Read this or George W. Bush Will Be President the Rest of Your Life

The Anti-Empire Report

NATO is a treaty on wheels — It can be rolled in any direction to suit Washington’s current policy

Have you by chance noticed that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has become virtually a country? With more international rights and military power than almost any other country in the world? Yes, the same NATO that we were told was created in 1949 to defend against a Soviet attack in Western Europe, and thus should have gone out of existence in 1991 when the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact expired and explicitly invited NATO to do the same. Other reasons have been suggested for NATO’s creation: to help suppress the left in Italy and France if either country’s Communist Party came to power through an election, and/or to advance American hegemony by preventing the major European nations from pursuing independent foreign policies. This latter notion has been around a long time. In 2004, the US ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, stated: “Europeans need to resist creating a united Europe in competition or as a counterweight to the United States.”Jewish Telegraph Agency, international wire service, February 16, 2004.

The alliance has been kept amongst the living to serve as a very useful handmaiden of US foreign policy as well as providing American arms and airplane manufacturers with many billions of dollars of guaranteed sales due to the requirement that all NATO members meet a certain minimum warfare capability.

Here’s some of what NATO has been up to in recent years as it strives to find a new raison d’être in the post-Cold War era.

It is presently waging war in Afghanistan on behalf of the United States and its illegal 2001 bombing and invasion of that pathetic land. NATO’s forces free up US troops and assume much of the responsibility and blame, instead of Washington, for the many bombings which have caused serious civilian casualties and ruination. NATO also conducts raids into Pakistan, the legality of which is as non-existent as what they do in Afghanistan.

The alliance, which began with 15 members, now has 26, in addition to 23 “partner countries” (under the reassuring name of “Partnership for Peace”). Combined, that’s more than one-fourth of the entire United Nations membership, and there are numerous other countries bribed and pressured to work with NATO, such as Jordan which recently sent troops to Afghanistan. Jordan and Qatar have offered to host a NATO-supported regional Security Cooperation Centre. NATO has a training mission in Iraq, and Iraqi military personnel receive training in NATO members’ countries. In recent years, almost all members of the alliance and the Partnership for Peace have sent troops to Iraq or Afghanistan or the former Yugoslavia, in each case serving as proxy US-occupation forces. Israel has had talks with the alliance about the deployment of a NATO force in their country. India is scheduled to participate in upcoming NATO war games. The list goes on, as the alliance’s outreach keeps reaching out further, holding international conferences to bring together new and potential allies, under names such as the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, and the Mediterranean Dialogue (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia), or expanding military ties with existing international organizations such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates).

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, NATO gave the United States carte blanche to travel throughout Europe transporting men to be tortured.The Guardian (London), June 7, 2007, article by Stephen Grey, author of Ghost Plane: The inside story of the CIA Torture Program (2006). It’s like a refined gentleman’s club with some unusual member privileges. NATO also goes around monitoring elections, the latest being in Upper Abkhazia (claimed by Georgia) in January.

The alliance has military bases in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, and elsewhere in Europe, and regularly conducts “naval operations in the Mediterranean to actively demonstrate NATO’s resolve and solidarity”, as NATO puts it. This includes AWAC (Airborne Warning and Control) aircraft patrolling the Mediterranean from above and frequently stopping and boarding ships and boats at sea. “Since the start of the operation,” reports NATO, “nearly 79,000 merchant vessels have been monitored (as of 12 April 2006) … The surveillance operation utilizes ship, aircraft and submarine assets to build a picture of maritime activity in the Area of Operations.” The exercise includes “actions aimed at preventing or countering terrorism coming from or conducted at sea and all illegality possibly connected with terrorism, such as human trafficking and smuggling of arms and radioactive substances.” NATO is truly Lord of the Mediterranean, unelected, unauthorized, and unsupervised.

NATO, which has ready access to nuclear weapons from several of its members (only with Washington’s approval), has joined the United States in its operation to surround Russia. “Look,” said Russian president Vladimir Putin about NATO as far back as 2001, “this is a military organization. It’s moving towards our border. Why?”Associated Press, June 16, 2001. As of December 2007, Moscow’s concern had not lessened. The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister lashed out at NATO’s steady expansion into former Soviet-dominated eastern Europe, saying the policy “was a leftover from the time of the Cold War”.Focus News Agency (Bulgaria)/Agence France-Presse, December 26, 2007. Finland — which shares a border with Russia of more than 1300 km — is now being considered for membership in NATO.

Ever since it undertook a Washington-instigated 78-day bombing of the former Yugoslavia in 1999, NATO has been operating in the Balkans like a colonial Governor-General. Along with the UN, it’s been leading a peacekeeping operation in Kosovo and takes part in the policing of Bosnia, including searching people’s homes looking for suspected war criminals wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The triumvirate of NATO, the United States, and the European Union have been supporting Kosovo’s plan to unilaterally declare independence from Serbia, thus bypassing the UN Security Council where Serbia’s ally, Russia, has a veto. We therefore have the Western powers unilaterally declaring the independence of a part of another country’s territory; this because the Kosovo ethnic Albanians are regarded as much more reliably “pro-West” than is Serbia, which has refused to look upon the free market and the privatization of the world known as “globalization” as the summum bonum, nor shown proper enthusiasm for an American or NATO military installation upon its soil. Kosovo, however, does have a large US military base on its territory. Any attempt by Serbia to militarily prevent Kosovo from seceding would in all likelihood be met by NATO/US military force. You may wonder what a United States military base is doing in Kosovo. People all over the world wonder the same about their local American bases.

You may also wonder: What force exists to slow down the growth of the Mediterranean Monster? Who can stand up to it? The military elite of the triumvirate take such a question seriously. What they apparently fear the most is nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong people; i.e., those who don’t recognize the triumvirate’s right to dictate to the world. On January 22 the Guardian of London reported that the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands had released a manifesto which insists that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world”. The paper had earlier been presented to NATO’s secretary general and to the Pentagon. It is likely to be discussed at a NATO summit in Bucharest in April, along with the possible extension of the alliance to include five more former Soviet countries: Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, Albania and Ukraine.

The five generals who authored the report could have advocated a serious international campaign to begin the process of actually creating a nuclear-free world. Instead, they call for an end to the European Union’s “obstruction” of and rivalry with NATO and a shift from consensus decision-taking in NATO bodies to majority voting, meaning an end to national vetoes.

So there you have it. The international military elite are demanding yet more power and autonomy for NATO. Questioning voices in the alliance, in the European Union, or anywhere else should forget their concerns about a nuclear-free world, international law, pre-emptive war, wars of aggression, national sovereignty, and all that other United Nations Charter and human-rights nonsense. We’re gonna nuke all those Arab terrorists before they have a chance to say Allah Akbar.

The arrogance continues, with the manifesto specifying “no role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations,” calling also for the use of force without UN Security Council authorization when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings”. Now who can argue against protecting large numbers of human beings?

The paper also declares that “Nato’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan” and “Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure.” The German general went so far as to declare that his own country, by insisting upon a non-combat role for its forces in Afghanistan, was contributing to “the dissolution of Nato”. Such immoderate language may be a reflection of the dark cloud which has hovered over the alliance since the end of the Cold War — that NATO has no legitimate reason for existence and that failure in Afghanistan would make this thought more present in the world’s mind. If NATO hadn’t begun to intervene outside of Europe it would have highlighted its uselessness and lack of mission. “Out of area or out of business” it was said.Much of the NATO material can be found on NATO’s website. Also see an abundance of material here.

Democracy is a beautiful thing, except that part about letting just any old jerk vote

The people can have anything they want.
The trouble is, they do not want anything.
At least they vote that way on election day.
— Eugene Debs, American socialist leader, early 20th century

Why was the primary vote for former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich so small when anti-Iraq war sentiment in the United States is supposedly so high, and Kucinich was easily the leading anti-war candidate in the Democratic race, indeed the only genuine one after former Senator Mike Gravel withdrew? Even allowing for his being cut out of several debates, Kucinich’s showing was remarkably poor. In Michigan, on January 15, it was only Kucinich and Clinton running. Clinton got 56% of the vote, the “uncommitted” vote (for candidates who had withdrawn but whose names were still on the ballot) was 39%, and Kucinich received but 4%. And Clinton, remember, has been the leading pro-war hawk of all the Democratic candidates.

