And. what? Are you surprised, U-P?

These newcomers, young pups to the NWO scene, keep on trying to make it out that the U.S. is the evil one, while all the long the real stage is being set. Not that certain administrations of the U.S. haven't been instrumental in the developement of the NWO, the newcomers have a serious problem in figuring out which ones. The reason is they have been educated by stooges of the NWO, useful idiots whose job has been to dumb the population down.
The campaign against Slobodan proved how gullible people could be, and jsut how off target some are.

UP, what you are posting here is quite a big deal.. You should wait until it is covered by any serious news source

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
And. what? Are you surprised, U-P?

Of course not. It was just to point how this so-called tribunal is a big lie and a big joke. Also the Kosovo and Yougoslavia wars were a big lie. We didn't go there to help anybody. We went there to break up a sovereign nation who was struggling against a bunch of terrorist who were coming from Kosovo and Albania.

Of course, it was a " fair " war. Normal, Clinton was leading it.

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Also the Kosovo and Yougoslavia wars were a big lie. We didn't go there to help anybody. We went there to break up a sovereign nation who was struggling against a bunch of terrorist who were coming from Kosovo and Albania.

Of course, it was a " fair " war. Normal, Clinton was leading it.

Yeah, the hypocrisy is striking

But i dont understand why you are pro Iraq war then , ultra...

[Edited on 12-4-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

1) UP, what you are posting here is quite a big deal.. You should wait until it is covered by any serious news source

2) Yeah, the hypocrisy is striking

But i dont understand why you are pro Iraq war then , ultra...

1) What's a serious news source ? CNN ? AFP ?

2) Good question. Thanks to ask it.

These 2 wars are different. Yugoslavia was fighting against a bunch of terrorists, as like the Russians in Chechenya are doing it. Unfortunately for Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia is an european nation and she didn't want to play the " european game ". That nation was leaded by a nationalist who wanted to stay independant from the EU & the UN. In other words, Yugoslavia was saying " fuc% u " to the comming NWO.

Yugoslavia wasn't threatening anybody. Yugoslavia didn't try to overrun any nations.

That's why I'm against that war.

Well, Yugoslavia had imperialist tendencies on Slovenia, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Bosnia. The people there suffered from oppression made in Belgrade. The fightings intensified and a civil war broke out in which many factions, especially but not only the serbs, comitted crimes. There was a dire need of neutral intervention (Bosnia). The Kosovars were seen by Belgrade as criminals and terrorists. That may be partly true, and the intervention in Kosovo, and especially the kind of intervention, is more argueable.

In conclusion, Belgrade WAS actively holding imperialist oppression on "foreign"=non-serbian people. I dont see the big difference in terms of people's rights to Iraq. Considered from that viewpoint, the Kuwaiti people numbered much less than the masses "oppressed" by Belgrade. There is , however, a difference in american economic interest. That should be the point of analysis.

Congratulations Mokuhadzushi, you've learned your CNN lesson pretty well.

Yugoslavia was confederation of region, as Switzerland.

Croatia, Kosovo, Slovenia and so on were all member of that confederation. Some terrorist groups, mainly from Kosovo and Albania started to commit atrocity against EVERYBODY, even their own peoples.

So, Yugoslavia sent her troops in that area to stop them.
So, where do you see any imperialist tendencies in that situation ???????????? Tell me ????

I've a muslim neighbor, who's comming from Kosovo. Him and his familly had had to leave because they were persecuted, NOT by the Serbs, but by UCK terrorists ( backed by Clinton and NATO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ).

He told me that the Serbians went to protect them against UCK. The Serbs, in the beginning, were not trying to kill anybody, except those fuc$$ng UCK terrorists.

But when Serbs have seen that NATO was bombing them all, in order to help the terrorists, they started to be completely crazy and a terrible ethnic war started.

We've been all fooled with that war. We are responsible for what happened there ( Not me, I was, and I'm still, against that war ). We did NOT have to go there. We did NOT have to bomb a country who was just fighting against terrorism as we are doing it right now.

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Congratulations Mokuhadzushi, you've learned your CNN lesson pretty well.

Thanks.. but what do you mean by that ?

Yugoslavia was confederation of region, as Switzerland.

No... Switzerland is over 900 years old, a well grown confederation with a fiery swiss identity. "Yugoslavia" was forced into its shape by the victors of WW1, in order to split up the Austro-Hungrian Empire. For strategic reasons, former croatia, slovenia, etc.., former autonomous kingdoms in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were tied together under the serbian, slavic, rule. It was an experiment of a state containing about ten (10 !) different ethnic/territorial groups. Until the nineties, there was a continous history of violence between the ethnic groups. In no way comparable to switzerland.

Some terrorist groups, mainly from Kosovo and Albania started to commit atrocity against EVERYBODY, even their own peoples.

We already partly agreed on Kosovo before I still maintain that the Bosnia intervention was direly needed because of an ongoing imperialistic ethnic war between serbs, bosnians, and croats.

The difference between Kuwait and Bosnia is obvious .. in Bosnia, the people were oppressed, while in Kuwait strategic american interests (money) was in danger. That is the hypocrisy i'm speaking of...

Ahhh, but you are wrong oh Moku-boy!

First, let us take notice to the fact that the world community has ignored far greater atrocities than anything that could have happened in the former Yugo area. As Jesse Jackson would say, we need some proportionality.

May we also take into account the "ethnic" Albanians killing cops and blowing up places and generally pissing others off. I think even Richard Gere would have eventually given up the harmony chant and went for some shootin' irons.

And finally, when you refer to American interests in Kuwait as being the hypocrisy (speaking of which, lets not talk about hipocisy right now or fingers might be pointed in many directions!) are you talking about Gulf War Part One? If so, what is the interest that had to be protected after Bush '41 set Hussein up to begin with? Hussein was not going to attack Kuwait without prior approval of the U.S. Bush gave it, Hussein attacked and then Bush flip-flopped. Question is, why did that happen?

Unlike his son, Bush '41 was fully involved with and supporting of the "NWO" and the secretive powers behind the power. The first war was not about patriotism or America, it was a clear coalition under the clear auspices of the U.N. and for the first time a non-nationalistic collection actually had teeth.

Sorry that you missed the point .. i mentioned the US oil policy interests in Kuwaitbecause ultra brought that in as a legitimacy for the current invasion of Iraq (or at least so i understood).

But your intervention may enlighten me if you have the answer to the question you adressed at me, iE. why was Saddam given green light for Kuwait's invasion ?

Extremely good question, I think.

Back during the first round there was only CNN. Not that Fox would have made an issue of it, as a matter of fact, I'm sure they wouldn't. CNN reported that a U.S. diplomat relayed to the Iraqi officials that we had no defense agreement with Kuwait after the Iraqis enquired, making it clear that they were really ill over Kuwait diagonally drilling into Iraqi oil fields (there is the green light).

As I mentioned, Bush '41 was a team player when it came to the OWO/NWO Illuminati thing, as was Clinton. Bush '43 is not a team player and is opposed in principle to the NWO concept (I say in principle because who knows what he'd do if it were clear the well-being of him and his family were on the line if a critical decision were to be made).

I believe the excercise did a couple things. One of the things was to lend credibility and teeth to the U.N., from which the NWO might come. Another thing it did was to weaken a country that was not in favor of a NWO.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

1) Thanks.. but what do you mean by that ?

2) No... Switzerland is over 900 years old, a well grown confederation with a fiery swiss identity. "Yugoslavia" was forced into its shape by the victors of WW1, in order to split up the Austro-Hungrian Empire. For strategic reasons, former croatia, slovenia, etc.., former autonomous kingdoms in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were tied together under the serbian, slavic, rule. It was an experiment of a state containing about ten (10 !) different ethnic/territorial groups. Until the nineties, there was a continous history of violence between the ethnic groups. In no way comparable to switzerland.

3) I still maintain that the Bosnia intervention was direly needed because of an ongoing imperialistic ethnic war between serbs, bosnians, and croats.

4) The difference between Kuwait and Bosnia is obvious .. in Bosnia, the people were oppressed, while in Kuwait strategic american interests (money) was in danger. That is the hypocrisy i'm speaking of...

5) i mentioned the US oil policy interests in Kuwaitbecause ultra brought that in as a legitimacy for the current invasion of Iraq (or at least so i understood).

1) I just mean that you was saying what you've heard and learn on CNN. No hidden message in my previous phrase.

2) Thanks you for the historical lesson, but I know it too. You don't understand that these peoples were all living in peace, together, without any problems, until some nuts ( backed by Clinton. I know, I already told it ) came from Albania and Kosovo, and started to spread their # in Kosovo.

But you wrong.These so-called viloences between the ethnic groups were close to zero ! Of course, when these violences really started, " we " had the " good excuse " that we were looking for.

3) No no and no ! I would like to see what the USA would say if there were some violences between some ethnic groups in the USA, and then, the EU and NATO, backed by the UN nazis-commies, were sending troops IN the US, in order to stop these violences ! That's what happened with the former Yugoslavia. The imparialists were those who went in Yugoslavia. I've to admit it, it was the first time that I was anti-NATO/US/EU. Also, it's there that I really came anti-EU.

4) Ok. But if the USA/EU are acting ONLY when their financial interests are in danger, so, WHY DID they go in Yugoslavia ? Not for the oil, not for the money, so, WHY ? For a so-called " human reason " ? I don't think so....So, WHY ???? Cuz Yugoslavia had in mind to stay free from the NWO !

May be you don't know it, but in Yugoslavia, in the nineties, they were living like you and me. They had the same life standard. But we came....and we bombed them all, in the name of a so-called " human rights reason " !!!

I told you. I've a former muslim Yugoslavian neighbor, from Kosovo. And when he tell me that he don't understand why we bombed Yugoslavia, why we didn't help Yugoslavia in her fight against the Kosovar and Albaneses terrorist, he make me thinking that something is going wrong here.

6) It wasn't for oil. It wasn't for the money.It wasn't for Kuwait. It was for the NWO.

Also, look what's going on with Milosevic. They don't know how to condemn him. If he was really this monster that the media showed us, it would be so easy. But they're now in trouble with him, and they don't know how to deal with him. We don't hear anything about him anymore on the news. What's wrong ? Do they fear something ???

[Edited on 12-4-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

Serbia was justified in fighting it's war in Kosovo.
But it should never have fought the way it did. No "civilised country" should have committed the atrocities that it did. If it had sat down and conferred with the Western powers and conformed to a more conventional war it would probably have been left unharmed.
But it either couldn't or wouldn't conform and therefore had to be dealt with for the sake of morality.

Milosovic was crude and ignorant. Serbia had to suffer because of his ineptness.