Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US fabricated evidence in Yugoslavia, says former official
Unknown News ^ | February 6, 2003 | Frank in Stockholm

Posted on 05/27/2003 6:34:29 PM PDT by getoffmylawn

The US "fabricated evidence" against former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic during clashes between Serbia and Bosnia in the mid-1990s, according to a prominent and experienced international peacekeeping official who served there.

Retired Swedish Brigadier General Bo Pellnas, who was head of UN Military Observers (UNMOs) in Croatia, now says that the US should not be trusted. Pellnas says that he learned to distrust US-provided evidence during peacekeeping service in the former Yugoslavia.

Pellnas's misgivings are described in an article from the Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet. Here is an English-language translation of this article:

In an interview with Sweden's leading news-wire TT, retired Brigadier Bo Pellnas claims that the US "faked evidence to suit their own interests."

"If the US were to present evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the countries of the Western world would have no way to substantiate these reports due to the technical superiority of the US."

These are the words of retired Brigadier Bo Pellnas, who says he witnessed the US "fabricating fact to suit their own needs." Pellnas says he witnessed this first-hand when he led an international force which safeguarded the borders between Serbia and Bosnia in the mid-1990s, where he gained a very good insight and understanding of US operations. "The technical superiority of the US gives their politicians the option of bringing forth fake evidence, in this case in front of the United Nations Security Council."

Pellnas served in Yugoslavia during a time when US efforts, led by then Secretary of State Madeline Albright, presented evidence to the UN Security Council that Milosevic's Belgrade government ran unmonitored arms shipments. Pellnas claims that Albright's staff presented manipulated satellite photos to document false allegations, leading the Security Council to act in accordance with the US hard line against Milosevic.

"There might be a possibility that Albright thought the pictures to be true," says Pellnas, "but several incidents pointed towards the fact that the US lied." The US stood firm by their claims, refusing to show supporting evidence to Pellnas and other members of the peacekeeping crew.

"If the US were to come forth with evidence against Iraq which were "difficult to confirm," the permanent members of the Council will be put in a difficult situation, since they lack the sufficient tools to research and verify such claims."

Pellnas said he hopes that nations of the European Union make it their responsibility to build their own intelligence agency which has the capability to act as a counterbalance to the US. "It would be great indeed if the EU could act as a balance to the world's only true superpower, which acts alone these days."

In addition to his UN duties, Pellnas was also in charge of an international monitoring mission to Yugoslavia in 1994 sponsored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and worked with the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY), a group established in 1991 to find a peaceful solution to the region's conflicts.

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: balkans; bosnia; campaignfinance; formeryugoslavia; iraq; kosovo; serbia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last
To: yonorono
Hello to you too!
51 posted on 06/01/2003 12:12:56 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: joan; getoffmylawn
Guys, take the time to read some confessional "evidence" presented here. One has to be so stupid he or she can't button a shirt to believe it. But, it's sure good enough for a premeditaed conviction. Remember, if you don't have a real court, you don't need real evidence either!

Some of the "pearls" that stand out are so obvious I had to bite my lip, because I was laughing so hard. I think this "evidence" was made public in hopes that FauxNews would carry them, for the public iliteratti who actually believe in Flat Earth.

Imagine a Chief of Staff, and acting commander of a brigade, didn't know the prisoners arrived but found about it from his -- wife! This guy knows the first and last names of each and every little junior officer he called on, yet he (conveniently) cannot remember the name (didn't think it was importamnt enough?) of an "elderly man" who actually told him something pivotal, i.e. that "...Nikolich had personally taken part in the execution..." Hearsay! Pure garbage!

And so is the rest -- he finds out that such as such happened, but wasn't there to see it, and so on. And his commander gives orders to execute prisoners over the radio and, of course, everyone listens.

The "confession" of Dragan Obrenovich was a sudden memory jarring process -- from April 18, 2001 when he was delivered to Carla's Lair, and his "recollection" on May 21, 2001, when he signed the "confession," looking rather shoddy that day. Funny how much one can remember in such a short time on prison food, given that he pleaded innocent and called his charges false four weeks earlier.

The prison stample and life also had an effect on his reasoning as well. He pleabargained so that his sentence (which was a foregone conclusion even without his pleabargaining) could be reduced from life to -- 15 to 20 years. What a deal!

I think he and Bilyana Plavshich must be related. She gave up her life sentence for 15 or so years instead. That would be considerable if she were not in her late 70's. But, prison food and water can have weird efects on people -- who would know, right?

So, where are all those people he names in his "confession?" Why don't they just take the investigators to where those bodies are? And what bout our ever-vigilant and all-seeing Predator, satellite and those Marine Corps RC model planes (weeeeeee) that keep an eye on the theater of operations 24/7/365?

On the matter of Mad Cow forgery... It is a noble thing to try to expose a government that has taken a moral nosedive to fabricate "evidence," to cheat and deceive and, in spite of all that, have to use brutal force to get its way. That's not what democracies are all about. Some of the fascist right wing thugs on drugs who appear on this forum waving the flag and disbelieveing "neutral" and "foreign" generals who acuse us of forgery are now enjoying a McCarhty revival -- for a time being. Historical facts show that the reasons we often went to war over were as bogus as a $3 bill, staring from "the Maine," the sinking of "the Lisutania," te War to End All Wars, the Make World Safe for Democracy, the Pearl harbor "surprise," the Gulf of Tonkin "incident," the Makrale bombings, the Rachak massacre, and now the "would-you-believe-if-I-tell-you" ready-to-shoot thousands of WMDs story for the Dumb and Dumber.

It doesn't matter if the evidence is falsified. There is nothing one can do to undo this. The victors write history -- for a while anyway. Don't waste your time.

52 posted on 06/01/2003 1:25:33 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Hi Kosta! Kako ide?
53 posted on 06/01/2003 2:13:44 PM PDT by yonorono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: yonorono
Dobro, a tebi?
54 posted on 06/01/2003 9:57:11 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
ide, ide. Jesi li pricao sa Bob808-om? Ima bolji forum nego ovaj...
55 posted on 06/01/2003 10:52:24 PM PDT by yonorono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: yonorono
Pazi sta govoris, covece! Ce da nas uhapsaju!

56 posted on 06/01/2003 11:18:47 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: yonorono; bob808
Ma nemoj? To on(a) kaze? A ja mislio da je ovaj najbolji, da nema slobodnijeg od ovoga.
57 posted on 06/02/2003 4:22:33 AM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bob808; kosta50
Ko im jebe mater!
58 posted on 06/02/2003 7:11:31 AM PDT by yonorono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Kosta: "Historical facts show that the reasons we often went to war over were as bogus as a $3 bill, staring from "the Maine," the sinking of "the Lisutania," te War to End All Wars, the Make World Safe for Democracy, the Pearl harbor "surprise," the Gulf of Tonkin "incident," the Makrale bombings, the Rachak massacre, and now the "would-you-believe-if-I-tell-you" ready-to-shoot thousands of WMDs story for the Dumb and Dumber."

Let's set the record straight:
1-The USA did not fight the Spanish-American War over the sinking of the Maine, although that event further inflamed the already significant anti-Spain popular opinion in America. Before the Maine blew up there were already numerous calls for war based on the considerable "pan-American" sentiment & sympathy for the Cuban people fighting for independence, plus outrage at the brutality of Spanish tactics. Although many in the USA blamed Spain for the explosion, the debate and President McKinley's stated reasons for the war centered around the fighting in Cuba, not what hapened to the Maine.
2-The USA did not fight WWI based on the sinking of the Lusitania; which occurred two years before the USA entered WWI. America declared war because of the German declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare. The declaration of war would have happened if the Lusitania had never existed.
3-The USA did not fight WWII based on "surprise" at Pearl Harbor. America declared war because Japan attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor--a few conspiracy theorists out on the whacko fringe believe that FDR knew about the attack ahead of time, but even if we grant that very dubious point--so what? Are we not entitled to respond to an attack unless its a surprise? Or are you saying that FDR somehow ordered Admiral Yamamoto to bomb Pearl Harbor?
4-In spite of lefty mythology, the Gulf of Tonkin incident did occur; i.e. N. Vietnamese patrol craft attacked U.S. ships in international waters. Two attacks were reported, the first one in broad daylight with battle damage to both NVese and USA participants. The second attack, a day or two later, was at night with no visual, only radar & sonar contacts. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution (giving LBJ authority to pursue military action in Viet Nam) was passed within a few days of the attacks. Afterward, there was controversy among the crews of the ships, with some asserting that there had been no second attack==that the radar had picked up "ghost" images while the sonar operators were inexperienced and had identified friendly ship propeller noises as attackers. However, no reputable historian doubts that the first attack was real or that the second attack was believed to be real, by both the Navy and the government, at the time it was reported (and is still believed to have been real by many of the crewmembers).

And so on. Your apparent willingness to believe this nonsense you write about American history casts significant doubt on your credibility when it comes to what you say about current affairs.
59 posted on 06/02/2003 1:55:01 PM PDT by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
Mark, I am not sure that you ever ask yourself a critical question, for if you did you would have never said some of the things you said.

If we were so "outraged" about Spanish brutality, why were we willing to tolerate brutal Latin American dictators without any problems when we got rid of the Spanish? Answer: they were scum, but at least they were our scum, to paraphrase a famous American political figure. Your explanation for the Spanish war is simply naive. The US was guided by "providential" self-appointed "destiny" -- to first expand from coast to coast and then to rule sovereign over the hemisphere, and now the world. It's called imperialism, plain and simple. Why sugarcoat it? Let's face it: war was good for America. Wars have in large part contributed to America's power. America sought wars at it does today.

I am not an apologist. I just don't have problems admitting that we are doing what every other Empire did -- go to war on its terms. We waited until 1917 to eneter WWI. In the meantime, we traded and made huge profits with both warring sides. We entered the war when it suited us.

One thing that always came in handy -- to our shame -- was our yellow press. In a democracy, the press has a duty to check on the government (whose job is to serve and not to rule!), to keep it honest, etc. That's why we need a free and independent (critical) press. Unfortunately, our press has often served as the unofficial mouthpiece of the government, using its ability to shape public opinion the way the government wanted it. In the case of "the Maine," the press played a cruicial role in raising the public mood for war, just as FoxNews has done in a fine tradition of "presstitute" reporting.

The yellow press also palyed a part in the raising of the war mood in America in WWI -- helped along with the yellow journalism of our British counterparts. British tabloids were pumping out alleged "massacres" of Belgians, rapes in open squares of Belgian women by Germans, and dead baby stories of Germans impaling little toddlers on Belgian fences. The falcities of such stories became obvious after the fact (always too late), but the important thing is: the war came when we wanted it.

Pearl Harbor did not just happen out of a clear blue. Economic sanctions imposed on Japan were destined to force Japan to either retreat from China or to do something esle to break the sanctions. They chose the latter -- duh! In view of that, one would think that the US would be a little more vigilant about being jumped the way it happend in Pearl Harbor. But, the world was at war, and Hitler was a menace and also a Japanese ally. The US was eager to enter the war to stop the Axis from encroaching on our interests. Until then, we were neutral. But when the time came for a war, we got our war. Mice don't just go to raps, they are coaxed to go to traps. Things do not happen out of a clear blue -- they are usually scripted and choregraphed!

No point in going into the Gulf of Tonkin because there is more than lefty mythology involved. It was a convenient excuse to get Congressional approval.

One must really be naive and believe the rallying calls of politicians who (by definition must) lie. It is totally amazing to me that the words of politicians, the people who rank lowest on the trustworthiness and honesty -- somewhere next to lawyers, are suddenly taken for gospel when it comes to sending American people to die in a far off land with a rallying cry such as a "War to End All Wars."

