those muslims in Kosovo want to become independent also?? Who's gonna BOMB WHOM???

What if State of Hawaii or State of Texas want to become independent? Who is going to bomb WHOM??

US GOV stormed a place in TEXAS and killed women and children, just because that place was "tooo independent". WACO, TX. ( April 19, 1993 )

How would US gov behave, in case a STATE were to break away?

Think it would be nicer than what the Serbians did, in trying to save their union/federation??

Did you ever wonder who would be labeled as "freedom fighters" and who else as "terrorists"?????? Pfffffffffffffffffff.......

Any COMMENTS?

[Vladivostok]

I comment on one thing.The muslims didn't bombed anything.This is all part of a great plan that US has prepared for us.
Iran is next on the list.

[Shish-kabob-Forrest]

The Republican primaries have started. So far, Ron Paul has been showing up in 4th place. Lets hope he gets the republican nomination. He's been exposing and trying to tear down all that garbage that the government has been doing, and he has a 100% consistent 20 year record for doing what he says.
Just remember this. Tyranny starts at home. Our government has been abusive to it's own people for many years now, and it's getting worse at an accelerating rate. Before long, what I just said will get me thrown in jail.
Likewise, don't think for a minute that the American people are behind the government in doing this stuff. On the contrary, we are reaching the brink of an uprising much like your people did against the Romanian communist party in 1989.

[Vlad]

I comment on one thing.The muslims didn't bombed anything.This is all part of a great plan that US has prepared for us.
Iran is next on the list.

To what Kissinger said a while back (1999):

"Date: 14 April 1999 10:22
Subject: Henry A. Kissinger, NEWSWEEK dd 5/4/99
(http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/in/in1014_1.htm)
Doing Injury to History
Finding a solution to the Kosovo crisis must
begin by rejecting false analogies to the traumas
of the past
By Henry A. Kissinger

The war in Kosovo is the product of a conflict going back over centuries. It
takes place at the dividing line between the Ottoman and Austrian empires,
between Islam and Christianity, and between Serbian and Albanian
nationalism. The ethnic groups have lived together peacefully only when that
coexistence was imposedóas under foreign empires or the Tito dictatorship.
President Clinton has asserted that, after a brief period of NATO occupation,
the ethnic groups will reconcile. There is no realistic basis for that assumption.
Ethnic groups in Bosnia have not reconciled after three years of NATO
peacekeeping.
When American forces are engaged in combat, victory is the only exit
strategy. And that requires a definition of issues that can survive scrutiny. The
Administration, in pursuit of symbols that resonate with the public, has put
forward three categories of argument. The most convincing is that suffering in
Kosovo is so offensive to our moral sensibilities that we will use force to end it
even absent traditional considerations of national interest. But since this leaves
open the question of why we do not intervene in East Africa, Sri Lanka,
Kurdistan, Kashmir and Afghanistanóto name just a few of the places where
infinitely more casualties have been incurred than in Kosovoóthe President
has invoked historical analogies or current threats that are extremely dubious.
Where he does injury to history:

Slobodan Milosevic is not Hitler but a Balkan thug, and the crisis in Kosovo
has no analogy to the events preceding World War I. Neither Milosevic nor
any other Balkan leader is in a position to threaten the global equilibrium, as
the president constantly asserts. Milosevic bears a major responsibility for the
brutalities in Bosnia, and I strongly supported the American deployment there.
But unlike Bosnia, Kosovo is a war for territory considered by the Serbs as a
national shrine. This is why there have been few, if any, signs of opposition in
Belgrade to Milosevic's Kosovo policy.

World War I started in the Balkans not as a result of ethnic conflicts but for
precisely the opposite reason:
because outside powers intervened in a local conflict. The assassination of the
Crown Prince of Austriaóan imperial poweróby a Serbian nationalist led to a
world war because Russia backed Serbia and France backed Russia while
Germany supported Austria.

The Second World War did not start in the Balkans, much less as a result of
its ethnic conflicts.

It is absurd to allege that the economic well-being of the European Union, with
a GNP exceeding America's, depends on the outcome in impoverished
Kosovo. This is even more true of Atlantic prosperity.

The cohesion of NATO is threatened primarily because it was staked on the
unsustainable Rambouillet agreement. It remains to be seen how long it can be
maintained when public reaction to the scale and duration of the bombardment
sets in, and when it becomes apparent that the long-term consequences of the
present campaign have to be policed by NATO ground forces.
I respect the humanitarian motive for intervention. But this does not absolve
the democracies from the necessity of coming up with a sustainable solution.
The Rambouillet agreement does not meet that test.
Conducting a negotiation based on an agreement drafted entirely in foreign
chancelleries and seeking to impose it by the threat of air bombardment has
only exacerbated the crisis in Kosovo. The Rambouillet text was sold to the
Kosovo Liberation Army, which initially rejected itóas a device to bring the full
force of NATO to bear on Serbia, and it may have tempted Milosevic into
accelerating the repression of the KLA before the bombs fell. Now it risks
involving NATO and U.S. ground forces in policing an agreement neither side
really wants. It was a grave error to abandon any effort to strengthen the
observers already in Kosovo in favor of NATO peacekeepers who will find
no peace to keep.

President Clinton, in a speech to the Serbian people, has declared: "The
NATO allies support the Serbian people to maintain Kosovo as part of your
country." He added that the agreement would "guarantee the rights of all
people in Kosovoóethnic Serbs and Albanians alike within Serbia."
This is why the Rambouillet agreement provides for the KLA to surrender its
arms to a NATO force. Some ten thousand Serbian policemen are to maintain
security; some fifteen hundred Serbian soldiers are to safeguard the frontiers.

None of this is achievable by agreement, only by imposition. The Serbs have
rejected the Rambouillet agreement because they see in it a prelude to
independence for Kosovo. They also see the presence of NATO troops as the
sort of foreign occupation Serbia has historically resisted against the Ottoman
and Austrian empires, Hitler and Stalin. Even if they are bombed into
capitulation, they can hardly be expected to be willing supporters of the
outcome. As for the KLA, its goal is independence, not autonomy; it acceded to
Rambouillet as a tactical device to unleash NATO air power against the hated
Serbs. The KLA is even less likely to agree to autonomy under Serbian rule
now that Serbia has been so weakened by the NATO air campaign. The
KLA will not turn in its weapons to NATO forces. And NATO forces will
have no domestic support if they fight the KLA to impose disarmament. Nor
will the KLA acquiesce to Serbian forces policing its frontiers. The role of
Serbian police and military forces in the proposed agreement is both unclear
and incapable of being implemented.

The ironic outcome of the Rambouillet agreement, in the name of which the
NATO air campaign is being conducted, is that the NATO peacekeepers will
replace the Serbs as obstacles to the national aspirations of the
Albaniansóespecially if Serbia is too weak to provide a counterweight.
Moreover, as Kosovo moves toward independence, the pressures on
Macedonia, a third of whose population is Albanian, will increase. Why should
they not be granted the same self-determination as their brethren inside
Serbia? And that will risk expansion of the conflict as Bulgaria claims its own
ethnic nationals in Macedonia, comprising at least a third of the population, and
Greece perceives an opportunity to curtailóor to eliminateóa state whose very
name it has rejected.

As the war continues, the Administration must redefine its objectives. NATO
cannot survive if it now abandons the campaign without achieving its objective
of ending the massacres. The Rambouillet agreement should therefore be
stripped of its more esoteric components. The terms for ending the air war
should be: an immediate ceasefire; the withdrawal of Serbian forces
introduced after the beginning of the negotiations at Rambouillet, and the
immediate opening of negotiations over autonomy for Kosovo. These
negotiations are likely to be prolonged and bitter. But, at their end, Kosovar
independence in some form is inevitable unless NATO insists by force on the
kind of Serbian suzerainty which the President has promisedóa course neither
the alliance nor the American public will support.

If a ceasefire on such terms is rejected by Milosevic, there will be no
alternative to continuing and intensifying the war, if necessary introducing
NATO combat ground forcesóa solution which I have heretofore passionately
rejected but which will have to be considered to maintain NATO credibility.
Whatever the outcome, stationing of some NATO ground forces in either
Macedonia or Kosovo will be necessary, to serve not so much as
peacekeepers as to prevent the Balkan conflict from widening. I have
consistently warned against such an outcome. But, as a result of hesitations
and confusions, NATO now has little choice if it wants to avoid a larger war.

For someone who has supported every military action of the Clinton
Administrationóor who has criticized it for acting too inconclusively, as in
Iraqóthe war on Yugoslavia inspires profound ambivalence. Serbia fought at
our side in two world wars, and stood up to Stalin at the height of his powers.
We cannot ignore Milosevic's brutality, yet the disappearance of Serbia from
the Balkans equilibrium may tempt eruptions in other neighboring countries
containing ethnic minorities. Even more importantly, the problem of
Macedonia's integrity will be upon us, threatening a wider Balkan war. Let us
hope that it will be handled with greater foresight than the prelude to the
current crisis.

Newsweek, April 5, 1999

M.M.& O. mmo@worldonline.nl "