Why Clinton Bombed the Serbs - A National Disgrace Few American Even Know Nor Care About
November 2005 | Stella L. Jatras
Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:38:28 PM by Doctor13
1. To appease the Islamic world for our daily bombing of Iraq. President Clinton wanted to prove to the Muslim world that we really cared and that we were willing to destroy a Christian people to prove it.
2. The Saudis wanted the first Islamic country in the belly of Europe, and Clinton wanted cheap oil and Saudi money. The Saudis had signed a letter of intent to buy $6 billion worth of Boeing aircraft. The day after we bombed the Serbs in 1995 based on the self-inflicted Markale market place massacre by Bosnian Muslim forces, the Saudis signed on the dotted line. A coincidence? I don't think so. This is what Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," had to say in his 1995 book, "Offensive in the Balkans:"
3. Clinton needed a new mission for NATO. The Soviet Union had collapsed and if you recall, the NATO Treaty was a collective security agreement between member nations that if one NATO nation were attacked by the Soviet Union (CCCP), other NATO members would go to its defense.
In violation of International law, the NATO Treaty, the UN Charter and without the approval of Congress, Clinton and his administration, along with Serb-hating Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton gang, bombed tiny Yugoslavia that did not attack us or any NATO nation, was never a threat to us, nor did it have weapons of mass destruction.
One graphic example of Madeleine Albright's animosity towards the Serbs was the time she was entering the United Nations building as US ambassador and a Serb called out and asked why she was doing these terrible things to the Serbs. She answered, "Because they deserve it!" A more humorous account regarding Ms. Albright is the story of how the war in the Balkans really began. During a meeting of Madeleine Albright with the all-male NATO ministers, she asked the question, "Well gentleman, do we make love or do we make war?" Of course, the answer was unanimously for war.
4. Clinton couldn't let this pip-squeak of a nation defy The New World Order.
5. Our wag-the-dog president had to have a diversion from his affair in the Oval Office with a woman young enough to be his daughter.
6. Clinton also needed a war to prove he was a wartime president in the mold of FDR in order to put to rest his draft-dodging days and his contempt for the US military. The propaganda against the Serbian people has not been equalled since Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, said, "If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." In civil wars all sides do terrible things, but in this war all blame fell on the Serbs.
President Clinton was and continues to be...Until Obama enters the scene... the biggest con artist this nation has ever seen and it is unfortunate that the American people believed every word uttered by him regarding the events in the Balkans even though over 75% of the American people believed him to be a liar. The fate of the Serbs from Bosnia to Kosovo was sealed.
It is a sad reflection on all Americans what William Jefferson Clinton did to the Serbian people in our name. Sadder still is the realization that if he were able to run for president again he might very well be elected...Read More
What we see today in Libya, Yemen, Sudan, The Congo, Uganda...et al is just an extension of this Clinton era doctrine; the newly named "Responsibility to Protect".
By Aaron Klein...October 15, 2011
TEL AVIV — An influential “crisis management organization” that boasts billionaire George Soros as a member of its executive board recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform.
The president-emeritus of that organization, the International Crisis Group, is the principal author of Responsibility to Protect, the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S.-led NATO campaign in Libya.
Soros’ own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine that has been cited many times by activists urging intervention in Uganda.
Authors and advisers of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, including a center founded and led by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, also helped to found the International Criminal Court.
Several of the doctrine’s main founders also sit on boards with Soros, who is a major proponent of the doctrine.
Soros himself maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His organizations have been the leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda’s oil industry, which is being tightly controlled by the country’s leadership.
U.S. troops to Uganda
Obama on Friday notified House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that he plans to send about 100 military personnel, mostly Special Operations Forces, to central Africa. The first troops reportedly arrived in Uganda on Wednesday.
The U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA. Kony is accused of major human rights atrocities.
He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Court.
In a letter on Friday, Obama announced the initial team of U.S. military personnel “with appropriate combat equipment” deployed to Uganda on Wednesday. Other forces deploying include “a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications and logistics personnel.”
Soros: Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’
Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”
In the article Soros said, “True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”
“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.
“In particular,” he continued, “the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”
‘One World Order’
The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, meanwhile, works in partnership with the World Federalist Movement, a group that promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. The Movement is a main coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect Center.
WND reported that Responsibility doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a “global rebalancing” and “international redistribution” to create a “New World Order.”...Read More at Klein Online
Now to today's news from Serbia...
Brussels, 6 Dec. (AKI) - Following a seven-hour debate, European Union foreign ministers late Monday “took note” of European Commission's proposal to grant Serbia a status of an official candidate for membership, but final decision is expected to be made at an EU summit on Friday.