People don't want to know the truth because they can't handle the truth. We can't just say -- hey, this is what we want because we are the Empire and we set the rules. You don't like it? Sorry, maybe you will call the shots in the next round, but right now this is our show. Why beat around the bush? Because to most a "noble lie" is better than the "naked truth."

If you are looking for lack of credibility, you need to look at the "official truth" and not at those who question it. Critical thinking is always in short supply.

60 posted on 06/02/2003 3:01:47 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Kosta, sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be. Not everything is a conspiracy. Look at history using primary sources and in the context of the times. Contemporary newspaper articles, letters, diaries, and official documents all support what I wrote about the Spanish-American War. Your counter-point is based on a quote and events that occurred decades later, or, in the case of America's "manifest destiny", you are wildly off-target in citing that as a motivator to "rule sovereign over the hemisphere, and now the world"--manifest destiny referred primarily to coast-to-coast expansion in the 19th century. I have never read or heard any American in my lifetime state that it was our "destiny", manifest or "providential" or otherwise to rule over either the hemisphere or the world. And the facts belie your characterization of the the USA as imperialist. America is far and away the biggest military and economic power in the world--you'd think we'd at least have taken some hemispheric low-hanging fruit; e.g. Panama--control the canal & collect some fees--whoops, we've given that away twice recently. Grenada--had that in 1983--tropical paradise and could of locked up the world's nutmeg supply--gave it back. Maybe Venezuela? Chavez is already hated by most of his people, the Army is small, and they have lots of oil much closer than Iraq. Haiti & the Dom Rep? Easy take-downs and jeez, we used to be there, but now we're gone--how could that be? And Cuba, heck, we were all over that one for a while, too; and now Castro does his best to poke his finger in our eye every chance he gets, but he's still in charge--and we haven't even covered all the places in Europe & the Pacific we once controlled and have left on our own--mostly with them much better off than before we arrived. Let's face it, Kosta, the USA is just plain absolutely incompetent when it comes to "imperialism"! Or perhaps, just try and consider these thoughts a little--as shattering as it might be to your world-view. The USA is not imperialist. The USA is primarily a force for good in the world. No other country in the world has brought freedom and prosperity to so many people or done so much to defeat oppressive regimes.

Now Kosta, having said all that, the USA is not perfect (Mex-Amer War, Kosovo, Amer-Indians, etc), but it is a long, long way from where you put it.
61 posted on 06/02/2003 4:23:48 PM PDT by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
Mark, I don't have a problem with a superpower exerting its might over the world, it's the way we lie about it that is wrong. Why can't we just tell the truth?

Manifest Destiny was a state of mind. Its original coast-to-coast vision later morphed, perhaps under a different name, different doctrine, all the way up to the present day. Mad Albright's "indispensable nation" -- the one the world cannot do without is an extension of the same belief. Faith-based politics and biblical undertones are indeed "providential," just as the original one was.

I have heard about our alleged "ineptness" at being colonizers. Even a man I respect a lot, Pat Buchanan, seems to think so. But, we were colonizers. Just ask the Filipinos. Taking the Philipines from Spain was easy. Taking it from the Filipinos was not. After much bloodshed, we prevailed. Whatever our motives were, please don't tell me we colonized the Philipines to "liberate" the Filipinos.

There is nothing inept about our military taking high ground on its terms. The American people, not our government, are inept at being good colonizers. We have compassion for the needy and the weak. We are also very generous. I remember in Bosnia the Task Force Eagle issued orders to shoot stray dogs, and the American military refused. Many of them took care of the pups, often using their own antibiotic creams to heal their wounds. The locals tried to tell everyone the dogs were "viscious." The dogs knew better!

Imperialism is a policy. Its about government, and not American people. Imperialism is being above international law. Imperialism is doing what I please, when I please and how I please and not be accountable to anyone. Only empires behave like that, but we don't want to face that truth. We see ourselves as compassionate people who could not possibly be imperialists. So, we always need a "just cause" to do what we really don't like to do. And the government and its presstitutes provide us with noble lies, something both are very good at.

