HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
Letter to the Editor
In your article "Blood on Its Hand" you said "...the tyrant
(Milosevic) who
started four separate wars in
the span of a decade."
I just can't understand what has happened to you in the West. Has NWO really
brainwashed all of you? so that you are not normal human beings at all.
Milosevic committed many mistakes (for a powerholder a mistake is worse than
a crime) the biggest one being failure "to save the Union", and crimes, and
I was never his supporter. But, for goodness sake, stop telling the
monstrous lies that he started four wars in Yugoslavia. Even a retarded 7
years old child knows - as Milosevic himself remarked at the "trial" in The
Hague - that secessionist leaders in Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina
and Macedonia - masterminded (by the ICG on behalf of the Empire),
instigated, organized, helped and directly ordered by the Empire which is
determined to rule the world and enslave all countries and peoples of the
world. Telling that Milosevic started wars in Yugoslavia you are implying
that Lincoln started your war and that he is not a national hero but a
bloody criminal. Shame on you.
Further in your article you reproach America for NOT intervening more than
it did! But not a word about American crimes all over the world since 1945!
For your information, there is an organization called the United Nations,
and that organization - through its Security Council - has exclusive right
to intervene on humanitarian reasons. Not America.
Dr. Milan Tepavac, Belgrade
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/724746.asp?cp1=1
>
> NEWSWEEK, Monday, March 25, 2002
>
> Blood on
Its Hands
>
> A provocative new book holds America accountable for
some of the worst
> genocides of the 20th century
>
> By
Jonathan D. Tepperman
> NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL
>
> March 25
issue - Slobodan Milosevic, standing trial for war crimes and
> genocide
in The Hague, opened his defense in early February by trying to
> turn
the tables on his captors. Milosevic argued that it was NATO leaders,
> not he, who were really at fault for the carnage in the Balkans. This
> argument was, of course, absurd. The alliance intervened to stop the
> killing, not increase it, and NATO took care to limit civilian
casualties.
> The same can hardly be said for the tyrant who started four
separate wars
in
> the span of a decade.
>
>
>
NONETHELESS, something about Milosevic's question-doesn't the West share
at
> least some blame for the killing?-resonates. And it echoes in Samantha
> Power's new book, "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of
Genocide"
> (610 pages. Basic Books), which asks: how much, exactly, is
America at
fault
> for the rampant slaughter of the 20th century?
According to Power, a lot.
> She has produced a damning indictment of
American passivity in the face of
> some of history's worst crimes.
Washington, she charges, has consistently
> failed to live up to the
promise made at the end of World War II: to never
> again sit by during a
genocide. In fact, Power argues, the United States
has
> done just
the opposite. It permitted mayhem not only in the Balkans, but
> also in
Cambodia during the psychopathic reign of the Khmer Rouge, in Iraq
>
during Saddam Hussein's campaign to wipe out the Kurds, and in Rwanda,
where
> almost 800,000 people were killed, many by machetes, in just 100 days.
>
> It's bad enough that America has failed to intervene. But at
times it's
even
> made things worse-by quietly supporting the Khmer
Rouge against the
> Russian-backed Vietnamese, for example, or aiding
Saddam Hussein in his
war
> against Iran, even while he was gassing
whole Kurdish villages. In Rwanda,
> America not only refused to send in
its troops but also shied away from
> lesser steps such as jamming
incendiary radio broadcasts.
>
> These are serious charges.
Americans, used to thinking of their country as
a
> beacon of
freedom, don't like being told that they have blood on their
> hands. But
it is America's unique power and moral standing that give it a
>
heightened responsibility in the first place, Power argues, making its
>
compound failures that much less excusable.
>
> Power's book
really serves two important purposes. On one level, it
> catalogs, in
readable if gruesome detail, the major genocides of the 20th
> century.
And on another, it tries to explain what the United States could
> have
done to stop the bloodshed-and why it didn't. Power builds her case
>
carefully, sifting through reams of media accounts, interviews and newly
> declassified government documents. She actually begins her history
before
> the Holocaust, with the 1915 Armenian genocide by the Ottoman
Turks. This
> little-known story allows her to show how American inaction
in one
> generation led tyrants in the next (in this case, Adolf Hitler)
to assume
> that they would literally get away with murder.
>
> In answer to her second question-why did the U.S. allow so much
> bloodshed-Power explains that America didn't intentionally set out to
permit
> genocide; in fact, Washington was often horrified by events
abroad even as
> it refused to stop them. The United States' passivity
can be explained by
> several factors: that Americans tend not to believe
reports of widespread
> killing until it is too late, that they then
place too much faith in
> negotiation as a means to stop the bloodshed
and that they are profoundly
> averse to committing troops to conflicts
considered outside the "national
> interest."
>
> Power
blames Republicans and Democrats alike for such deficiencies. She's
>
also careful to give credit where it's due, pointing out, for example,
that
> Bill Clinton was the only U.S. president ever to use force to stop a
> genocide before it happened-in Kosovo. And politicians are not the only
ones
> to blame. As Power notes, if the American public put more
pressure on its
> leaders to intervene, politicians wouldn't feel that
they have nothing to
> lose by steering clear of messy foreign
adventures.
>
> Where the book falls short, however, is in its
prescriptions for what can
be
> done to change this fatal pattern-a
pattern Washington seems doomed to
> repeat. The United States may well
pull its troops out of Afghanistan
> without supplying peacekeepers to
help defend the government it put in
> place. And the global war on
terror will make Washington even less willing
> to spend its resources on
humanitarian campaigns elsewhere. As these two
> likelihoods suggest,
U.S. policymakers still define their national
interests
> too
narrowly. But until someone figures out how to persuade the American
>
public to start thinking in broader terms, that's unlikely to change. It's
a
> dilemma that has stymied interventionists throughout U.S. history.
> Unfortunately, it's also one that Power doesn't really help resolve.
>
>
> Tepperman is senior editor at Foreign Affairs
magazine in New York.
>
> © 2002 Newsweek, Inc.
--------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