The ministers praised Serbia’s progress in reforms, cooperation with the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and talks on outstanding issues with Kosovo where the majority Albanian population declared independence in 2008.
But Germany insisted on the removal of barricades in northern Kosovo, set up by local Serbs, and the abolition of “parallel institutions” Serbia still operates in the Serb-populated north, diplomats said.
Austria proposed that Serbia be granted a “conditional candidacy”, which would be reviewed periodically. Nikolaj Dovgjelevich, foreign minister of Poland which currently presides over the EU, said Austrian proposal wasn’t accepted.
“I can’t say whether or not Serbia will get the status of a candidate because that decision is up to the European Council,” Dovgjelevich said. “But I’m very satisfied and happy that we adopted conclusions, including conclusions on Serbia,” he added...Read More at AKI
WSJ...After renewed violence in Kosovo’s Serb-dominated north, Serbia’s chances to start accession talks with the European Union have all but collapsed and a negative EU verdict on the issue is likely to be expected by Dec. 9.
This is boding ill for the future of the country, which next May is set to elect a new parliament, most likely opting for hardliners that seek closer ties to Russia, a move that might further isolate Serbia from Western Europe.
But the current crisis in Kosovo, where the country’s 100,000 remaining Serbs have erected barricades and have engaged in bloody fights with NATO soldiers, reflects the EU’s difficulties with solving serious crises without making them worse.
Much like the euro-zone’s financial troubles, which initially only affected the block’s periphery and now risk melting its core, Europe’s failure to act coherently and by pre-defined rules is a fertile breeding ground for unwelcome shocks.
Serbia is rightly blamed for the current standoff in its former province, which unilaterally declared independence in 2008. But what triggered the current crisis, which erupted this summer over a border control dispute in Kosovo’s north, is but the tip of an iceberg of unresolved issues the EU has failed to tackle.
Since the end of the Kosovo war in 1999, more than 200,000 people, most of them Serbs, have fled to Serbia, which according to the United Nation‘s “has one of the largest displaced populations in Europe.”...Read More
---------------What follows is some Commentary from the past and from one unexpected source...
WSWS, From March 1999...It is a telling commentary on the state of American democracy that the US government feels free to go to war without even bothering to offer a coherent explanation for its actions to its own people. Without even a trace of embarrassment President Clinton acknowledged, only hours before the bombing commenced, that most Americans probably would not be able to locate Kosovo on a world map.
Without a declaration of war--indeed, without anything that can even be remotely described as a public debate--the United States has commenced the bombing of another country which has not harmed, or even threatened, a single American citizen.
What is the logic of this policy? The United States assumes the right to compel countries to change their policies in accordance with American demands, i.e., to relinquish sovereignty within their own borders. Even as ruthless a practitioner of imperialist realpolitik as Henry Kissinger has warned that the war against Serbia represents an extraordinary and unprecedented redefinition of the "national interest"--which now, it would appear, includes the domestic policies of other countries.
Though it has not been explicitly stated, the implication of this new "Clinton Doctrine" is that the United States may bomb and even invade countries whose domestic policies are not to its liking.
This doctrine implies that any country in the world is a potential target for US bombing. It would not be difficult--based on the present state of world affairs--to draw up a list of 10 to 20 countries that could be considered likely candidates for military attack by the United States.
And, were a deterioration of world economic conditions to lead to an exacerbation of trade tensions, the size of that list could quickly double.
The aim of these assaults is to establish the role of the major imperialist powers--above all, the United States--as the unchallengeable arbiters of world affairs. The "New World Order" is precisely this: an international regime of unrelenting pressure and intimidation by the most powerful capitalist states against the weakest.
Viewed within an international context, the indignation of Europe and the United States over massacres and the suppression of national rights is even more cynical. While it sheds crocodile tears over the fate of the Kosovars, the United States provides military and financial support for the suppression of national and ethnic minorities by right-wing regimes all over the world.
A case in point is Turkey, a NATO member and strategic US ally, which is conducting a savage war against the Kurdish population in its own country. Turkish policy towards the Kurds is even more ruthless than that carried out by Serbia against the Kosova Albanians. Turkey makes it a crime to acknowledge a Kurdish national identity, and its military violence in Kurdistan affects far more people than the Serbian repression of Kosovo Albanians.
According to a German government briefing of parliamentary leaders, NATO's plan, should Serbia not give in after extensive bombardment, is to escalate the political and military offensive by backing the secession of Kosovo from Serbia and equipping the Kosovo Albanians with modern weapons.
I say Clinton's chickens are "coming home to roost"...in Obama's (Samantha Power) chicken coop!