First there is the matter of the U.S. being the principal sponsor of the "independent state of Kosova," the illegally occupied and severed province of Serbia. Listening to lies and hatred coming from Daniel Fried and Nicholas Burns, and knowing it is official U.S. policy, has to be infuriating.
Worst of all, though, is the awareness that all three front-runners for the post of Emperor this fall share the dreadful Serbophobia that governs America's Ostpolitik.
Hillary Clinton is, well, a Clinton. She is fully behind her husband's illegal 1999 war, and eagerly uses the Albanian term for the new false state, "Kosova" (even though the Albanians actually declared recognition as "Kosovo," the province's proper name). Riding on her coattails (petticoats?) are Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark, and Richard Holbrooke, war criminals we all know and love from the 1990s.
John McCain is an enthusiastic supporter of the Albanian cause, and specifically the terrorist KLA. 'nuff said.
What of Obama? Surely, he's got to be better than these two, right? Not so fast.
As Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com puts it today, "there is a problem with Obama's foreign policy stances, and I can boil it down to two words: George Soros."
Kosovo is proof positive that there's no shred of difference between the two major parties governing U.S. affairs. American Serbs voted for George W. Bush in 2004 not because they approved of the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, or anything else he and Darth Cheney have inflicted upon the world, but because John Kerry was in bed with the KLA. Unsurprisingly, though disappointingly, the lesser of two evils turned out to be, well, evil.
"It seems to me," comments Raimondo, "that the division of labor between the two wings of the War Party is, to a large degree, geographical." While the Republicans focus on the Middle East, the Democrats obsess about Europe, and more specifically, Russia. Now, Raimondo holds out some hope that Obama is not entirely in Soros's pockets yet, and may be using Soros as a means of getting to power. So far, however, he seems to be following the same Soros playbook Clinton, Albright, Holbrooke and Clark played by a decade ago.
As Daniel Larison of the American Conservative points out:
Recognizing separatist states... is how the Balkan Wars of the ’90s became international conflicts that drew in outside powers. It is how the West could make the wars of Yugoslav succession into an occasion for isolating and humiliating the rump Yugoslavia [i.e. Serbia] and backing up the historic proxies of… Germany, bizarrely enough. It is through the persistent mistaken belief that outside powers have some stake in the conflicts of the Balkans that great powers collide with one another and risk a more general war.
One question a whole lot of Serbs are asking right about now is WHY the Empire is so hell-bent on supporting Greater Albania and dismembering Serbia? To say that atrocities - both real and quite made up - were the actual cause of Imperial intervention in the Balkans is folly; they were an excuse - hence all the fabrications - nothing more. Ignoring the real genocide in Rwanda while making up a genocide in Bosnia; imposing a UN blockade harsher than the one against Iraq because of alleged "Serb aggression," then launching aggressive wars of its own (1999, 2003); condemning "ethnic cleansing," but sponsoring the largest instances thereof (half a million or so Serbs from today's Croatia and Kosovo) - how much more proof do we need that the Empire does not have a moral compass?
Almost 2000 years ago, Apostle Paul wrote, "there is nothing new under the sun." That is certainly a good description of American foreign policy. Its Russophobia is British in origin; its dislike of Serbs appears to be borrowed from Austria-Hungary and Nazi Germany (as is its choice of "allies" in the region). But the sheer stupidity of demolishing the international order over a patch of land utterly insignificant to anyone but the Serbs and the Albanians... that's 100% Made in America.
They should have outsorced it. Seriously.
With regards to Obama's groupies, the real one to worry about is his foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, who is upset that the US did not do anything about the 'genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda'.
She wrote the book: A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.
You think Clinton was bad...
I'd say a far bigger threat is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the guy who sponsored Afghan jihadists *before* the Soviet invasion so he'd sucker Moscow into its own Vietnam. He bragged to a French newspaper some years back that this was a political masterstroke, and that Communism was a far greater threat to the world than some religious fanatics could ever be. Then came 9/11.
I remember Samantha Power from Bosnia. She knew the truth back then, even if she continued to believe in the redemptive power of American imperialism; but once she came back to the U.S. and got into the Establishment... her turn to the Dark Side was inevitable.
At least she believes (wrongly) that the Mission of America is to go forth around the world and kill people in the name of stopping genocides. I don't think it occurred to her that the prospect of American intervention drives people to claim/stage/orchestrage "genocide" to begin with.
Either way, Obama is bad news. So are the other two. For Serbs, but also for Americans.
Aha, our old friend Brzezinski. Who, apart from his adventures in Afghanistan, was the godfather of US diplomatic support for Pol Pot.
Redemptive imperialism? Yes we can!
"Ignoring the real genocide in Rwanda..."
Quite to the contrary, RPF was created in the same way by the same intelligence source (in a neighboring country, Uganda) the way KLA was created in Albania and infiltrated into Serbia. The RPF mounted an aggression from Uganda after assassinating the Rwandan and Burundian presidents when two rockets hit his plane. Atrocities were unleashed by the acts of killing the President and the aggression from Uganda. The so-called "real genocide in Rwanda" is as fake as the ones in Bosnia and Kosovo in order to facilitate imperial intervention. The only difference is that "Balkan genocides" enabled Western forces to enter the region while in Rwanda the work was done and continues to be done (exploitation of coltan by Rwanda in neighboring Congo) by a proxy force, RPF, hailed as saviors and liberators in Hollywood movies and Samantha Power.
Well, there you go, then. I'm always wary of accepting anything I read in the mainstream media at face value, knowing that their Balkans coverage was by and large made up. So every time I hear reports from Rwanda, East Timor, Congo, Chad, Sudan, etc. I have to ask myself, "What's the truth here?"
This is also why I stick to writing about the Balkans. After years of doing so, I can spot the lies easily. I'd have a hell of a time doing so in case of, say, Rwanda - simply because I know so little about the place that I have absolutely no idea what's true, even if I do realize that the mainstream media view is not.
Well, gray falcon, take that advice.
I tend always to be suspicious how come any two peoples/ethnic groups that managed to live at least side by side, or perhaps even together, for centuries, start to exterminate each other all of a sudden.
How come they haven't managed to exterminate themselves mutually already?
Once we look back in history, there were not so many genocides around even without a "humanitarian" powers to prevent them.
Careful - the "living together in harmony for centuries" narrative is about as fraught with deceit as the "humanitarian intervention to stop genocide" one.
For example, Bosnia is held up as this paragon of multi-ethnic tolerance. Its history, however, is that of segregation and constant strife between Muslims and Christians, culminating in the 1990s civil war. The intermingling of the 1945-1990 period was an anomaly, not the baseline.
First of, I would like to indicated that I am sympathetic to the Serbian situation, and I think this whole Kosovo business is setting a very bad precedent for other breakaway regions. I say this to temper my following remarks such as to not cause any offense. I am new reader of your blog, so you have probably talked about this before, but the story that the western media sold to the US and that the US population by and far believes is such:
Back in the 90's, Serbia decided it didn't like Bosnian muslims, and wanted their land, so it decided to systematically start killing them off in the same way the Nazi's killed off the jews during WWII. This didn't stop until the UN came in and got involved with the help of the US and Western Europe.
Then later, when hostilities first started to occur in Kosovo, it was assumed that the Serbians were the aggressors again, and that action had to be taken immediately before things got worse like they did in Bosnia. If was thought that it would take too long to work things out through the UN, in which time a genocide could be committed. So instead, the US and Western Europe decided NATO would be able to act more quickly and nip things in the bud.
Of course the above synopsis is extremely simplified and by and large, untrue, but it is what the western world believes. In other words: Serbians = Nazis. Why these myths are prevalent is probably due to a mixture of the following conditions:
1. Nobody in the west knew anything about the previous history/cultures that were encompassed in the former Yugoslavia. Nobody had ever heard of Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia until the conflicts in the 90’s. Hell, even today, most people in the West couldn’t tell you a damn thing about Serbia, Bosnia, etc.