I think much of the answer lies in the fact that the majority of the American people — like the majority of people all over the world — aren’t very sophisticated politically, and many of them aren’t against the war for very cerebral reasons. Their opposition perhaps stems mainly from the large number of American soldiers who’ve lost their lives, or because the United States is not “winning”, or because America’s reputation in the world is being soiled, or because a majority of other Americans express their opposition to the war, or because of George W.’s multiple character defects, or because of a number of other reasons you couldn’t even guess at. Not much especially perceptive or learned in this collection.

I think there are all kinds of intelligence in this world: musical, scientific, mathematical, artistic, academic, literary, mechanical, and so on. Then there’s political intelligence, which I would define as the ability to see through the bullshit which the leaders and politicians of every society, past, present and future, feed their citizens from birth on to win elections and assure continuance of the prevailing ideology.

This is why it’s so important for all of us to continue “preaching to the choir” and “preaching to the converted”. That’s what speakers and writers and other activists are often scoffed at for doing — saying the same old thing to the same old people, just spinning their wheels. But long experience as speaker, writer and activist in the area of foreign policy tells me it just ain’t so. From the questions and comments I regularly get from my audiences, via email and in person, and from other people’s audiences as well, I can plainly see that there are numerous significant information gaps and misconceptions in the choir’s thinking, often leaving them unable to see through the newest government lie or propaganda trick; they’re unknowing or forgetful of what happened in the past that illuminates the present; knowing the facts but unable to apply them at the appropriate moment; vulnerable to being led astray by the next person who offers a specious argument that opposes what they currently believe, or think they believe. The choir needs to be frequently reminded and enlightened.

As cynical as others may think they are, the choir is frequently not cynical enough about the power elite’s motivations. They underestimate the government’s capacity for deceit, clinging to the belief that their government somehow means well; they’re, moreover, insufficiently skilled at reading between the media’s lines. And this all applies to how they view political candidates as well. Try asking “anti-war” supporters of Hillary Clinton if they know what a hawk she is, that — as but one example — she’s promised that American forces will not leave Iraq while she’s president. (And Obama loves the empire as much as Clinton.) When Ronald Reagan was president, on several occasions polls revealed that many, if not most, people who supported him were actually opposed to many of his specific policies.

In sum, even when the hearts of the chorus may be in the right place, their heads still need working on, on a recurring basis. And in any event, very few people are actually born into the choir; they achieve choir membership only after being preached to, multiple times.

When I speak in public, and when I can mention it in an interview, I raise the question of the motivations of the administration. As long as people believe that our so-called leaders are well-intentioned, the leaders can, and do, get away with murder. Literally.

How to get people to vote against their interests and to really think against their interests is very clever. It’s the cleverest ruling class that I have ever come across in history. It’s been 200 years at it. It’s superb.
— Gore Vidal

Another interesting view of the American electoral system comes from Cuban leader Raúl Castro. He recently noted that the United States pits two identical parties against one another, and joked that a choice between a Republican and Democrat is like choosing between himself and his brother Fidel.

We could say in Cuba we have two parties: one led by Fidel and one led by Raúl, what would be the difference?” he asked. “That’s the same thing that happens in the United States … both are the same. Fidel is a little taller than me, he has a beard and I don’t.Associated Press,, December 25, 2007.

Speaking of political intelligence … take a little stroll with Alice through the American wonderland … just for laughs

This war [in Iraq] is the most important liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan. … it is one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad.
— Thomas Friedman, much-acclaimed New York Times foreign-affairs analyst, November 2003New York Times, November 30, 2003.

President Bush has placed human rights at the center of his foreign policy agenda in unprecedented ways.
— Michael Gerson, columnist for the Washington Post, 2007Washington Post, September 7, 2007.

The war in Iraq “is one of the noblest endeavors the United States, or any great power, has ever undertaken.”
— David Brooks, New York Times columnist and National Public Radio (NPR) commentator (2007)Mary Eberstadt, ed., Why I turned Right: Leading Baby Boom Conservatives Chronicle Their Political Journeys (2007), p.73.

If this is what leading American public intellectuals believe and impart to their audiences, is it any wonder that the media can short circuit people’s critical faculties altogether? It should as well be noted that these three journalists are all with “liberal” media.

And when Hillary Clinton says in the January 31 debate with Barack Obama: “We bombed them [Iraq] for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors,” and the fact is that the UN withdrew its weapons inspectors because the Clinton administration had made it clear that it was about to start bombing Iraq …

Obama didn’t correct her. Neither did any of the eminent journalists on the panel, though this particular piece of disinformation has been repeated again and again in the media, and has been corrected again and again by those on the left. Comrades, we have our work cut out for us. The chorus needs us. America needs us. Keep preaching.

Teaching political intelligence

If you’re a high school or college teacher, you might want to look here for teaching aids to impart a progressive outlook on US foreign policy and related issues to your students.

William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire. He can be reached at: Read other articles by William, or visit William's website.

13 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. DavidG. said on February 4th, 2008 at 3:14pm #

    This is important article should be made mandatory reading in all schools and colleges. Ignorance is no excuse!

  2. tlm said on February 4th, 2008 at 3:33pm #

    I am disappointed William. In an otherwise very informative posting you stated a very uninformed “fact” about Senator Gravel. He is still in the race for the presidency and rumor has it he will soon announce his separation from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent.

    “The Politics of Change”… sure, change… from one war-mongering regime to another, that’s the change we will get. The handwriting is on the wall. If you desire real change, and a return of the principles of a modern, civilized United States of America, you will cast off the politics of fear and partisanship, and vote for Mike Gravel when he announces his independent run for the White House! This is not wishful thinking; he told me that he will run as an Independent! It will take hard work and hard campaigning. It will take people that give a damn about what kind of country we will live in, where we raise our children, what kind of a country we will fight for. Progressives and thinking Democrats and Republicans can get together when it is absolutely essential. It is essential now! The time has come today! Don’t let this chance pass us by; it may be the only chance we as a nation, have left. We should do this not only for America, but for the entire world. Isn’t it about time we cut through the self-interests of politicians and listened to our conscience for once? I believe it is time, it must be time. Our time has come today!

    Otherwise the piece is excellent. Thank you.


  3. Gary Corseri said on February 4th, 2008 at 10:08pm #

    Once again, William Blum has written a comprehensive essay, exploring seemingly divergent topics that, nevertheless, cohere in important ways.

    The coherent theme here, almost understated, is the nature of democracy in our modern world.

    As our corporate media focus the attention of our forgetful masses on one inane show after another–the “Superbowl,” “Super Tuesday,” “Law & Order,” Britney, etc.–real democracy–the ability of the people to have a say in their domestic and international affairs–is lost in the bargain. We know all we need to know about Hillary’s weepiness and McCain’s “straight-talking express,” but almost nothing about the machinations of the NATO superstate that rides roughshod over our own national policies and those of other nations. To overcome the constant sloganeering of our mass media–0ur “noble” democracy-building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan–Blum suggests “preaching to the choir”; i.e., repeating our own message to those who have heard it before, even to those mostly convinced. Why not? We, too, who have seen a glimmer of the light, read a bit of history, and managed to read between the lines, must cut through the bric-a-brac of confusing messages, irrelevant information, and plain old lies.

    Who will counter NATO? Blum asks at one point. Well, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization of seven powers (anchored by China and Russia) is one possible counter. How well a state of interlocking countervailing alliances bodes for a resources-challenged world we may learn from Europe circa 1914. Knowledge is always the best counter to ignorance, but ignorance more frequently counterbalances itself and we messy mortals get caught in the interstices.

    Still, there’s the moral injunction to keep truth-searching and truth-telling because it’s, well, the right thing to do. That Blum challenges us to think for ourselves, as well as behave morally, are the best reasons to inform ourselves, ponder his work, and act on our conclusions.

  4. Xavier said on February 5th, 2008 at 5:04am #

    B.T.W., Gravel has not withdrawn…

  5. Tony S. said on February 5th, 2008 at 6:42am #

    The article keeps saying one political party in the US is as bad as the other, but I can’t help but think the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney has been the worst in its brutality. I do think Hillary Clinton is a closet Republican. Instead of talking about real meaningful programs to help people help themselves, she talks about give-aways to everyone which are always suspect.

  6. John Wilkinson said on February 5th, 2008 at 1:39pm #

    Croatia — “former Soviet state”; Macedonia — “former Soviet state”; Albania — “former Soviet state”, according to you. Implying that NATO was moving into these states which were formerly part of the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia).
    These are the facts:
    The first two were part of former Yugoslavia, a non-aligned country, that was opposed to both superpowers, and a founder of the non-aligned movement. This country was socialist, but did not have the “soviet” style of govt, and was opposed to USSR bullying and trying to dictate its internal policies. As a matter of fact, some people in that country spent time in prison for agitating for the USSR.
    Albania — also a separate country, was never part of USSR (was never even geographically close to USSR or its satelites), had a falling out with USSR back in 1948, and was the greatest friend of China, and enemy of USSR.
    Mike Gravel is out of the race … NOT.