No politicians will get your support if he says "Go fight for my oil!" or "Your taxes are going up, suck it up!" Politicians have to tell lies to get elected. It comes with a job, and I don't trust liars. Only fools do.

62 posted on 06/02/2003 8:20:48 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Kosta, again--the facts on the ground belie your accusations of imperialism. Where is the empire? You use the Philippines as an example, but it proves the opposite--within a few years after our arrival, the fighting was over (except for the Moros--whose goal was Islamic separatism, not anti-imperialist revolution) and soon afterward the Philippines had their own legislature and substantial self-government with a date set for complete independence--and that date was met.
As you said, imperialism is a policy--the essence of which is the expansion of a nation's dominion. What kind of imperial power releases possessions, withdraws from areas and countries where it has had military dominance, and does not take advantage of its overwhelming power to conquer or annex much weaker states right on its door-step? Objectively, USA behavior is simply not consistent with a policy of imperialism.

Nice comments about the American people; however, I believe our government is closer to a reflection of our people's traits than, apparently, you do.
63 posted on 06/03/2003 6:49:21 AM PDT by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf; kosta50
Let's not forget William Randolph Hearst's famous quote prior to the Spanish American War - "You furnish me the pictures and I'll furnish you the war!"

Sadly, the modern day equivalent of that might have been "You furnish me the WMD's, and I'll furnish you the war!"

Except that so far we haven't those yet either.

64 posted on 06/03/2003 10:03:17 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: bob808
No, but they were -- to quote one "shining" example -- something the Beltway boys could bureaucratically agree as the core reason for war.

If politicians are more like an average person, that is either an insult to the people or a scary reminder how rotten people are. I will choose the former.

One does not climb to the top of a pyramid of power by being a "nice guy."

65 posted on 06/04/2003 4:20:31 AM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; bob808
Good discussion, although we've been wandering pretty far away from the Balkans topic. On the Iraqi WMD, the choices for where they are:
1. Destroyed by Iraq.
2. Still hidden in Iraq.
3. Hidden in another country (Syria? Libya? ????)
4. In the hands of criminals, terrorists or Hussein regime fugitives.
5. A combination of some or all of 1-4 above.

I tend to go with choice 5. And that is scary--there is no doubt that Al Qaeda will use whatever they can get; having some of that stuff loose means it is just a matter of time before it falls into the hands of people who will use it against us. Which is, BTW, another reason why we should have had more troops on the ground in the invasion of Iraq. We had insufficient ground forces to both defeat the Iraqi military and then occupy the entire country swiftly enough to forestall the WMD growing legs.
66 posted on 06/04/2003 1:36:48 PM PDT by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf; bob808
So far we went to most likely places and found nothing. A huge political scnadal is brewing and something must be done. Do you think that desperate politicians could plant "evidence?" After all, who's chekcing what is being brought in and out of Iraq?

The target list provided to our pilots by the CIA of alleged WMD sites was characterized as "rubbish" by one official -- the target list included targets bombed in Gulf War I.

The British (who else!) alleged that Iraq could get nuclear weapons ready in a matter of months and had WMDs ready to be launched withing 45 minutes.

Do you honestly think the Iraqis could move huge quantities of weapons, stockpiles that were an "imminent" and present danger to US and "Friends" (is that a take on "Fox and Motards?"), especially with the bogus Al-Qaida links, under the watchful eyes of our Predators, USMC RC weee planes, satellites and "humint" source and for us to see absolutely nothing?

In the first stages of war, we hit a bus going to Syria -- full of civilians, thinking it may have something to do with...WMDs, of course, or Saddam and his lot. Bad intel. Ooops! Collateral damage. We thought it was ... military stuff, you know. In other words, our $30 billion dollar intel was relying on hearsay from its human "sources" who are willing to tell you anything for a buck. Now I am beginning to believe that during the Kosovo war CIA could not afford updated maps of Belgrade before hitting the Chinese Embassy with a B2 sent all the way form the US just for that purpose, and of course there was not a single Serb willing for a few dollars to walk past the object to verify it for us -- "humint" you know.

