[Peace-discuss] Re: [WEFTa] Stopping lese-majeste in the local media

[Yanni Chill]

Clinton is by far worse than Dubbia... at least Dubbia claims to be bombing
al-Qaida operatives (who creates and motivates those operatives maybe will
get us into the question who comes first the chicken or the egg)... while
Clinton openly went to bed with them, both in Bosnia and in Kosovo.

The demonisation of the Serbs in the 90's is by far worse than the libeling
of Iran, or the false accusations of WMD against Iraq... because even if
nobody knew with certainty about Iraq's WMD (for which Rumshfeld held
receipts since the 80s), or if Iran's motives behind nuclear energy are
still nebulous... in former Yugoslavia everybody knew what was going on. NO
INTERNAL BORDERS should have been recognized as EXTERNAL borders of newly
found countries without an internal agreement first. In former Yugoslavia it
was everybody except the Serbs that were given the right to
self-determination. Second: terrorism in the form of the Kosovo Liberation
Army which was classified as a terrorist organization as early as 1982 by
the New York Times... should not have been rewarded. THIRD no country should
be faced with an ultimatum of accept seccession of integral parts of of your
territory or face bombing as part of a sane diplomatic process. In the
Kosovo case the USA
punished a government for trying to protect its homeland security with
limited
military operations against terrorist militants (funded by Al-Qaida) within
its own borders. Let's not forget that the arias of the Clinton
administration against Milosevic and the "Kosovo genocide" resulted in
Milosevic being tried for genocide with 517 victim names (none of which were
specified as militant or civilian) in his indictment... The US led NATO
forces killed thousands of civilians bombed TV stations, the Chinese Embassy
a chemical factory, civilian houses and civilian trains killing thousands...
but still were not charged with anything!!!! Even though
they did violate NATO's engagement rules, the rules of the UN and the
security council.

Yet, they named their bombs... "humanitarian bombs" and they were the first
ones to trivialize human life loss... as... insigbificant collateral damage.

Let's not forget the "whag the dog" (the movie did precede the 1999 war
agaisnt Yugoslavia, in a prophetic type of "coincidence") style of
propaganda that played on American media... and that shaped and is till
shaping the misinformed and misguided American public opinion to this day
about this issue.

The travesty of the Milosevic trial which really exposed the mockery of the
entire propaganda that led to the Yugoslavia war... is really something that
needs to be brought up in the American media.

I have plenty of material to make a 1-hour weekly commentary on
International affairs. Would the PC be interested in such a proposal?

Yannis


On 5/14/07, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Recently I fell into dispute with the Public i, owing to their distress at
> an (accurate but) disobliging reference I made to that paragon of civic
> virtue, Bill Clinton (viz., that he is a mass murderer, with perhaps more
> dead Iraqis to his credit than G. Bush Jr.), in a piece I wrote for
> them.  Now I seem (once again) to have offended liberal sensibilities by
> being unpleasant in regard to B. Obama and the Democrats.
>
> An airshifter at our local alternative radio station asked me for a series
> of brief (3+ minutes) recorded comments ("drop-ins") of the sort that air on
> the Saturday morning radio program that I do with Paul Mueth.  But when I
> provided him with the first comment, he refused to air it, on the grounds
> that it was "a bunch of emotional propaganda geared to support a third party
> and for the most part a group of ideas that are going nowhere."
>
> The substance of his critique was as follows: "First you made
> unsubstantiated charges against the best and most electable political
> candidate to come before the American electorate in the last 50 years and
> then you attacked the political party that currently holds the potential for
> some progress..."  The references are apparently to Mr. Obama and the
> Democrats.
>
> I'm appending the text of the scorned comment, so that you can judge for
> yourself.  --CGE
>
> =====================
>
> It's May, 2007, six months after the last federal election in the United
> States.  I don't think anyone doubts that the swing to the Democrats in that
> election was a vote against the war in Iraq.  But since then the Democrats
> in Congress -- and the Democratic presidential candidates -- have been
> working to neutralize that vote and support the war policy.
>
> Yes, I know there are exceptions, but they're thoroughly marginalized --
> look how the press is treating Sen. Mike Gravel and Representative Dennis
> Kucinich, while it cries up the candidate who most mendaciously declares
> himself anti-war but isn't: Barack Obama.  Obama's just opposed to the
> administration's losing both the war and (even more) the popular support for
> it.
>
> The Democrats are not of course a political party as parties are
> understood in much of the rest of the world.  They are a candidate-selection
> system -- working for the small minority of Americans who hold wealth and
> power.  Their principal job is to promote the fiction that the interests of
> that small group coincide with the interests of the majority of Americans,
> when in fact they're mutually opposed.
>
> The Democrats provide the appearance of debate -- but only on safe topics,
> such as religiosity and guns -- to steer it away from dangerous ones, like
> the distribution of wealth and effective access to power (such as war
> decisions).  The Republicans of course are the same.  The African leader
> Julius Nyrere said acutely years ago, "You Americans have a one-party
> state.  Of course, with your usual exuberance, you have two of them!"
>
> But it's the Democrats' role as supporters of the war that's been hidden
> by the press and their own propaganda in recent months.  It's true that some
> people have noticed it, and not just on the left: neoconservative writer
> Robert Kagan published an approving piece in the Washington Post last month
> entitled "Obama the Interventionist." Kagan points out that Obama's foreign
> policy views are quite in line with the policies of the Bush administration,
> despite Obama's anti-war smokescreen.
>
> How about the Democrats in Congress?  Didn't they just try to add some
> limitations on the war to a massive bill to pay for it?  Well, not
> really.  Here's how ABC News described the aftermath of Bush's veto of that
> bill last week:
>
>        "A serene group of Democratic Senate leaders indicated this
> afternoon that they were willing to give up on forcing the withdrawal of
> U.S. troops from Iraq ... 'There are many different ways of focusing on
> the problems in Iraq,' [Senate majority leader Harry] Reid said ...
> 'Timetables is one. Benchmarks is one. We could have waivers from the
> president. We could have waivers from the secretary of defense. There are
> just many different things that can be done ... We have benchmarks. We may
> need more benchmarks. We may need a way of enforcing the benchmarks' ...
> Reid and other members of his leadership team -- Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL),
> Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Patty Murray (D-WA) -- spoke today almost as if
> their last bill didn't call for a U.S. troop withdrawal..."
>
> Yes, exactly.  On the excellent blog stopmebeforeivoteagain.com, Michael
> J. Smith describes this as "a funny story: Reid happily burbling about
> benchmarks, waivers here and waivers there. The sense of relief is palpable,
> isn't it? They think they wiggled out of a bind. The public expected 'em to
> do something about the war, and now they think they've gotten us to believe
> that they tried."
>
> That sounds about right to me; I'm Carl Estabrook, from News from Neptune,
> Saturday mornings ten to eleven on WEFT-Champaign.
>
> [The audio version will be posted at <www.newsfromneptune.com>.]
>
>        ###
>
> _______________________________________________
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or read archives for the WEFTa mailing list
> visit http://lists.weft.org/listinfo.cgi/wefta-weft.org
>
> To post to the WEFTa mailing list, send mail to WEFTa at weft.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070515/f36a19d3/attachment-0001.htm