The Demonization of Milosevic

[elijahcraig]

U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically elected governments---guilty of introducing redistributive economic programs or otherwise pursuing independent courses that do not properly fit into the U.S.-sponsored global free market system---have found themselves targeted by the U.S. national security state. Thus democratic governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Syria, Uruguay, and numerous other nations were overthrown by their respective military forces, funded and advised by the United States. The newly installed military rulers then rolled back the egalitarian reforms and opened their countries all the wider to foreign corporate investors.

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Milosevic.html

Interesting article.

[Solzhenitsyn]

I don't think Milosevic's economics had anything to do with Serbia's bombardment. He was just another "Hitler-of-the-month" to the Clintons.

[elijahcraig]

Did you read the article?

[Guerrilla22]

That's typical U.S. foeign policy for you. Economics played a huge factor in the decision to intervene in all of those countries and I'm sure the action in Yugoslavia was no exception. I'm not saying economics were the only reason for all of these interventions and overthrows, but you'd be a fool to think that they didn't play a significant part in the decisions to take such actions.

[life beyond life]

i love michael parenti, he's an excellent writer and exposes what most "journalists" simply gloss over or ignore. he's dope.

[elijahcraig]

he's dope.


<_<

[Invader Zim]

If he was so great then why did his own people rise up and oust him?

[percept¡on]

Anti-Americanism is the only force on the planet capable of making bedfellows of communists, fascist nationalists, islamists, and &#39;liberals&#39;.

Milosevic was a monster, to defend him as a way to criticize American foreign policy is like taking the side of the cockroaches to criticize the harmful effects of pesticide.

[elijahcraig]

If he was so great then why did his own people rise up and oust him?

Moron.


Milosevic was a monster, to defend him as a way to criticize American foreign policy is like taking the side of the cockroaches to criticize the harmful effects of pesticide.

Moron.

[antieverything]

Care to explain or are you content to bask in your supposed superiority?

Asshole.

[Guerrilla22]

Milsovic did have ties to the far right.

[elijahcraig]

Care to explain or are you content to bask in your supposed superiority?

Asshole.

No, I am superior, and you should simply take my word for it.

[commie kg]

The Serb government recently admitted to the war crimes they have been accused of, and named something like 28 mass grave sites. Some are already being excavated. And there are bodies, lots of &#39;em.

Milosevic was a nationalist, and he hated him some Muslims and Croats.

[antieverything]

Elijah, Elijah, Elijah...poor boy. Must you always view things in black and white? I mean...that&#39;s the question that comes to mind other than why are you such a prick?

If you want to argue about who has the most powerful intellect...well, I&#39;m up for that any time you deluded, left-fringe cultist, jerkoff.

[Guerrilla22]

The article actually does make a good case for the point to which it is trying to arise, and the US probaly did have alterior motives for going after Yugoslavia, the US just doesn&#39;t go into or after some country simply to stop genocide i.e. Rwanda, but that still doesn&#39;t change the fact that Milosevic aligned himself with the likes of Arkan and his Tigers, as well as the White Eagles, both of which were far right paramiilitary death squads.

[antieverything]

...and I thought you were just going to be another clueless newbie&#33; ;)

[Kalašnjikov]

Milošević was a man who wanted to create Great Serbia and ethnically cleanse the territory that he was inerested in. Arkan was a Chetnik, and Chetnicks were WW2 fascists that fought alongside Nazis against partisans.

[antieverything]

Of course this isn&#39;t to say we should sympathize with the KLA as they were ethnic cleansers of probably greater brutality.

I&#39;m not saying economics wasn&#39;t the reason for Serbia&#39;s brutalization by NATO but Slobo was still a bad guy&#33;

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:58 PM
Of course this isn&#39;t to say we should sympathize with the KLA as they were ethnic cleansers of probably greater brutality.

I&#39;m not saying economics wasn&#39;t the reason for Serbia&#39;s brutalization by NATO but Slobo was still a bad guy&#33;
Yeah, definitely true. After NATO helped the KLA they turned their guns on NATO, that&#39;s definitely amusing.

[elijahcraig]

Elijah, Elijah, Elijah...poor boy. Must you always view things in black and white? I mean...that&#39;s the question that comes to mind other than why are you such a prick?

If you want to argue about who has the most powerful intellect...well, I&#39;m up for that any time you deluded, left-fringe cultist, jerkoff.

I’d like to say that I don’t support Milosevic, just don’t think the US intervention had any grounding other than socialist-paranoia.

If I had to choose between US-rule or Milo, I would undoubtedly choose the latter.

[Stapler]

If I had to choose between US-rule or Milo, I would undoubtedly choose the latter.

Choosing between one fascist and another? seems pointless. You discredit yourself by making such ridiculously contrarian remarks.

[antieverything]

I agree with you up to the point where you cite "socialist paranoia". The historical record shows that the fear isn&#39;t so much socialism as it is to any "effective resistance" to the American-dominated global capitalist model.

And we must oppose any US imperialist aggression regardless of the stated reasons.

[elijahcraig]

Choosing between one fascist and another? seems pointless. You discredit yourself by making such ridiculously contrarian remarks.