The mystery question of the day that remains shoved under the rug is: who was the "military source" that told the media that Pfc Jessica Lynch was shot a couple of times and stabbed while killing of Iraqis?

We will probably never know for the same reason we never learned the identity of the stealth bomber pilot shot down over Srem (Serbia) in 1999 -- the first grudgingly acknowleged but initially heavily denied dowing of a stealth plane. He sure was treated differently from AF Capt. O'Gready shot over Bosnia in 1995, who became an instant celebrity.

As for WMDs we will "find" them, regardless what has to be done to "find" them. Heck, we need to do anything to save face. Just ask Robert McNamara. He will tell you in his memoirs that he knew we would lose Vietnam, but saving face was worth 59,000 American lives -- not to talk of a hundredto two hundred fold Vietnamese losses. Hey, he is a politician -- and politicians are just like the rest of us common people, except they have some uncommon powers they like to (ab)use.

There are a lot of questions, aren't they? And they all revolve around -- who's fabricating and falsifying and why?.

67 posted on 06/04/2003 6:06:58 PM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
Well, I think you need take #1 off your list.

If they were destroyed (assuming they existed in the first place), then technically he fulfilled the terms of the UN Resolution and could have saved his bacon simply by showing inspectors.

If you're thinking they were destroyed after the war (again, assuming they existed in the first place), why didn't he use them? Why would Saddam let himself and his regime perish protecting weapons he did not intend to use?

#2 and #3 are still a possibility.

It would be terribly ironic, however, if it was #4 and the war that was about saving us from WMD's actually sent them to terrorists' hands.
68 posted on 06/04/2003 6:09:54 PM PDT by bob808
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: bob808; kosta50
I think it highly likely at least some chem weapons were destroyed as war became imminent or soon after it began. Put yourself in the shoes of the Iraqis in charge of those stocks--the best thing for you personally is to make that stuff disappear! And, if you recall, there were reports of traces of mustard agent found in the Euphrates--dumping it in the biggest river around makes sense to me! (Bob--it is not an assumption that they had the stuff; the UN inspectors had seen it, the Iraqis admitted it, and even Al Gore and the French said they had it). The question is not whether or not they had WMD, but what happened to it?

Kosta, you give our surveillance capability too much credit--first, we don't have enuf to even cover all of Iraq with actionable levels of resolution. Then when you add in the competing demands in Afghanistan, supporting the search for our downed airmen in Colombia, trying to identify Abu Sayef boat traffic in the Philippines, etc, etc; that leaves even less for Iraq.
-second, darkness, rain, cloud cover, & sandstorms all degrade our surveillance capability.
-third, Iraq has played this game for years & knows our capabilities very well: we can't see through roofs or trees or underground or even through the canvas tops of cargo trucks. There is a lot of normal military and civilian traffic and activity that can be used to disguise WMD movement. Again, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi who has been told to surreptitiously move some WMD--you could easily figure out a way to do it & so could they.

Bob, I don't know why Hussein did not use what he had while we were building up and concentrated in Kuwait--at that time we were a large, stationary target. One theory is that he had moved the stuff out of the country and/or hidden it very well with the expectation that the UN/international community would prevail on the USA/UK not to invade and all he had to do was to wait out the next round of weapons inspectors. Then when the invasion came, he wasn't ready. Who knows for sure? Time will tell.

It wouldn't just be ironic, but tragic if some Iraqi bugs & gas is floating around in the hands of international terrorists/criminals because Rumsfeld, in his arrogance and hubris, did not allow the operational commander sufficient troops to quickly and adequately secure the country. There are STILL some places in Iraq where no American troops have gone, much less searched or established positive control.
69 posted on 06/04/2003 8:45:48 PM PDT by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
Your points are valid, Mark. However, without any solid Hussein-Al Qaeda connection, the urgency was lacking. Remember, we couldn't wait for Hanx Blix and his team to finish the search. But now, Tony Bliar is asking us to be "patient."

