Blowback is a concept many Americans fail to grasp, they incorrectly call it "blame America first".
blowback is a good name for it. unfortunately it has far greater repercussions than a lot of people realize. i shudder to think of the blowback caused by the iraq war. we have created generations of america haters since 2003....
Ought to make you happy.
no it doesn't make me happy. it pisses me off.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Ask a lib what he DOES want to cut. Answer: the military. Ask them what else: blank stare.
Not saying you are a lib, but if you believe that defense spending alone is what caused this debt, you might be misled. Its the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us- they must be reformed...
True story from today I thought I'd share...
While riding my bike on the beach with my kid in tow, I overheard an elderly man start up a conversation with a similarly aged woman he apparently hadn't spoken to in some time.
He says to her "So, are you still a big liberal or are you starting to pay attention to what's going on"?
Thank you for that. Until now, Its been a humorless week.
Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.
Sounds like a smart man. Such a pity that the republicans won't go near him
He is just what that country needs
If a foreign nation was in my country as was posted I would be taking up arms most certainly. I would be a terrorist, an insurgent
It wouldn't be any religous reason as would probably be the brush I would be painted with
Defence of my home, my family my community
Ask a lib what he DOES want to cut. Answer: the military. Ask them what else: blank stare.
Not saying you are a lib, but if you believe that defense spending alone is what caused this debt, you might be misled. Its the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us- they must be reformed...
we spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year on the military. 2 years ago the pentagon budget was over $700 billion. the navy was i think $100 billion. and what do we get for that?
i say cut the military. first and foremost. our military is for DEFENSE of THIS COUNTRY. it is not to go on OFFENSE and wage wars on innocent countries who did nothing to provoke us. it is not to POLICE the rest of the world and step in to dethrone dictators that the state department views as "bad". it is not to invade countries like panama to depose it's leader. it is not to attack countries on behalf of other countries, as israel is trying to persuade us to do with iran...it is not to BRING FREEDOM to countries in the middle east...it is not to OCCUPY these countries and babysit as a new government takes over. it is not to NATIONBUILD and excort and protect the government contractors who made out like bandits in the iraq war. it is not to stay in "demilitarized zones" like the korean border. where in the constitution are we to have a standing army anyway???
why are we still in germany? why are we still on the korean border? why are we building a huge base in northern australia? why are we still in the balkans? it is because it provides us with an easy route go on on OFFENSE against anyone who may prevent us from running the game the way we want to.
cut the military first, and then i will talk about other cuts after that.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Texans wouldn't let that shit happen. They are well armed ass kicking Americans. FUCK THAT!
Seems that you had a president in power from Texas who created more of a problem then he did solve anything or to borrow a line from yourself, "texans wouldn't let that shit happen". Surprise 911 happened with Bushy in power and please remind me where his home state is. I thought so!
Anyway I agree with the person who said "ONE" person won't be able to change this type of thing. Of course they can't. You wouldn't believe the people who used to, maybe post under other names who thought O'bama was the difference. From up here looks like the same ole status quo. Where is that third party? You know the party that isn't the same as the two parties rolled into one.
Gotta love the train to allow me to have some fun on a Friday at work!
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
Strong military is pretty much as important as health. If you have neither, you ain't got shit.
Assuming you got shit. If you don't got shit, ain't no point in having a military. Nobody wants what you gotz
Strong military is pretty much as important as health. If you have neither, you ain't got shit.
Assuming you got shit. If you don't got shit, ain't no point in having a military. Nobody wants what you gotz
Woot
yeah, that's what they tought us the first day of Political Science 101
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Ask a lib what he DOES want to cut. Answer: the military. Ask them what else: blank stare.
Not saying you are a lib, but if you believe that defense spending alone is what caused this debt, you might be misled. Its the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us- they must be reformed...
True story from today I thought I'd share...
While riding my bike on the beach with my kid in tow, I overheard an elderly man start up a conversation with a similarly aged woman he apparently hadn't spoken to in some time.
He says to her "So, are you still a big liberal or are you starting to pay attention to what's going on"?