You idiot, did you even read the article? It was well written, well backed up...you are just either a) being lazy or b) are just too blinded by the status quo of interpretation of the problem that you cannot look to any other alternative.


I agree with you up to the point where you cite "socialist paranoia". The historical record shows that the fear isn&#39;t so much socialism as it is to any "effective resistance" to the American-dominated global capitalist model.

And we must oppose any US imperialist aggression regardless of the stated reasons.

You are correct to a point. "New nationalism" is something they often went after in the past century. But these movements usually blended nationalism and socialism fairly well, or at least to a point. Even Mugabe now does so, though I think he is too much of a nationalist.

You could look to 1953 coup in Iran of the wealthy landowner and somewhat conservative Mossedegh as an example to prove your point though, even if it was mainly UK oil control that was under fire.

The idea of "socialism taking over" has to a large extent been the justification for war all over the world in the past century...not necessarily the real cause...Arbenz comes to mind as another non-socialist who was overthrown with the justication that "he was a communist dictator", etc.

Socialist-paranoia has for the most part been the manifestation of paranoia in the masses through capitalist domination of the media, resulting in the "evil commie" outlook of the majority of westerners.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 10:24 PM

Moron.



Moron.
Slobodan Milosevic was ousted after he tried to ignore the election results he lost. Thousands took to the streats and he fled, while they government buildings.

You are beneath contempt, your one and only use for the left is to create an excelent case for the pro-choise lobby.

[elijahcraig]

Slobodan Milosevic was ousted after he tried to ignore the election results he lost. Thousands took to the streats and he fled, while they government buildings.

That&#39;s the Western/bourgeois side of the story.

In fact, this is not true, and the "revolt" was cooked up by the US to justify war, along with the ethnic cleansing claims, etc.

[Guerrilla22]

It&#39;s interesting that the US supported trying Slobo before the International Court of Justice, which the US refuses to be a part of because they don&#39;t want any of their soldiers or leaders tried for war crimes.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 10:09 PM

That&#39;s the Western/bourgeois side of the story.

In fact, this is not true, and the "revolt" was cooked up by the US to justify war, along with the ethnic cleansing claims, etc.
Ohh right, I see, its all a big conspiricy, like Aids, the moon landings and Area 52...

More ridiculous by the day.

[__ca va?]

HAHA&#33; Don&#39;t make me laugh&#33;


Economics played a huge factor in the decision to intervene in all of those countries and I&#39;m sure the action in Yugoslavia was no exception.

What kind of economy are you talking about?? Yugoslavia was torn in 5 parts, and war broke out between Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia&#33; The last remaining funds of Serbia were spent on the war. Also, the country&#39;s infrastructure was destroyed&#33;
It had no real economy.


I’d like to say that I don’t support Milosevic, just don’t think the US intervention had any grounding other than socialist-paranoia.

Socialist-paranoia??&#33;&#33; You aren&#39;t trying to tell me that Serbia was a hotbed of socialism capable of overthrowing american capitalist rule &#33;&#33; That&#39;s a little bit too much to expect from an annihilated country, don&#39;t you think? Think it over again: did the US really have to be afraid of Serbia??


If I had to choose between US-rule or Milo, I would undoubtedly choose the latter.

Well, I think this is your personal problem, I respect it... if you want to be shot in a mass-grave because you are not a Serb, do it&#33; You know what your problem is? It&#39;s that you can&#39;t appreciate the freedom you live in. You could only appreciate it if it was taken away from you.

I don&#39;t like saying this, but actually US intervention was justified, as European one was (even though it was useless).

[antieverything]

If you actually analyze the history of the war you will find that a peaceful solution was never considered by the US and NATO. The only thing that would stop the bombings was for Slobo, a racist nationalist...possibly a bit nuts...to agree to give Kosovo over to the KLA whose stated aim was an ethnically pure Kosovo. Basically, they were asking him to agree to let the KLA slaughter or otherwise displace 1/3 of Kosovo&#39;s population and then withdraw to become part of Albania. Not a reasonable demand at all&#33;

If stated humanitarian aims are found to be baseless, as they were, the only reason for the war has to be Slobo&#39;s economic noncompliance with the West&#33;

[Guerrilla22]

What kind of economy are you talking about?? Yugoslavia was torn in 5 parts, and war broke out between Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia&#33; The last remaining funds of Serbia were spent on the war. Also, the country&#39;s infrastructure was destroyed&#33;

No, really? It&#39;s the other way around. The US has been trying to consolidate their influence over all former communist countries by inducting them into NATO, thus making all these countries economically dependent on the US and thus willing to participate in US military operations/wars like Iraq.

[Saint-Just]

I don&#39;t think Milosevic&#39;s economics had anything to do with Serbia&#39;s bombardment. He was just another "Hitler-of-the-month" to the Clintons.

Do honestly think that the U.S. cares about anything but economics? Do you think the U.S. is not only concerned about making certain individuals richer?

It was not the biggest problem that Milosevic was a socialist (and he was, there is no argument). The greatest problem was that he rejected a structural adjustment policy from the American dominated IMF/World Bank. Murdering thousands of people who they considered scum cost a lot less than their loan they wanted to be payed back.