2. Because the Serbians were winning, it was assumed they were the ones that were the aggressors.
3. There were no Serbian lobbyists and/or PR efforts in the west to try to correct the story.
4. People in the West were bored during the 90’s and needed a crusade to go on.
5. People thought the Holocaust was happening all over again in Europe.
It’s unfortunate, but Serbia has found itself in a situation it can’t win. The truth will never come to light outside Serbia and Russia. It will, for at least another generation, be seen as a rough nation in the heart of Europe.
I've never mentioned "harmony" and was not referring to Bosnia specifically.
I was referring to the occurrence of genocides around the Globe and to the fact that not many of them occurred during history. Apart from that one in South America several decades before conquistadors, when Maya allegedly sacrificed several dozens thousands to Quecqacoetl (sp?), most of the remaining ones could have at least cast suspiciousness of an outside influence.
Conflicts were usually ended in some kind of domination or eventual ethnic recomposition of both the conquerors and conquered and not so often in destruction and extermination.
And that was my main point.
Jason, you're pretty much on the ball regarding the mainstream Western narrative, which bears as much resemblance to reality as all these "memoirs" recently exposed as fiction.
Now, my writing all these years has been an attempt to pierce this fog of lies and deception. I don't know if I've succeeded to any extent, but I know it would have been a crime not to try. Mine is to tell the story. Whether anyone actually listens... that's their choice. Personally, I think most Serbs no longer give a damn what the West thinks, and hold Europe and the U.S. in much-deserved contempt.
"But the sheer stupidity of demolishing the international order over a patch of land utterly insignificant to anyone but the Serbs and the Albanians... that's 100% Made in America. "
Don't be so soft, my dear fellow! What exactly is this international order that you fear was demolished? And this little cabal that saw fit to demolish said order, what was its place in it before they saw to its demolition?
"Made in America", eh? I was in Chicago in '98 when the Pretty Pony Blair rushed over to tell us to cheer the bombing "because we know we are right". Who was "we"?
It seems to me that this international order demolishing cabal (who apparently came out of nowhere!) has made that little patch of land significant. If you suppose they would be going to so much trouble for nothing...jeez leweez!
It's disappointing to see you buy into the muslim-fanatics-are-on-the-rampage manufactured hysteria, seeing how it's simply the agitprop of the heirs of agitprop's Bolshevik originators. You know, the so-called "neo-cons", I trust you know the rest. But now you've gone and put your money in that currency and every time you spend it you pay a little coin to the "Empire" you appear to detest. Well, at least you won't be caught calling them "islamo-fascists"! You yourself point out that that it was the then secret architects of world order such as Z-big-news who sugar-daddied the mujahaddeen.
I'll admit that geopolitics is interesting, but not when you stop wondering 'why?'. What does anybody gain when you call parasites "stupid"?
By the way, I remember that the late Stephen Dresch believed that a primary reason for the cabalistic fixation on Kosovo was the appeasement of Muslims. I suspect that was just his preliminary musing. Hah, as if the Kosovar Muslims would storm Bruxelles after the launch of Operation Infinite Justice! Or, as if the Iraqis would throw roses on the invaders just because the same planes flew for the KLA!
Ah, but you see, I cannot just dismiss the jihadist movement as a Neocon fabrication, or even merely their tool, because I was in Bosnia and I saw them in action. The neocons frighten Americans with visions of a nuclear attack or another 9/11, but that's not how the jihad operates. Its modus operandi really more resembles Kosovo: immigration > demographics > violence > conquest.
I don't rightly know why the Empire is obsessed with Kosovo and Bosnia so; that "atrocities" were an excuse is clear enough, but what is the real reason behind its fixation? The only two even remotely coherent notions that emerge from analyzing the policy are appeasement of Muslims, as so many have suggested (including Burns, the late Tom Lantos, Joe Biden and many others), and the encirclement of Russia, as Zbig laid out in the Grand Chessboard. Either way, believing that jihad can be controlled and used as a political or military tool, as the Empire seems to be doing, is just plain stupid.
Post a Comment