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
So funny how naive some of you are.
"Oh if we tell everyone we want peace across the land, and that we will never go into anyone elses country but ours we will all live on earth happy and healthy with lots of love"...
Man wake the fuck up.
Its real life. Humans and Animals have been fighting on this earth since the first man ever appeared on the planet. Now all of a sudden Ron Paul is gonna change whats in our natural DNA?
Their will always be people who want to kill you or take what you have. ALWAYS....
No matter what you do or say, someone will have a twisted reason.
So how do you combat that? You show strength! You show intelligence! You show them that if you fuck with me you will go down. That is how I want my country to be looked at. Not as a weak nation like Obama displays us. I DO want us to be the world police but only to a point because many things we get involved in are not our problems. Although some may not look like ours but would be if we did not cut the cancer out early. You need to pay attention to the writing on the wall.
The saying (nice guys finish last) needs to be looked at in this topic. Whether we want to be or not the USA is the worlds super power IMO, and and heavy weight title holder wont just give the belt away will he? No.
This reminds me of my neighbor. We were at another neighbors house drinking a few beers last week. We were talking about guns and I told him what I have. He did not like the fact that I owned some havy duty pieces. He did not want to live near that and said guns are for pussies...
THEN, ten minutes later he said how if God forbid something happened in our area that he would come to my house for protection. I told him to fuck off....
End humble rant.
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
Say has this country ever invaded, attacked or occupied a country with nuclear weapons? It just seems we the US start conflicts with countries with something we want or need and that said country has no real means of protecting itself from what we want to take from them.
Chalmers Johnson summarized the intent of Blowback in the final chapter of Nemesis.
"In Blowback, I set out to explain why we are hated around the world. The concept "blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to and in foreign countries. It refers to retaliation for the numerous illegal operations we have carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. This means that when the retaliation comes -- as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 -- the American public is unable to put the events in context. So they tend to support acts intended to lash out against the perpetrators, thereby most commonly preparing the ground for yet another cycle of blowback. In the first book in this trilogy, I tried to provide some of the historical background for understanding the dilemmas we as a nation confront today, although I focused more on Asia -- the area of my academic training -- than on the Middle East."
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Humans and Animals have been fighting on this earth since the first man ever appeared on the planet. Now all of a sudden Ron Paul is gonna change whats in our natural DNA? Their will always be people who want to kill you or take what you have. ALWAYS....
No matter what you do or say, someone will have a twisted reason.
So how do you combat that? .
animals have been fighting for their survival, not money or posessions.
the underlined portion of your quote I find interesting......that "someone" is usually the good ol US of A. The US never goes into war ANYWHERE unless it is in its best interests to do so, and lately, they've been starting them. Name me one war the US entered out of total and complete compassion for the folks they claimed to defend.
It's never happened. Go to war in Africa and I'll eat my words.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no, we got involved in bosnia to arm the bosnians and the pentagon broke the UN arms embargo and supplied arms to people who were not supposed to have them...ironic thing is that the people we funneled arms to via the "croatian pipeline" are the same mujahadeen fighters we later went on to fight in afghanistan... it was in our interests to arm these people against the ones acting without our interests at heart....same thing we always do...
US used Islamists to arm Bosnians
Official Dutch report says that Pentagon broke UN embargo
US used Islamists to arm Bosnians
Official Dutch report says that Pentagon broke UN embargo
Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian, Sunday 21 April 2002 21.44 EDT
US intelligence agencies secretly broke a UN arms embargo during the 1991-1995 war in the former Yugoslavia by channelling arms through Islamist jihad groups that Washington is now hunting down across Europe and Asia, according to evidence from the Netherlands.
The evidence surfaced in a hitherto unnoticed section of the official Dutch report into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre that led to the fall of the Dutch government and the resignation last week of its army chief.
The Dutch report reveals how the Pentagon formed a secret alliance with Islamist groups in an Iran-Contra-style operation.
