[Peace-discuss] covert political positions

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>
Cc: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] covert political positions


> NATO was the instrument of choice for the reduction of Serbia by Clinton 
> and now Afghanistan by Bush.

  Ah yes, more causation through correlation.  I told y'all that was a hard 
habit to break.
>
> For the rest, I'm happy to leave it to the readers of this list to 
> distinguish between the historical record and uninformed sniping.

  Now if only the historical record proved your point.  (sigh)  Of course, 
those of us who've seen you operate have learned not to expect any such 
thing, but it would have been nice.

>
> Besides, you're fat, Mark.  --CGE

  I can still get into heaven, fat.  ;)

>
>
> Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> To: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>; 
>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] covert political positions
>>
>>
>>> Clinton showed the way by his devastation of Iraq, along with his 
>>> airstrikes on Iraq and Afghanistan.  The account by Bush's first 
>>> treasury secretary describes how that administration came to power 
>>> determined to attack Iraq, even before 9-11.
>>
>>  No connection shown there - that was a PNAC priority.  As anyone knows, 
>> correlation does not imply causation.
>>
>>>
>>> As to the Clinton administration's motive for attacking Serbia, look at 
>>> the map.  Both Serbia and Somalia are on the approaches to the Middle 
>>> East, which is what the US really cares about.  As a result of Clinton's 
>>> attacks, the US now has a military base with a seven-mile perimeter in 
>>> the middle of Kosovo.
>>
>>  Which proves nothing at all.
>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the former Yugoslavia and its successor state Serbia 
>>> presented "the threat of a good example" (as Vietnam did in the '60s) --  
>>> an alternative model of development not coordinated with American 
>>> control of the world-wide economy.
>>
>>  Nice story.
>>
>>>
>>> As for the "humanitarian" motives for Clinton's attacks, we have the 
>>> answer from the horse's mouth, as it were.  One of the kept 
>>> intellectuals of the Clinton administration, Strobe Talbott was Deputy 
>>> Secretary of State from 1993 until 2001 and a long-time "Friend of 
>>> Bill."  He was the lead American negotiator and director of a joint 
>>> National Security Council-Pentagon-State Department task force on 
>>> diplomacy during the bombing.  He's now the head of the Brookings 
>>> think-tank.  In a "Foreword" to a book by his communications director, 
>>> John Norris, "Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo" (2005), he 
>>> confirms that the books tells "how events looked and felt at the time to 
>>> those of us who were involved” in the war in Kosovo.
>>>
>>> Here's what Norris says: "The gravitational pull [sic] of the community 
>>> of western democracies highlights why Milosevic's Yugoslavia had become 
>>> such an anachronism. As nations throughout the region sought to reform 
>>> their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions,
>>
>> Umm...  =)
>>
>> and broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to delight in continually 
>> moving in the opposite direction. It is small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia 
>> ended up on a collision course. It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the 
>> broader trends of political and economic reform -- *not the plight of the 
>> Kosovar Albanians* -- that best explains NATO's war" (p. xxiif.).
>>
>>  One guy's opinion.
>>
>>>
>>> The excuse that Clinton offered for bombing Serbia in his March 1999 
>>> speech was simply false: the real reason for the US/NATO attack was not 
>>> the people of Kosovo, who were supposedly suffering a "genocide."  (For 
>>> a version of that speech, see <http://www.zmag.org/satire.htm>.) 
>>> Instead, it was the refusal of Serbia to subordinate itself to the 
>>> neoliberal social and economic programs by which the US and the EU were 
>>> incorporating Eastern Europe.
>>
>>  I see we are back to the blather.
>>
>>>
>>> Remember that to secure Soviet approval of a united Germany's remaining 
>>> in NATO, the Bush-1 administration  promised that NATO would never 
>>> expand further east. Clinton violated that agreement and arranged for 
>>> Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland to join NATO, then used NATO for 
>>> the reduction of Serbia, after which the Bush-2 administration continued 
>>> to expand NATO to the Russian border.  --CGE
>>
>>  Relevance needed here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I'm looking for proof that Clinton "showed the way" for
>>>> Bush, and that Serbia wasn't undertaken on humanitarian
>>>> grounds...
>>
>>  I can see why you snipped the rest.  You failed utterly.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss