WW III? An Analysis of Yugoslavia

Scourage #45

Americans soldiers are not afraid to die; it is the politicans who are unwilling to make the hard choices necessary in this situation!

This problem is a lot more complex and there are too many potential pitfalls involved in American military intervention than would seem on the surface.

As to my greed cult, I really do not care what others may think of that and nor am I expecting others approval on my comments and beliefs. I am not asking any one to validate my existence by agreeing with me either! I wish you all the success and goodwill in your path towards Ummah and I sincerely appreciate your sentiments towards my well being!

Thank you!

Re: multipersonality # 43

I am sorry, but I did not have a chance to review the BBC report you mentioned.

In any case, Hungarian or Bulgarian doubts on the nature of faciliating NATO combat operations do not suprise me. Both Hungry and Bulgaria have significant Slav populations and there is enough domestic constituency in those nations to make them tepid at that prospects of aiding NATO.

There is little evidence, at this date, that NATO is activily considering deployment in Bulgaria. The most logical reason for requesting NATO use of Bulgarian airspace would be to enable the transit of air assets out of Southwest Asia, for operations in the Kosovo engagement zone, into airbases in Germany. The NATO bases in Italy are being saturated with in-coming assets and to maintain the high rate of combat sorties, NATO needs additional infrastructural support.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no indication that NATO is preparing ground operations and is intending to use Hungary as a base for force projection into the region. At the present, NATO has ground forces/assets in Macedonia and in Bosnia where NATO has a peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Dayton Talks of 1995. There has been no troop movement with the purposes of deploying a ground force into Hungary and even if such an undertaking was attempted, it is not easy to minimize the logistics inheirent in such a deployment. The initial signs would be all too visible and it would be reported by the media.

NATO has a combat HQ in Macedonia, in tune with its political demands for ending hostilities, and that would suggest that the theater of operations, for a ground war, would be Kosovo and not Belgrade. Also, Hungary as a base for force projection seems unlikely, because of a lack of interoperabilty in the organizational force structures. Hungary has not fully modernized all its forces to meet specific NATO requirements and hence, Hungarian military does not have the infrastructure to sustain a major induction of ground troops, into combat conditions, without the creation of a prior support facilities.

In any case, the involvment of Hungary and Bulgaria into the equation and their refusal or a lack of consensus on NATO air operations does not consitute a crystallization of an opinion on NATO`s intervention into the region. In each NATO member nation, including the United States, there is strong and vocal objection to the involvment in the crisis in the Balkans and these Bulgarian-Hungarian doubts are merely a reflection on the internal debate that is questioning the merits of the air campaign to resolve the political issues without the utilization of the ground forces to affect a ceasation of hostilities.

Concerning the global domination of the United States, there is no doubt that it is already a fait accompli. I will not deny that the United States is interested in dominating the world, in a economic sense, but there is no concrete evidence which can suggest that it is engaged in a military domination. Military domination, as suggestive, implies a presense of armed forces and any such presense is an expansive proposition. As manifested in the debate over the costs of the NATO operation, the United States Congress is not too keen on supporting the presense of American troops overseas. The United States Congress which is Republican controlled, at the present moment, is drastically cutting the American diplomatic corps and downsizing the military to generate more tax deductions for the Americans. None of this is conducive towards or suggests a strategic foresight to militarily subjugate the world.

If the lady/gentleman responsible for post #43 would inform me just how this translates into pipelines to the Cacauses, I would be more than delighted to answer his concerns. That BBC report does not, in of itself, signifies an American conspiracy and I fail to see the rationale which promted that observation or allegation of an American conspiracy.

FerozK : Thanks for the expansion of my 2nd image analysis of Chinese behavior. Also, expanding my 2nd image analysis, i`d like to add that the continual 11% unemploment rate in France and the increasing unemployment rate in Germany which has led to reduced social benefits already, just as in France, are also good reasons for why these countries do not want an influx of refugees from Kosovo. So ... Nato Bombs.

Re: OMAR1974 # 36

Interesting points well articulated!

Just a few points on the Chinese role in the crisis which you alluded to. China`s own self-interests are preventing it from endorsing NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia. China still claims that Taiwan is a part of the mainland and Beijing`s despute with Taiwan is an internal matter. It does not want international intervention for the same reason as India in Kashmir; it lessens it claims of sovereignity over those disputed territories.