US, Turkish and Iranian intelligence groups worked with the Islamists in what the Dutch report calls the "Croatian pipeline". Arms bought by Iran and Turkey and financed by Saudi Arabia were flown into Croatia initially by the official Iranian airline, Iran Air, and later in a fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft.
The report says that mojahedin fighters were also flown in, and that the US was "very closely involved" in the operation which was in flagrant breach of the embargo. British secret services obtained documents proving that Iran also arranged deliveries of arms directly to Bosnia, it says.
The operation was promoted by the Pentagon, rather than the CIA, which was cautious about using Islamist groups as a conduit for arms, and about breaching the embargo. When the CIA tried to place its own people on the ground in Bosnia, the agents were threatened by the mojahedin fighters and the Iranians who were training them.
The UN relied on American intelligence to monitor the embargo, a dependency which allowed Washington to manipulate it at will.
Last month, the US seized a number of Muslims in Bosnia whom it claimed had links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. They were arrested in defiance of the Bosnian courts.
The contents of the section of the Dutch report entitled Intelligence and the War in Bosnia, 1992-1995, are revealed in an article in today's Guardian by Richard Aldrich, professor of politics at the university of Nottingham and a leading expert on intelligence operations.
He also reveals that the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs. Mossad, Israel's secret service, was particularly active, concluding a substantial arms deal with the Bosnian Serbs at Pale in return for the safe passage of the Jewish population of Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital, Prof Aldrich says.
"Subsequently, the remaining population who could not escape was perplexed to find that unexploded mortar bombs landing in Sarajevo sometimes had markings in Hebrew," he writes.
Both the UN and the Dutch government distanced themselves from the secret services, depriving them of a crucial tool during the peacekeeping operations in Bosnia.
The operation also raises the increasingly urgent issue of how to monitor intelligence agencies, Prof Aldrich says.
"While oversight and accountability is developing on a national basis, this is not remotely matched by international cooperation [between the agencies]."
So the main reason the US went to Bosnia was to sell weapons to the jihad? Are you suggesting this was the main incentive that motivated in stopping a genocide?
A Dutch report published on an anti-US newspaper is enough for you to diminish any good intentions by the US?
Humans and Animals have been fighting on this earth since the first man ever appeared on the planet. Now all of a sudden Ron Paul is gonna change whats in our natural DNA? Their will always be people who want to kill you or take what you have. ALWAYS....
No matter what you do or say, someone will have a twisted reason.
So how do you combat that? .
animals have been fighting for their survival, not money or posessions.
the underlined portion of your quote I find interesting......that "someone" is usually the good ol US of A. The US never goes into war ANYWHERE unless it is in its best interests to do so, and lately, they've been starting them. Name me one war the US entered out of total and complete compassion for the folks they claimed to defend.
It's never happened. Go to war in Africa and I'll eat my words.
I am curious to why you think we got involved in WWII? Explain please...
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
The U.S imposed an arms embargo on the Bosnians so that they could not defend themselves from the Serbs. Over the next four years approx '130,000–140,000 and the number displaced at over 2.2 million, making it the most devastating conflict in Europe since the end of World War II.'
Eventually, following various massacres by Bosnian Serb forces, NATO intensified it's air attacks against the Serbs and the international community pressured Milosovic to sign a peace agreement.
Four years of slaughter, during which the U.S did NOTHING. They tied the Bosnian Muslims hands behind their backs and watched as Sarajevo was encircled and shelled for four years (resulting in approx 10,000 deaths and including over 1,500 children, and 56,000 wounded, including nearly 15,000 children), and watched and did nothing as thousands of Bosnian men and boys were rounded up and massacred at Srebrenica.
Yet you think the U.S deserves a pat on the back? For what?
The U.S imposed an arms embargo on the Bosnians so that they could not defend themselves from the Serbs. Over the next four years approx '130,000–140,000 and the number displaced at over 2.2 million, making it the most devastating conflict in Europe since the end of World War II.'
Eventually, following various massacres by Bosnian Serb forces, NATO intensified it's air attacks against the Serbs and the international community pressured Milosovic to sign a peace agreement.
Four years of slaughter, during which the U.S did NOTHING. They tied the Bosnian Muslims hands behind their backs and watched as Sarajevo was encircled and shelled for four years (resulting in approx 10,000 deaths and including over 1,500 children, and 56,000 wounded, including nearly 15,000 children), and watched and did nothing as thousands of Bosnian men and boys were rounded up and massacred at Srebrenica.
Yet you think the U.S deserves a pat on the back? For what?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is criticism of the US for supposedly supplying arms and criticism for banning weapon sales in the same conflict. If the US does not intervene, it is criticized for letting a slaughter go on. If they do intervene, they are accused of being war-mongers.
Why no outcry against the neighboring countries who did nothing for four years? Four years of massacre and UN resolutions and the US bombers finally get through the politics and end the war.
Maybe not a pat on the back, but maybe a knowing nod. Four years of massacre resulting in a lot of casualties, but I shudder to think how high the count would have become if not for the bombing campaign.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is criticism of the US for supposedly supplying arms and criticism for banning weapon sales in the same conflict. If the US does not intervene, it is criticized for letting a slaughter go on. If they do intervene, they are accused of being war-mongers.
Why no outcry against the neighboring countries who did nothing for four years? Four years of massacre and UN resolutions and the US bombers finally get through the politics and end the war.
Maybe not a pat on the back, but maybe a knowing nod. Four years of massacre resulting in a lot of casualties, but I shudder to think how high the count would have become if not for the bombing campaign.
i am sorry, i am not going to pat us on the back, because in my opinion, any good we did in bosnia has been completely neutralized and wiped out by the 9 years of bad we have done in afghanistan and the 8 years in iraq...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is criticism of the US for supposedly supplying arms and criticism for banning weapon sales in the same conflict. If the US does not intervene, it is criticized for letting a slaughter go on. If they do intervene, they are accused of being war-mongers.
Why no outcry against the neighboring countries who did nothing for four years? Four years of massacre and UN resolutions and the US bombers finally get through the politics and end the war.
Maybe not a pat on the back, but maybe a knowing nod. Four years of massacre resulting in a lot of casualties, but I shudder to think how high the count would have become if not for the bombing campaign.
i am sorry, i am not going to pat us on the back, because in my opinion, any good we did in bosnia has been completely neutralized and wiped out by the 9 years of bad we have done in afghanistan and the 8 years in iraq...
Actions in the present tense offset history? How is it possible to look at any topic subjectively while letting bias allow you to see the outcome in one shade?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is criticism of the US for supposedly supplying arms and criticism for banning weapon sales in the same conflict. If the US does not intervene, it is criticized for letting a slaughter go on. If they do intervene, they are accused of being war-mongers.
Why no outcry against the neighboring countries who did nothing for four years? Four years of massacre and UN resolutions and the US bombers finally get through the politics and end the war.
Maybe not a pat on the back, but maybe a knowing nod. Four years of massacre resulting in a lot of casualties, but I shudder to think how high the count would have become if not for the bombing campaign.
i am sorry, i am not going to pat us on the back, because in my opinion, any good we did in bosnia has been completely neutralized and wiped out by the 9 years of bad we have done in afghanistan and the 8 years in iraq...
Actions in the present tense offset history? How is it possible to look at any topic subjectively while letting bias allow you to see the outcome in one shade?
i AM looking at it subjectively.
if i was looking at it objectively i would be looking at things like sorties, body counts, money spent, etc...
you can pat us on the back all you want.
i refuse to.
just don't dislocate your shoulder doing so...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Actions in the present tense offset history? How is it possible to look at any topic subjectively while letting bias allow you to see the outcome in one shade?
if i was looking at it objectively i would be looking at things like sorties, body counts, money spent, etc...
you can pat us on the back all you want.
i refuse to.
just don't dislocate your shoulder doing so...
I'm not patting the US on the back. A poster asked a question in which the US went into a war when it wasn't in their best interest.
If you claim the US was selling weapons and profiting from the conflict, then it is not in the best interest to stop the war, right? And if the US wasn't selling weapons and breaking the UN arms embargo, then the focus is on the US letting the Serbs slaughter the Bosnians by not allowing them access to weapons for four years ... except we possibly were.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is criticism of the US for supposedly supplying arms and criticism for banning weapon sales in the same conflict. If the US does not intervene, it is criticized for letting a slaughter go on. If they do intervene, they are accused of being war-mongers.
Why no outcry against the neighboring countries who did nothing for four years? Four years of massacre and UN resolutions and the US bombers finally get through the politics and end the war.
Maybe not a pat on the back, but maybe a knowing nod. Four years of massacre resulting in a lot of casualties, but I shudder to think how high the count would have become if not for the bombing campaign.
It wasn't a case of 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't'. They tied the arms of one side behind their backs and left them to be slaughtered. Why pretend that constitutes some sort of neutrality. It doesn't.
As for any outcry against the neighbouring countries who did nothing, there was plenty of outcry. There was massive international condemnation of the inaction of the U.N for four years. But we all know who controls the U.N, right? We know who tied the U.N's arms behind their backs for four years whilst 140,000 Bosnian Muslim's were slaughtered.
To say that US bombers finally got through the politics in order to end the war is just plain bullshit. You make it sound as if the allmighty U.S was just chomping at the bit to act like the knight in shining armour and stop the slaughter. But that just wasn't the case, as anyone who takes even a cursory look at the facts will see.
Four years of massacre and UN resolutions and the US bombers finally get through the politics and end the war.
come on. the US has never let politics get in the way of their own military/economic interests. if they sat back for any length of time, it was because it was their decision.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Four years of massacre and UN resolutions and the US bombers finally get through the politics and end the war.
come on. the US has never let politics get in the way of their own military/economic interests. if they sat back for any length of time, it was because it was their decision.
Not when Republicans are running the show. Remember, Willy was in charge back then.
Also, proving once again that the it was not in the US's best interest to get involved. If it was in the best interest of the United States, the politics would not have gotten in the way.
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.
Sounds like a smart man. Such a pity that the republicans won't go near him
He is just what that country needs
If a foreign nation was in my country as was posted I would be taking up arms most certainly. I would be a terrorist, an insurgent
It wouldn't be any religous reason as would probably be the brush I would be painted with
Defence of my home, my family my community
i say cut the military. first and foremost. our military is for DEFENSE of THIS COUNTRY. it is not to go on OFFENSE and wage wars on innocent countries who did nothing to provoke us. it is not to POLICE the rest of the world and step in to dethrone dictators that the state department views as "bad". it is not to invade countries like panama to depose it's leader. it is not to attack countries on behalf of other countries, as israel is trying to persuade us to do with iran...it is not to BRING FREEDOM to countries in the middle east...it is not to OCCUPY these countries and babysit as a new government takes over. it is not to NATIONBUILD and excort and protect the government contractors who made out like bandits in the iraq war. it is not to stay in "demilitarized zones" like the korean border. where in the constitution are we to have a standing army anyway???
why are we still in germany? why are we still on the korean border? why are we building a huge base in northern australia? why are we still in the balkans? it is because it provides us with an easy route go on on OFFENSE against anyone who may prevent us from running the game the way we want to.
cut the military first, and then i will talk about other cuts after that.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Seems that you had a president in power from Texas who created more of a problem then he did solve anything or to borrow a line from yourself, "texans wouldn't let that shit happen". Surprise 911 happened with Bushy in power and please remind me where his home state is. I thought so!
Anyway I agree with the person who said "ONE" person won't be able to change this type of thing. Of course they can't. You wouldn't believe the people who used to, maybe post under other names who thought O'bama was the difference. From up here looks like the same ole status quo. Where is that third party? You know the party that isn't the same as the two parties rolled into one.
Gotta love the train to allow me to have some fun on a Friday at work!
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
Assuming you got shit. If you don't got shit, ain't no point in having a military. Nobody wants what you gotz
Woot
yeah, that's what they tought us the first day of Political Science 101
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
please don't. we canadians don't want to have to spend money on our own.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
"Oh if we tell everyone we want peace across the land, and that we will never go into anyone elses country but ours we will all live on earth happy and healthy with lots of love"...
Man wake the fuck up.
Its real life. Humans and Animals have been fighting on this earth since the first man ever appeared on the planet. Now all of a sudden Ron Paul is gonna change whats in our natural DNA?
Their will always be people who want to kill you or take what you have. ALWAYS....
No matter what you do or say, someone will have a twisted reason.
So how do you combat that? You show strength! You show intelligence! You show them that if you fuck with me you will go down. That is how I want my country to be looked at. Not as a weak nation like Obama displays us. I DO want us to be the world police but only to a point because many things we get involved in are not our problems. Although some may not look like ours but would be if we did not cut the cancer out early. You need to pay attention to the writing on the wall.
The saying (nice guys finish last) needs to be looked at in this topic. Whether we want to be or not the USA is the worlds super power IMO, and and heavy weight title holder wont just give the belt away will he? No.
This reminds me of my neighbor. We were at another neighbors house drinking a few beers last week. We were talking about guns and I told him what I have. He did not like the fact that I owned some havy duty pieces. He did not want to live near that and said guns are for pussies...
THEN, ten minutes later he said how if God forbid something happened in our area that he would come to my house for protection. I told him to fuck off....
End humble rant.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Chalmers Johnson summarized the intent of Blowback in the final chapter of Nemesis.
"In Blowback, I set out to explain why we are hated around the world. The concept "blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to and in foreign countries. It refers to retaliation for the numerous illegal operations we have carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. This means that when the retaliation comes -- as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 -- the American public is unable to put the events in context. So they tend to support acts intended to lash out against the perpetrators, thereby most commonly preparing the ground for yet another cycle of blowback. In the first book in this trilogy, I tried to provide some of the historical background for understanding the dilemmas we as a nation confront today, although I focused more on Asia -- the area of my academic training -- than on the Middle East."
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
animals have been fighting for their survival, not money or posessions.
the underlined portion of your quote I find interesting......that "someone" is usually the good ol US of A. The US never goes into war ANYWHERE unless it is in its best interests to do so, and lately, they've been starting them. Name me one war the US entered out of total and complete compassion for the folks they claimed to defend.
It's never happened. Go to war in Africa and I'll eat my words.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
US used Islamists to arm Bosnians
Official Dutch report says that Pentagon broke UN embargo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/ap ... rtontaylor
US used Islamists to arm Bosnians
Official Dutch report says that Pentagon broke UN embargo
Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian, Sunday 21 April 2002 21.44 EDT
US intelligence agencies secretly broke a UN arms embargo during the 1991-1995 war in the former Yugoslavia by channelling arms through Islamist jihad groups that Washington is now hunting down across Europe and Asia, according to evidence from the Netherlands.
The evidence surfaced in a hitherto unnoticed section of the official Dutch report into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre that led to the fall of the Dutch government and the resignation last week of its army chief.
The Dutch report reveals how the Pentagon formed a secret alliance with Islamist groups in an Iran-Contra-style operation.
US, Turkish and Iranian intelligence groups worked with the Islamists in what the Dutch report calls the "Croatian pipeline". Arms bought by Iran and Turkey and financed by Saudi Arabia were flown into Croatia initially by the official Iranian airline, Iran Air, and later in a fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft.
The report says that mojahedin fighters were also flown in, and that the US was "very closely involved" in the operation which was in flagrant breach of the embargo. British secret services obtained documents proving that Iran also arranged deliveries of arms directly to Bosnia, it says.
The operation was promoted by the Pentagon, rather than the CIA, which was cautious about using Islamist groups as a conduit for arms, and about breaching the embargo. When the CIA tried to place its own people on the ground in Bosnia, the agents were threatened by the mojahedin fighters and the Iranians who were training them.
The UN relied on American intelligence to monitor the embargo, a dependency which allowed Washington to manipulate it at will.
Last month, the US seized a number of Muslims in Bosnia whom it claimed had links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. They were arrested in defiance of the Bosnian courts.
The contents of the section of the Dutch report entitled Intelligence and the War in Bosnia, 1992-1995, are revealed in an article in today's Guardian by Richard Aldrich, professor of politics at the university of Nottingham and a leading expert on intelligence operations.
He also reveals that the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs. Mossad, Israel's secret service, was particularly active, concluding a substantial arms deal with the Bosnian Serbs at Pale in return for the safe passage of the Jewish population of Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital, Prof Aldrich says.
"Subsequently, the remaining population who could not escape was perplexed to find that unexploded mortar bombs landing in Sarajevo sometimes had markings in Hebrew," he writes.
Both the UN and the Dutch government distanced themselves from the secret services, depriving them of a crucial tool during the peacekeeping operations in Bosnia.
The operation also raises the increasingly urgent issue of how to monitor intelligence agencies, Prof Aldrich says.
"While oversight and accountability is developing on a national basis, this is not remotely matched by international cooperation [between the agencies]."
and here is another link with our motives for getting involved in bosnia...
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2071.html
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
A Dutch report published on an anti-US newspaper is enough for you to diminish any good intentions by the US?
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
WEAK. Obviously, I'm talking about modern times. And are you really putting WWII and the Gulf Wars on the same plane? REALLY?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Are you serious?
The U.S imposed an arms embargo on the Bosnians so that they could not defend themselves from the Serbs. Over the next four years approx '130,000–140,000 and the number displaced at over 2.2 million, making it the most devastating conflict in Europe since the end of World War II.'
Eventually, following various massacres by Bosnian Serb forces, NATO intensified it's air attacks against the Serbs and the international community pressured Milosovic to sign a peace agreement.
Four years of slaughter, during which the U.S did NOTHING. They tied the Bosnian Muslims hands behind their backs and watched as Sarajevo was encircled and shelled for four years (resulting in approx 10,000 deaths and including over 1,500 children, and 56,000 wounded, including nearly 15,000 children), and watched and did nothing as thousands of Bosnian men and boys were rounded up and massacred at Srebrenica.
Yet you think the U.S deserves a pat on the back? For what?
Why no outcry against the neighboring countries who did nothing for four years? Four years of massacre and UN resolutions and the US bombers finally get through the politics and end the war.
Maybe not a pat on the back, but maybe a knowing nod. Four years of massacre resulting in a lot of casualties, but I shudder to think how high the count would have become if not for the bombing campaign.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
if i was looking at it objectively i would be looking at things like sorties, body counts, money spent, etc...
you can pat us on the back all you want.
i refuse to.
just don't dislocate your shoulder doing so...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Quit speaking this nonsense.
If you claim the US was selling weapons and profiting from the conflict, then it is not in the best interest to stop the war, right? And if the US wasn't selling weapons and breaking the UN arms embargo, then the focus is on the US letting the Serbs slaughter the Bosnians by not allowing them access to weapons for four years ... except we possibly were.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It wasn't a case of 'Damned if you do, damned if you don't'. They tied the arms of one side behind their backs and left them to be slaughtered. Why pretend that constitutes some sort of neutrality. It doesn't.
As for any outcry against the neighbouring countries who did nothing, there was plenty of outcry. There was massive international condemnation of the inaction of the U.N for four years. But we all know who controls the U.N, right? We know who tied the U.N's arms behind their backs for four years whilst 140,000 Bosnian Muslim's were slaughtered.
To say that US bombers finally got through the politics in order to end the war is just plain bullshit. You make it sound as if the allmighty U.S was just chomping at the bit to act like the knight in shining armour and stop the slaughter. But that just wasn't the case, as anyone who takes even a cursory look at the facts will see.
come on. the US has never let politics get in the way of their own military/economic interests. if they sat back for any length of time, it was because it was their decision.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Also, proving once again that the it was not in the US's best interest to get involved. If it was in the best interest of the United States, the politics would not have gotten in the way.
But they did get involved.