If he was so great then why did his own people rise up and oust him? They didn’t. Although, if they did they could simply possess a false consciousness. For example if an anti-racist were in power in the Confederate states in the early 1800s would his ‘own people’ be correct if they rose up against him. I think many people need to force the idea into their mind that socialism is correct.


Milosevic was a monster, to defend him as a way to criticize American foreign policy is like taking the side of the cockroaches to criticize the harmful effects of pesticide.

This is wrong because pesticide is useful to kill cockroaches although it may be harmful to humans. Also, there is the possibility that you think Milosevic is bad because News Corp. and so on say so.


The Serb government recently admitted to the war crimes they have been accused of, and named something like 28 mass grave sites. Some are already being excavated. And there are bodies, lots of &#39;em.

The new Serb/American occupation government is only interested exploiting poor people. 28 mass graves is not in the British news. There are some mass graves because the NATO bombing reduced large portions of the country to rubble.


I&#39;m up for that any time you deluded, left-fringe cultist, jerkoff.

You are wrong about Elijah, he is not left-fringe or cultist or a jerkoff. He is a socialist, something which is rare in this age of dominance by neo classic liberalism and imperialism.


Arkan was a Chetnik, and Chetnicks were WW2 fascists that fought alongside Nazis against partisans.

Milosevic was not a Chetnik. Neither was the Yugoslav army a Chetnik organisation.

Geurrilla22, you are a balanced individual and correct in what you have said.

[antieverything]

I don&#39;t think I&#39;m wrong at all. "Leninism" is an outdated fringe idea, get over it. Not only is he a Leninist (a forgivable sin) but he obviously has no independant thought, instead opting to worship at the altar of the Leninist figureheads. As to him being a jerkoff...I really can&#39;t imagine this being disputed by anyone.

No, I won&#39;t argue this here. I don&#39;t think I need to prove that people who cling to every word of an early 20th century revolutionary/opportunist icon who was the dictator of an almost pre-industrial nation aren&#39;t the sort anyone should take seriously. We&#39;ve somehow evolved rather impressive mental capacities over the millenia...I suggest we use it.

[__ca va?]

I think US invasion had nothing to do with Serbia at all. It was only a step to get closer to Russia. Judge these:

Russia is a friend at the moment, but who knows what will happen in 70-80 years?
It still has the 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world
It is full of minerals waiting to be mined
In fact it is the only country capable of evolving into an equal enemy.

The US has been making military bases in almost all of the former socialist countries (eg. Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary->I live here :D , Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia)
Estonia was accepted to NATO even without having an air force&#33; Still, it is at the border of Russia&#33;
There are US troops in Turkey, Afghanistan and in Japan also, all of them close to Russia. I think this is all about preventing Russia in "collecting" satellite countries in the future.

[Guerrilla22]

ca va,
That&#39;s definitely a large part of it. As I stated before, the US and NATO have been and continue to try and consolidate all of the former satellite countries into NATO, these countries only agree to join because they are offered economic aid by the US and other NATO members for doing so. At the same time, the US forcces these nations to be economically dependent on them, in exchange for these favors. Just another way the uS is trying to maintain control over the world.

[__ca va?]

Guerilla 22,

I agree on the economic aid part, but the US doesn&#39;t force on us any kind of dependence. We are much more dependent on the European Union (and mainly Germany), and as we have joined it, this dependence will even grow. I don&#39;t know if the US wants to make us economically dependent, I think they confine themselves to having military bases in all of these countries. If one of them became too socialistic, America would maybe invade it, but that&#39;s not sure either.
Eastern Central Europe and Eastern Europe are different than Latin-America:
in Latin America the US has a monopoly of trade, and can intervene in the local politics to achieve its goals.
But the former socialist countries are economically linked to Western Europe and a bit to Russia as well, so the US can&#39;t behave here as it wills because of the interests of other countries in this region.

[elijahcraig]

You are wrong about Elijah, he is not left-fringe or cultist or a jerkoff. He is a socialist, something which is rare in this age of dominance by neo classic liberalism and imperialism.

Here here&#33;

Thanks, Chairman, and I agree on all points you posted.


I also find it hilarious that the people criticizing Milosevic, etc, can&#39;t or won&#39;t even debate it.

[antieverything]

I&#39;ve seen plenty of attempts to debate...met only with shrill cries of "Imperialist Lies&#33;&#33;&#33;" Not an impressive response.

[elijahcraig]

Chairman Mao has completely beaten all of your points...either debate his points or admit defeat, jackass.

[__ca va?]

He hasn&#39;t beaten my points yet, neither have you...

[elijahcraig]

Thanks for the abdication, captain.

[gaf]

i&#39;m going to say something
living in the hague i assist on of is hearing (i know one jurist)and what i can say he is good, really good,what i understand is that everybody in europa use the fall off yougoslavie(communist)to get as wolf in the cake using the one against the other one...the rest was i use you you use me....he played the game and loose.......but they are all guilty french,english,german,dutch,american,guilty from hate tising.