Also; concerning the American perchant and obession with oil, as argued by so many as a reason for NATO intervention, it speaks volumes of misinformation. The United States, in Alaska, Texas and in the rest of lower 49 states, has enough oil reserves to meet its requirements. The reason that it imports oil is that is far cheaper than drilling and processing it in the United States. If the Europeans want oil, it would be cheaper to construct a pipeline to Romania`s Ploieste oil fields, over the low lying Vistula plains of Poland and through Hungary, than seek to snake a pipeline though the mountainous terrain of the Balkans. The Europeans are accessing oil at a cheaper rate from their off-shore drills in the North Sea than they could by building a pipeline through Yugoslavia.

Lastly, upon review, there is seems to some confusion on the part of Firaq, Scourge, Taimur and the xenophobic Fargani-Kush on use of the terms. I think, and I could be wrong, but they are confusing western imperialism with western global consumerism. I think Fozia was hinting of this in the context of her ``pan-western`` references. Their resentment seems to be directed, in the Islamic sense, against major corporations such as MacDonalds etc. whom they associate with America and as a force in corrupting their traditional cum religious values. What they seem to be grudging is that when it comes to the greed of consumerism, the greed factor is more powerful than any religious doctrine. The pan-western reference is, in reality, a realization of the forces of market economy which are sweeping the world at the cost of command economies which have been proven as ineffective.

Hence, Fozia is right and I apoligize to her if I misunderstood her comments (if this was her orginal contention). It would be in western interests to advance pan-westernism, in a economic sense, because they all would benefit from them. It is a basic law of self-interest at play! Market economies are driven by self-interest and as Michael Douglas said in the movie, ``Wall Street``, greed is good and in the end, greed will save the world, because that is one thing we humans all can understand as a concept!!!

I would embrace Pol Pot, Idi Amin or even Hitler himself if he was the man to raise an army to fight the Serbs today.

The LORD works in mysterious ways. Maybe NATO is G-Ds instrument of vengence on Serbs. Ever think about that possibility gentleman?

G-D bless America! G-D bless President Clinton and Tony Blair! G-D Bless NATO!

Correction to my statement in previous post:

original:

Taimoor, Farangi-Kush, Firaq and Scourge, if you represent the, ‘New Muslims’, heaven help us!

Intended:

Taimoor, Farangi-Kush, Firaq and Scourgem if you represent the newly BORN AGAIN Muslims, heaven help us (and the KOsovars)! For no one else but NATO is willing to take on the job.

Well, I just read the piece and ALL the replies. My 2 rupees follow as:

A) Analysis of certain statements made by author

B) Response to the comments others have made in this debate

Taimoor states:

During the cold war the US government manipulated the Yugoslav Federation away from the socialist block. However, with the end of the cold war the US government had no further use for this one time ally against the Soviet Union simply because the Soviet Union did not exist anymore. Thus, began the era of the dismemberment of the Yugoslav Federation. Subsequently, the US government has pursued a policy of breaking up the Yugoslav Federation into small swallow-able pieces by encouraging and funding ethnic wars and then ``intervening to stop them`` but essentially taking them over.

Firaq alleges much the same in his conspiracy theories of the involvement of Western intelligence agencies in Kosovo. Taimoor’s statement above implies that the U.S was responsible for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia.

Nothing could be further from the truth! The truth is that Milosevic, a fmr communist apparatchik needed a reason to stay in power, following the demise of Communism in Europe. He picked Serb Nationalism as the best horse to place his bet to stay in power on. He made his speeches in Kosovo in 1989, site of Serb defeat at

Ottoman hands 500 years ago to underscore the point that Serbs would not be trod upon anymore. Kosovo Albanians had been the propaganda target of Serb media in the 80’s and into the 90’s especially. There was always talk of the oppression of Serbs in Kosovo, incidents were manufactured over a period of time to justify

Stripped Kosovo of its constitutionally guaranteed autonomy. After that, Kosovars were systematically dismissed from state Jobs, their schools were closed down, basically they were driven increasingly into any means they could to

Survive, including the drug trade. If you have to choose between watching your family starve and the drug trade, given the official policy of systematic discrimination prevailing in Serbia, what would you do? Me, I’d Sell drugs if necessary before I’d watch my family starve.

The JNA (federal army) invaded Slovenia, in 1991 and the Slovene territorial force won the war in 10 days. Then Serbs in Croatia received support, and eventually, Tudjaman won that round, and actually expelled the Serbs from Krajina into Serbia, after the U.N forces had come in. Incidently former U.S armed forces personnel

working in the private sector were allowed to train the Croats. As for Bosnia, that was Milosevic’s third move, and we well know what happened when the West adopted a policy of military non-intervention. Over 250,000 muslim Bosnians died as we watched on T.V, and well over 30,000 Muslim Bosnian womyn were raped, at the hands of the Serbs and Croats who at certain places formed understandings against the largely unarmed Bosnians. The reason why the Bosnians were slaughtered was the disproportionate effect of the arms embargo on them, the Serbs had ample access to the vast storehouses of the JNA (Federal Yugoslav army). The muslims did not. So, if the U.S supported Izetbegovic as certain irresponsible interacts claim, from the start, and their intelligence agencies did too, why the one sided (impact wise) international arms embargo?



Taimoor states:

Yugoslavia, although a Socialist state, unfortunately played a role in this very mission during the cold war. However, today it is the last remaining socialist state in Europe, and therefore, a potential threat to the stability of capitalism in Europe. The US recognizes that a socialist Europe means the demise of capitalism in the world. It is willing to use deceit and force to manipulate the circumstances in such a way that Europe remains reactionary and capitalist.

Taimoor is living in LALA LAND! And so are those including Firaq who support this view. Socialism and Communism are NO LONGER a threat to the U.S. The world HAS ALREADY largely accepted free market

Economics, including China. Milosevic’s small Command economy long in recession hardly ever posed a ‘threat’to the U.S vision of a new world order driven by free markets. You credit Milosevic, with too much and reveal your own ideological biases in the process. In reality he’s just a former communist apparatchik whose only goal is to cling on to power, not spread ‘world revolution.’

Taimoor states:

3) MILITARY MONOPOLY: The US is interested in destroying any power in the world that can be a potential military threat to the US. It wants to create a military monopoly because like a true imperialist state it understands that military might is the key to world power. It was for these very reasons that the US attacked Iraq. That is, to make sure that Iraq was no longer a strong military power capable of challenging US ruling class interests in the Middle East.

I really think you should have your head examined Mr. Economics professor. The world today is driven by countries with a strong economy, military power is secondary, because without economic power to sustain it, you end up with international basket case economies like Pakistan (and the USSR), which has over extended itself by investing too much over too many decades into the military. But is Pakistan really safe? Maybe from India, but what about from an Economic collapse that destroys the value of the rupee, wipes out all savings, creates even more unemployment? Are we safe from that? I doubt it, even though we have a fairly large military capable of

defending the territorial frontiers of the country adequately. The gulf war was about oil. U.S was not willing to see the price of crude oil at $25 and Up a barrel. Simple. Economics. The Iraqi military in the long term did pose a threat to Israel etc, but that was a secondary goal of desert storm and U.N weapons inspectors, because having sent over half a million troops to fight Saddam, obviously at that point the U.S was going to go the whole hog, nine yards in dealing with him.

Taimoor says:

Bill Clinton himself said that a pro-west Yugoslavia is the best defense against ``perverted theories of Islam that are anti-western.`` What that basically means is that a pro-west Yugoslavia is the best defense against an anti-imperialist Islamic movement.

I want a credible citation on this Taimoor.

Taimoor says:

A stable and pro-west Yugoslavia is the best thing for protecting US investments in the Caucuses.

I think FerozK and others having pointed out that this theory of protecting pipelines from the Caucasus is completely ridiculous, there are far better routes that bypass Yugoslavia completely. Also, its not THAT Important strategically in Europe.

Taimoor states:

2) Nazi Germany was interested in small wars in the name of peace to ``regain the land it had lost in the First World War.`` Thus, short wars were fought and Nazi Germany took over parts of Checkoslovakia, Poland, Hungary etc. The rest of the world just looked on and most said it was for the best. The US is interested in regaining the territory it lost during the cold war to the Communists in the name of peace and human rights. It is willing to fight short wars to take over these small countries with or without military alliances and install puppet governments in these countries.



Now I do understand this analogy, it has superficial value at least, even though FerozK couldn’t grasp it. But, I disagree with your rhetoric laden analysis which displays your ‘crusade against the U.S’, mentality.

Attention RE: Farangi-Kush, firaq, Scourge, Taimoor

Frankly, I’m getting very tired of these born again muslims with Western educations emerging out of the woodwork, ideologically motivated against the U.S with their heads buried in the sand looking for salvation in Socialist dogma or third Worldism (with which they identify Islam and its interests). Sorry but I don’t agree

that Yugoslavia is economically worth the U.S investing so much to get a NATO protectorate. And the cold war is over. The U.S won. Maybe there are concerns about a rejuvenated Russia ... yes, but the ‘class struggle’ of so-called socialist states is OVER. Serbia is not the subject of a U.S conspiracy to gain bases etc in the Balkans

or important strategic routes. It economic plight well before this crisis, even before sanctions were applied as a result of its support of Bosnian Serb genocide against muslims was marginal at best, not a ‘threat’ to the U.S for

the revival of a communist world system as Taimoor and other have alleged in intellectually and factually bankrupt arguments. I thoroughly endorse FerozK and Umair’s comments on the piece as being in touch with reality and agree with most of Fozia`s comments. Taimoor, Farangi-Kush, Firaq and Scourge, if you represent the, ‘New Muslims’, heaven help us! Kosovar Muslims are being slaughtered by SERBS, as were BOSNIAN MUSLIMS, and the only countries doing something about it, the U.S, Britain and NATO are the ones you choose to launch an attack on and criticize! The Kosovar refugees state repeatedly that they are not running from NATO bombs, but have been evicted by Serb forces from their homes in a brutal reenactment of Bosnia, yet some of you guys parrot Serb T.V, which keeps telling Serbs, just as the Chinese and Russians tell their people atht refugees are feeling Nato Bombs. China is against Bombing because it sole concern internationally seems an obsession with avoiding a precedent for Tibet. India is against this plus was aginst the Gulf war so that no precedent would be created for Kashmir and International intervention by force. Russia is against this because the Serbs are fellow Orthodox, and fellow Slavs and this NATO attack reminds them of their own impotence.

The KLA was founded in 1993 in the capital

of Kosovo. Drug funding? Yes, Albanians are involved in the drug trade in Europe. So what. Taimoor and others seem to get their info from the Serbian ministry of information website when they criticize NATO and U.S imperialism (Even Serbs are not pushing a Leninist line of International class struggle that Taimoor, Firaq

and other ‘Muslim’ turncoats are. They are pushing the line that Iran has been pushing, condemn Yugoslavia for treatment of muslim Kosovars, but do nothing, and criticize the U.S that is actually doing something to help muslims militarily. Certain Iranian officials still call the U.S The GREAT SATAN who can consequently do no right. Limited narrow minded ideologically driven approach like Taimoor’s, Scourge’s and Firaq’s. Or perhaps they still read the Leninist-Stalinist manuals the USSR used to indoctrinate its Youth, party workers etc. Get a grip guys, just because you don’t like U.S policies in general does not mean that the West cannot do something good once in a while. Kosovo/Serbia being bombed is the result of the West’s full realization that Milosevic is a guy who cannot be trusted. One practical reason for bombing which is in the SELF INTEREST of the NATO countries is that NO ONE wants a million refugees created in the heart of Europe indefinitely. Western Europe does not want t pay the economic cost of Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing. Germany definitely does not want 500,000 Kosovar refugees, nor does France, Italy, Britain etc. So, NATO BOMBS. Now that’s’ a policy of self interest. Especially considering the widespread racism in Germany and France could easily escalate and create serious domestic consequences politically if there was a huge influx of Kosovars into these countries. Enough Turks + Kurds in Germany already. Enough Algerians and Arabs in France. Neither countries needs more MUSLIMS. No one wants to see Skinhead culture get stronger in Germany, or Le Pen’s National Front in France.This is kind of a SECOND IMAGE ANALYSIS, FEROZK Understands what I’m talking about I think. SO, NATO BOMBS so that Kosovars can go back. Maybe the West has decided that another Bosnia was unacceptable. Seen Milosevic at work 3X already. They understand his Modus Operendi.I do agree that its also now a matter of NATO AND U.S Presidential prestige to win this thing, having gone so far now. Bush warned Milosevic before leaving office about Kosovo, so did Clinton at least as early as last year. So U.S credibility was also on the line. Interesting though, that last year U.S Ambassador to Belgrade called KLA terrorists, and one week later Milosevic launched a full scale attack on what was then essentially only a couple of thousand men. That escalated the low level conflict, and so did the KLAs recruitment pool burgeon, as more people joined to fight against Serb repression. Serbs used regular army troops, instead of Special guerrillas to combat KLA. (Didn`t want to give them too much importance)This resulted in atrocities against civilians,

And the KLA snowballed. Good in depth article on KLA on Jane’s Kosovo page.

Re: Everyone

There is a really good article in The Friday Times by Khaled Ahmed on the issue of Kosovo for anyone interested!

Re: Fozia # 33

I agree with what you have said; NATO needs to further crytalize its reasons and in the last week, there is a basic NATO list of demands for ending hostilities. I agree with your points 1, 2 and 3, but am in disagreement your points 4 and 5.

Also, could you please inform me what reason NATO might have to intervene in Rwanda. The last time I looked at an altas, Rwanda was in Africa and not in Europe. Rwanda is not within NATO`s area of interest and nor is NATO an African specific alliance, but European focused.

It is too early to pronounce NATO`s air campaign a failure after only 24 days. Clear and visible indications of the air campaign will begin to emerge after 10-15 weeks of bombings and with upto 1000 sorties a day. Just look at the targets hit, and you`ll see a pattern emerge; NATO is cutting off the roads of retreat for the Serbs and is seeking to isolate the Yugoslav military assets in Kosovo for destruction later. Just be a little patience and you`ll soon see some results!

Oops I realized I screwed up the number in my points, I have two #3`s hopefully you can all just

mentally renumerate my list. :)

Fozia

I`ve thought a great deal about the Balkan conflict. The reasons for previous inaction in Bosnia on the UN/Nato`s part were easier to explain than the current action taken by Nato for Kosovo.

There isn`t really a clear cut reason for NATO intervention, rather it is a combination of several.

1. The Imperialistic theories for US/NATO intervention that are presented in this article are a factor but it would be simplistic to say it`s the only factor.

2. There is a need to ``save face`` and reestablish credibility as a so-called ``world cop`` by the US through the NATO veil especially after observing a genocide ``live`` 90`s style in Bosnia - the outer edges of Europe.

3. There is genuinely more anxiety on the part of westerners when war and acts of brutality are carried out by Europeans. Thus one would get the impression through the media that such a scale of genocide has never existed after the Holocaust around the world and must be contained.

The fact that similar genocide occured in Rwanda just a couple of years ago doesn`t warrent the same level of intervention by NATO.

3. NATO was formed in the cold war on the premise that communists are ``bad``. Thus any organisation not obviously pro-NATO must be brought under control. Ideally NATO would have like Milosovic to withdraw from Kosovo and for the NATO to have an obvious pro-NATO ally as leader there.

4. On Europe`s part,there is a need to contain the ``Pan-Serbian`` sentiment. This reason and # 3 partially imperialistic in concept and part self-preservation (as most powerful) on NATO`s part. Pan-Serbianism is viewed as greatly destabilizing for all of Europe, thus Western Europeans would much rather work to control this with the additional help of American troops.

In the ``New World Order`` the only ``pan`` allowed is Pan-Westernism.

The reasons for NATO intervention aside, we can all see 2-3 weeks into the allied bombings, that this intervention has been an unqualified failure in terms of achieving the objectives highlighted in this article and the reasons I`ve outlined above.

Now the reasons for continued NATO intervention has shifted from a multitude to one: Save NATO credibility.

NATO/US has been humiliated by Milosovic`s superior military strategy and now is hoping that it can get out of this mess with it`s reputation as a military superpower still intact. Hence the increasing number of civilian targets mixed with military. It`s now getting personal and NATO wants to teach Milosovic a little lesson.

Regards,

Fozia

Re: firaq # 29

The effects of the bombing campaign will be seen over a period of time and the intent is to force Milosevic to grant political autonomy to the Kosovars.

No, I do not believe that American foreign policy is benign. No nation can afford to have a benign foreign policy. It is an oxymoron. My problem is that I just don`t see the point in the victimhood of crying foul against American actions. If the rest of the world thinks that America will act on the behalf of their interests, it is mistaken. It will not, so what is the point of crying. Crying and playing the victim will not stop the United States from acting in its interests. The world blames the United States, but it still wants the Americans to solve its problems.

Facts do not have to convince me that American foreign policy is benign, because I know it is not. It is highly regretable that my posts created the impression of you being anti-American, but ironically we are in the same boat. No amount of facts will convince you either, in dispelling your own ``dogma``, that United States will never be alturistic in its foreign policy objectives. If the CIA is involved with the KLA, I will dismiss that notion not, because it is against my ``dogma``, but because it is the reality of how the ``great game`` is played and the game is played with the intentions to win!

Just as a tangent, is the ISI involvment in Kashmir in the interests of the Kashmiris or the Pakistani foreign policy?

I know about Chomsky and I have read many dissenting opinions on prevailing American foreign policy options. It still does not answer the question of just what is wrong, for a nation, to in its own self-interests? What does the rest of the world thinks that America owes it?