    Just like when you said (in another article) that Marshall plan was used to help the capitalist countries, when I saw Marshall plan packaging in Yugoslavia, (again, NOT a capitalist country).

    Playing loose with the facts, just like the other side.

  7. John Wilkinson said on February 5th, 2008 at 4:37pm #

    And yes, Georgia and the Ukraine, WERE Soviet states, the only two (out of the five on your list). But here, you’re scratching the surface, just like with the other recently added NATO countries (e.g., Poland, Hungary, etc.) you implicitly mention. You don’t bother to go deeper to show all the facts, not just the ones that support your black and white picture. (Of course, the other side does that also, both sides are like used car salesmen who only talk about the good things about their cars (see the beautiful paint job, your wife will like it! See how clean it is, inside and out!). They never talk about the whole picture, when everyone with eyes can see that both jalopies are a piece of junk).

    Take the Ukraine, or any other “Soviet country”. They were Soviet, but not by their own choice. There is a lot of resentment in the Ukraine that, over the centuries, they were never in charge of their own destiny, the big Russian bear always managed to muscle in and run the country as part of their empire. And the fact is, even though they think that, and even though now the Ukrainian is the official language, ordinary people in the street largely still speak Russian in their conversations, that’s how insidious the occupation has been. I lived in a non-aligned country in Europe during the cold war, and our everyday fear was that the Russians would invade, not that the Americans would invade.

    In other words, it’s not that NATO elbowed its way into those countries, it’s that these countries wanted to be in NATO. The people there never again wanted to spend their lives waiting in bread lines all day, every day (and don’t judge them until you’ve tried this yourself). And NATO was an insurance policy that this wouldn’t happen again. Of course, Russians have their own security interests, no-one disputes that. And yes, it’s true that, here, the industrial-military complex has taken over — maybe exactly because of denial of reality in all its facets. My point is, how can you fix a problem if you don’t know the whole reality of it, rather than the surface black and white portrayal given here and elsewhere? It’s like saying, we’ve built this wonderful aircraft, all new engines, super-duper wheels, etc., you’ll see how it will take off. The only problem is, we neglected to put the wings on it (and we neglected to tell you that), so it will crash and burn before it’s airborne.

    So, for those in the choir, be suspicious of any black and white arguments. The reality is more complex than that. And question the motives of those proffering such. Actually both the ones on the left and the right have the exact same motives – money and power, though the former pretend it’s something else. All you have to do is open your eyes and you’ll see this. You can see this when Mr. Blum bemoans the fact that he’s not getting as many speaking invitations, that he had to reduce his fees, or when some others on the left try to sabotage meaningful discussion about 9-11 or global warming, because then the center of gravity (i.e., power, i.e., money) would move away from them.

  8. heike said on February 7th, 2008 at 5:13am #

    Why is NATO still needed? Look at the case of Estonia. The country had the temerity last year to interfere in its own internal affairs by moving a Soviet-era statue of “Alyosha the soldier” to a military cemetery where it would cease to be the object of pro-Soviet agitation. For that sin, the Estonians were greeted with a Zhdanovite delegation that demanded the resignation of the government and replacement by one ready to do the Russians’ bidding. The Russians cut off rail traffic with Estonia and reduced trade. They instituted cyber warfare to destroy Estonia’s media, economic, and governmental institutions. Some hotheads even talked about taking over part of eastern Estonia and making it into a part of Russia. Russia sent its protofascist “Nashisty” into Estonia and fomented riots in the capital city.

    If all this happened when Estonia, outnumbered by 100 to 1 by Russia, is a NATO member, what do you think would have happened had Estonia been faced with a situation like in 1940, when it was occupied by the Red Army and absorbed against its will into the USSR?

    Oh, as to the illegal bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. Did anything precede that event? Was that legal under international law?

    Fact check: Finland can’t be considered for membership in NATO before its people and government decide whether or not they want to apply to join NATO. There is a debate going on as to whether changing the country’s traditional neutrality policy would be a net gain or loss for its security. The Russians have not helped matters by putting on big tariffs on Finnish wood products or provocative flights near the Finnish border.

