I was on RT this morning (evening, if you're in Moscow), commenting on Hillary Clinton's Balkans trip. She won't say or do anything new, only deliver the same old demands. Centralize Bosnia, dismember Serbia, recognize the "Independent State of Kosovo," and maybe some day the Balkans "savages" might earn the right to clean NATO boots and fill NATO body bags. Or, if they really behave, wait tables in the EU.
But it is no longer 1999, and the Empire is destined for the fate of Ozymandias. Clinton's Potemkin promises aren't fooling anybody. Empire's clients will cheer at her words, but when she leaves they will realize that they made no difference. Perhaps only to bolster her own bid for the throne, two or six years from now - but that's another story...
7 comments:
"...her own bid for the throne..." That'll never happen, unless you meant Chelsea Clinton.
The cynical response to Hillary's pre-recorded remark playback is less a function of disinterest as it is an acknowledgement of the USA's diminished ability to deliver. The country that proclaimed its reluctance for what is really its favourite hobby (nation building) has lost its appetite for the moment, and lacks the resources to change anyone's destiny. The penchant for high-flown rhetoric is simply a habit of the political class.
I don't bear Clinton any ill will, and there could have been many worse choices. The USA has simply lost its stranglehold on international affairs. Perhaps it's a blessing that this is coincident with a financial crisis that knocked everybody for six, or a major player would have already stepped forward to fill the power vacuum.
This is a video posted on Andy Wilcox You Tube channel from a Dutch documentary about Clinton and the Bosnian leadership organising the Srebrenica hoax to justify NATO intervention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1a-_LzxDyE
Does anyone know the Dutch documentary it is from?
I wish RT would actually take the perspective of what is really going on in the Balkans as it directly and US/western sponsorship of Islamic terrorism as it directly effects Russia which the major Saudi backed NGO's operating out of Sarajevo that support Chechen lead terrorism in the North Caucasus like Benevolence foundation and Al-Haramain (which I don’t think it is just a coincidence that months prior to Beslan there offshoot organisation was training militants in hostage taking techniques in a school gym) and Khattb’s extensive links to Kosovo.
Even US own 98 DIA report identifies KLA and Bosnian Muslims as groups that back terrorism in the North Caucasus.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2004/nov/defense-intelligence-report-details-al-qaedas-plans-russia-chechnya-and-wmd
Jack, while I sometimes think the RT questions could be phrased better, at least they do call on me to answer them. And it's the answers that ultimately matter.
Marknesop, the comment was linked to a blog post that speculates Hillary might try to run in 2012, or 2016 if that fails. The woman is ambitious to a fault. And while the Empire is failing, it can still do a fair bit of harm. That's something to keep in mind.
I didn't mean to suggest you made it up, and I'm sure there are sources that love to speculate on the possibility of a further chapter to the Clinton dynasty. I meant to lean more toward the viewpoint that a decision to run for president is not likely to get much support if it does not have the approval of the party. When Clinton ran in 2008, many pundits suggested this was her final opportunity - that she would be perceived as too old for another try. Even if that's not entirely true (she'll be 65 in 2012), the Democrats will be looking for a candidate in 2016 (if Obama wins a second term) who is less polarizing, especially if the popularity trend continues to cut the legs from under the Democratic Party. This year brings a curious anomaly, in which Republicans are confidently expected to make major gains even though they remain deeply unpopular.
I was joking about Chelsea Clinton, although one never knows. She was politically active in campaigning for her mother in 2008, and she might have acquired a taste for it.
Something else to keep in mind is that a perception of being a bloodthirsty warmonger sometimes reflects the will of the electorate rather than personal views, and that it is occasionally an expression of national will that some country get the crap kicked out of it rather than any desire to do so on the part of the leader. They just know they won't be leader for long if they don't obey, and if they don't like it they have to pretend in public to like it. I don't mean to suggest Mrs. Clinton is a pacifist, but if she were, and president, she'd likely rather stay president than be labeled a pacifist. So would anyone else, so getting a lover of peace into the White House is no guarantee of peace at all. And of the two major parties, the Republicans are the unabashed disciples of war.
If most of the people are opposed to the western orientated government in Serbia why did they vote for them?
Speaking of the Athenians, their empire at least began with "allies", who gradually turned into subjects.
As France figured out early, the US's NATO allies were subjects from the getgo.
It is a pity that France has regressed.
Gianfranco Sanguinetti's "Terrorism And The State" is mandatory reading, if you have not run across it.
And if you have, may one suggest you read it closely again?
Apologies for the late reply; I was traveling and away from the computer for a couple weeks.
Jack, no one in Serbia actually voted for the current government. It is a mash-up of two coalitions, led by the Democrats and the Socialists. The Socialists actually ran on a platform of opposing the Empire, so their voters were directly deceived.
Even the Democrats' voters were swindled, as they thought they would be getting a better life and EU membership while defending the country's sovereignty. Instead, they got a quisling dictatorship, poverty, hunger, humiliation and surrender.
Eugene, thank you for the book recommendation; I'll check it out.
Post a Comment