To be perfectly honest, I think that the both of us stopped listening to each other`s arguments a long time ago!

Reply to everyone esp:Ferozk.

Since the discussion has reached a level where the IQs and WQs are found wanting,let me share this classic piece by Syed Mohammad Jafri.

(there was a news-item that the average age of the donkeys is falling in Egypt.The Egyptian govt.

appointed a high-level commission to look into this)

THE DONKEYS OF EGYPT

Today`s newspaper has reported

To such fickleness,Pharoahs have resorted

Finding the life-span of donkeys short,It

appoints a commission on donkeys to sort it The commission will ponder on the donkey affairs

We areso envious of egyptian donkeys`fortunes fair

The magical East,oh so full of wonders

Uniquely,has sprung the urge to care and,er..

Such uproar on the misfortunes donkeys`share

And Humans:what misery,and agony they bear

For Egytians as well as for those not from Egypt

Can`t have the comfort which is these donkeys`lot



Listen!oh ye donkeys & mules of Karachi,Lahore

Better be Cairo-bound where NO WHIPS,NO SORES!

Your cousins in Egypt are no less,no more

You think of their life,& then your chores

They`ll honour you with a seat atop the pyramids

They`ll make a statue of yours in their midst



If you go to Arabia you might ride a Buick

Of course,you`re respected by your own folk

And if you don`t get lost in desert dust-cloak

You might accompany a camel caravan-minus yoke

You are the pride and joy of the donkeys around

In middle-east and ASIA Your glory-tales abound

If you decide to go to Iraq,you`ll be sorry

First you`ll be president,then--another story

Day and night revolution`ll be your main worry

Toppled from throne you`ll be Death`s quarry

Iraqi--you may or may not be cosidered by many

But crazy you are--will be told to you all & any.

And if you take a steps towards Uncle Sam

You`ll be given AID,then robbed clean--SCAM!

He will mount weapons on your back---& BAMM!

He will put you against a neighbour--no shame

In such a manner he is busy in similar great``deed``

This ``credible`` uncle ---this his religion & creed

Once in a while,he`ll feed you some wheat

What`ll he make out of you--you`ll be beat

He has lost one eye already in vietnam retreat

And the world saw him begging China in a meet

To the moon also he went,but found nothing to brag

Empty-handed he went,brought stones in his bag



And if perchance you happen to go to Russia

Then you`ll lose this world and other,I`m sure

Nither Junagadh nor Kashmir will come to ya

Turn around and you`ll find your tail red ha!

A donkey you are ,you will end up as red-robbin

This master punish you & make you rooster acrowing



So be it the shores of the Nile or Ravi

May the donkeys of east live long, carefree

Long life is good,its their brains bit shorty

And it`s your IQ ,which has made an ass of ye



Donkey you are!and all your behaviour is asinine

You enemies the ones you take as friends benign

(This was written in the late 60s.I hope the farangi-lovers can spot themselves---Does`nt require even little IQ).

Re: Ferozk

I had decided not to waste my time in these arguments but one last message:

About the NY times source; none of these newspapers can tell lies (atleast not consistently). They can selectively report the truth. The fact that the news was reported in some obscure corner on the inner pages already tells you the bias of the paper.

I see a problem with your recent messages...you are only accusing me of being anti-american and being on a crusade etc...you are not addressing any of the arguments given in my messages...you have this belief, a ``dogma`` that the US foreign policy is largely benign...no facts will convince you otherwise; so even if you find out about CIA`s involvment in KLA, you will dismiss it because it goes against your dogma.

You are right about the future and the present being more important than the past...however, we have to see the past to see a pattern of action which is continuing in the present (for.e.g in Iraq and Kosovo) and which will continue in the future if people continue to believe the dogma that you believe in. So for e.g., if that NY times report about Serbia accepting UN peace keeping troops and not NATO troops is correct, than one obvious thing that could have been done was to accept that demand...but why was`nt it accepted? Because this is consistent with the Western policy from the early 90`s...break Yugoslavia up into NATO protectorates. UN troops will not serve that purpose. And that would have avoided a lot of these refugees created by these bombings. I still dont get what this bombing that you are supporting has achieved. But of course, your reply would be that I am just saying all this for the sake of arguments, because I think that I am leading a crusade against the US blah blah blah. You have stopped giving arguments some time ago and are just resorting to personal attacks. My suggestion to you is still the same and this is doubly important if you were a political science student: read Chomsky with an open mind to start with...its like being a student of physics and never hearing about Einstein.