    One article for the “comrades” to consider:

    //After all, Russia’s windfall profits from the sale of oil and gas abroad have already resulted in significant changes in Russian policies at home and abroad. The government’s clamp down on the once free Russian media, its intolerance of any political opposition and its un-neighborly behavior towards neighboring Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia all point in a direction that seems to validate the worst fears of a resurgent and aggressive Russia on the part of the smaller neighbors.

    But times have changed since 1991 when the Soviet hardliners sent their OMON thugs in to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to terrorize the Baltic peoples into submission. These three small countries did become independent again after the Soviet breakup and all three, after all, became not only independent states but also EU and NATO members.

    Meanwhile, NATO membership for either the Finns and/or the Swedes is no foregone conclusion – but Russian threats and bullying – will more likely hasten – rather than halt – such a decision sometime in the future and invoke yet again that law of unintended and unwanted consequences.//

    Why didn’t you mention that Russia is also a signatory of Partnership for Peace? Or that Russia in 2005 signed a cooperation agreement with NATO? Afraid it would spoil your argument?

    As previous writers have mentioned, it would be nice if you corrected your own information gaps before you start correcting those of others.

  9. William Blum said on February 7th, 2008 at 6:19pm #

    I ask that anyone wishing to reply to my Anti-Empire Report do so to me directly at moc.loanull@6mulbb I find that exchanging views in this setting is too inconvenient. Those who have already replied and wish to hear back from me, please send your comments again, to me directly. Thanks,
    Bill Blum

  10. hp said on February 8th, 2008 at 8:32pm #

    Kosovo(a), the precursor to Iraq and beyond.
    NATO never fired one bullet for 50 years and then the all out assault on Kosovo and Serbia.
    I’ve never seen the international reporting so lockstep on anything in my life. All lies. The 100,000 dead, rape camps, acid mines, Racak massacre, and on and on. Never amended, never reexamined. Milosevic murdered.
    Oh, by the way, NATO lost the physical war too.
    If you believe ZERO casualties and three aircraft lost, I’ve got some oil wells in Israel to sell you.

  11. John Wilkinson said on February 9th, 2008 at 4:43pm #


    I am half Serb and half Croat. I used to live in that country. We Serbs have committed many war crimes, that is true. All of the different international media reporting the same thing, how likely is that? How do I know this? Because I traveled over there, I talked to people. I talked to my Serbian relatives in Croatia, who were bombed by the Serbs, just like their Croat neighbors, by cannon fire, for several long years. They showed me where little kids were playing when a shell landed on them. These shells came with no warning, and you either lived or died, depending on your luck. Bombing of Sarajevo by heavy artilery for several long years. I have talked to people from Bosnia and Croatia who have lost every thing. Including those nearest and dearest to them. The wounds are unspeakable. I talked to Serbian people who talked with gusto and pleasure about killing the others — including the whole families. One story is in my mind, about some Montenegrin, who wanted independence from Serbia. They came, and slit the throats of his family, in front of him. First his son — then dumped the body in the river. Then his wife, then dumped the body in the river. Then himself, and dumped the body in the river. And I know the Serbian refugees from Croatia, who had to endure unspeakable things because of what has been unleashed by your Milosevic and others like him. And yes, such unspeakable things did happen to Serbian people also, but mostly in WW2. In this war, they had the majority of firepower and majority of opportunities to comit murder, they were acting just like the other in war.

    Please do not talk about things you know absolutely nothing about. Unspeakable horrors occurred there. Unspeakable open wounds there. We do not need your armchair liberal apologists to make unspekable shit look and smell like roses. Yes, black is white, white is black, all I see is LIES, lies, lies. Just score some points, just get some MONEY for your causes (no, not your causes, YOURSELF), that’s what it’s all about, right?

  12. John Wilkinson said on February 9th, 2008 at 4:45pm #

    And I saw holes in buildings with my own eyes, where the shells went through.

  13. John Wilkinson said on February 9th, 2008 at 4:51pm #

    This perfectly supports what I said above, about the left wing all being about the money, just like their opponents — an article in today’s counterpunch from a sea shepherd captain, about how the greenpeace is just using the whales to fill their coffers, and could care less about the whales. Perfect!!!!Right on the money: