On Thu, 14 Apr 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>      Let me first quote from Sean Gervasi "Germany, US, and the
> Yugoslav Crisis" _Covert Action_ Winer 1992-93.  Yugoslavia has for
> some time been the target of a covert policy waged by the West and
> its allies, primarily Germany, the United States, Britain, Turkey,
> and Saudi Arabia, as well as by Iran, to divide Yugoslavia into its
> ethnic components, dismantle it, and eventually recolonize it." (p. 41)
> If you still have any doubt, read the article and the  US state
> department documents that support it and then tell me that the US
> and Germany did not have the dismemberment of Yugoslavia *on ethnic
> lines at the expense of Serbia* long before the crisis arrived.

I'm afraid I don't respond very well to posts that say "I'm right and 
this article proves it if you go read it."  However I would ask you to 
explain, then, why James Baker breezed through Yugoslavia in the summer 
of 1992 and declared that the US policy was "to preserve the federation 
of Yugoslavia at all costs"?  (Not an exact quote but I think pretty 
close)  Whatever documents were written they couldn't really have the 
same effect as the visit of a secretary of state (or even as in a 
similar situation a state department official like April Glaspie 
declaring "We have no position on your border dispute...")
The US State Department bears responsibility for any signals it gives the 
Serbs regardless of any previous conspiracies.

>      Thirdly, the Yugoslav constittution proved the *obligation* of
> the Yugoslav army to protect the unity and territoriality of
> Yugoslavia.  Therefore, it had the constitutional obligation to
> prevent the breakaway of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia despite the
> international interference of the US and Germany.  When it did so
> the US, Germany and the UN (under US/German domination) objected
> and in the case of Bosnia forced the Yugoslav army to withdraw --
> leaving the irregulars and the militias of the right-wing neo-fascists
> to represent Serbian interests and prevent incursions on Serbian
> interests and properties.

And those militias carried out activities that the Yugoslav army could 
only have dreamed of.  Why would Milosevic choose to use his own army
instead of supplying a proxy force when he coudl be held responsible for 
the former?  I suppose because he was too concerned with his untarnished 
reputation of obeying the Yugoslav constitution to the "t"....

> The first "atrocity" committed in
> the subsequent period was, in his account, the ambush of the
> peaceful withdrawel of Yugoslav troups by the Bosnian (Muslim)
> army.

Why do you call the Bosnian army "Muslim"?  Its leadership -- and 
membership -- consisted of Muslims, Serbs, Croats, Yaks, and red-headed 
Tanzanians, among others.

What were the atrocities?  Did the Bosnian army hunt down these people's 
homes, rape their families, burn their centuries-old village birth 
records, destroy their churches, and mine their farmlands?  Or is my 
imagination getting carried away?

 > As a final point
> in this first post, why did the US army fight the South when it
> declared unilateral independence?  Obviously, if the UN had
> been in existence, Britain would have sent in its Navy to defeat
> the North since it had no right to defend the integrity of the US.
>      MY god I hate hypocrisy!

The Brits wanted cheap cotton.  The North wanted cheap labor.  Nobody 
knows what the South wanted since the slaves couldn't vote.  I suppose 
you could make a case in 1860 that they were all uncle toms and therefore 
the Brits were acting in their interests of self-determination.  Events 
by 1865 wouldn't have borne that out tho....

YESSSS!! WE WANT MORE!!!

(Sorry, just getting excited as usual... :)  )

Fahrvergnuegen,
Tavis

Reply via email to