A lot of things were also exaggerated. Take for instance the Iraqi deadly "drone" -- an RC plane. One single toy plane! Or the one hundred or so missles that had a 15-mile longer range than allowed -- hardly a WMD threatening us, or something the terrorist could use against us, and so on. The question that remains unanswered: what was the sudden urgency? Was it Dick Channey's assertion almost a year ago that there is "no doubt" that "Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?" And we believe him because hes says so? Or is it because of Tony Blair's government made-up fairytales and a 45-minute ready-to-fire lie?

The plan to invade Iraq, Syria and Iran were made in tghe middle 1990s by the people who call themselves the "Cabal." From a geostrategic point of view, I would recommend that we control the earth's richest oil reserves as well. That's just like the gestrategic proposal that was circulating and influencing American policy before the Spanish war -- that called for US to take the Caribbean islands, Hawaii and the Philipies before the war was even close. Things don't just happen, Mark. Foreign policy is "shaped" with determined goals and outcomes.

Knowing to what lengths will the government go to "save face" I am skeptical as heck that we are being told the whole truth.

70 posted on 06/05/2003 3:56:28 AM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: getoffmylawn; Wraith
Ref your post #24 and #38: Good posts. My thoughts and sentiments exactly.

Ref the article: Pellnas must have been before my time, as he didn't hold that position when I was there. Do you know the dates of his term, by chance? (Pinging Wraith in case Pellnas was there during his tenure in UNPA West)

They placed 18 members of my family in a Serbian church in Krajina during WW2 and burned the church to the ground killing all of them. Glina? Where ever it was, I am so sorry.

71 posted on 06/10/2003 11:10:18 PM PDT by wonders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wonders

They lived in Petrovo Selo, Lika. Thank you. I suppose I should be pretty happy that my great-grandmother made it to America between the wars. As far as I know, she's the only one from my mom's side of the family to survive the Holocaust.

72 posted on 06/12/2003 12:18:42 AM PDT by getoffmylawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
"The plan to invade Iraq, Syria and Iran were made in tghe middle 1990s by the people who call themselves the "Cabal." From a geostrategic point of view, I would recommend that we control the earth's richest oil reserves as well. That's just like the gestrategic proposal that was circulating and influencing American policy before the Spanish war -- that called for US to take the Caribbean islands, Hawaii and the Philipies before the war was even close. Things don't just happen, Mark. Foreign policy is "shaped" with determined goals and outcomes. "

Link please? I hope it isn't the one about the caspian sea pipeline myth. Would like to know about this 'cabal' too. Thanks.

73 posted on 06/13/2003 11:06:13 PM PDT by chichipow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: chichipow
This might help ....

The story of how neoconservatives (“Cabal”(?)) took over Washington and steered the U.S. into a Middle Eastern war unrelated to any plausible threat to the U.S., is here.

President Bush seems genuinely to believe that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," something the leading neocons say in public but are far too intelligent to believe themselves. The Project for the New American Century urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with possible links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden.

Whatever you make out of this, it’s an interesting read, isn’t it?

74 posted on 06/14/2003 5:21:06 AM PDT by uplandgame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: kaboom
Well, we all know that Clinton, COhen and Albright lied, so they could commence a 79 day campaign of terror against Serbia.

Were were all the "mass graves?"

Remember how they were shouting that Milozevic had filled up a stadium with male Kosovars, then slaughtered them? 100,000 of them at once?

I wonder why the media totally ignored the fact that all of their justifications for that terror campaign were ALL lies.
75 posted on 06/14/2003 5:26:42 AM PDT by Guillermo (Proud Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chichipow
From the source: 1890U.S. foreign policy is influenced by Alfred T. Mahan who wrote The Influence of Sea Power upon history, 1600-1783, which advocated the taking of the Caribbean Islands, Hawaii, and the Philippine Islands for bases to protect U.S. commerce, the building of a canal to enable fleet movement from ocean to ocean and the building of the Great White fleet of steam-driven armor plated battleships.
76 posted on 06/14/2003 11:35:24 AM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: uplandgame; chichipow
The "Cabal" is the name the neocons gave themselves. Formerly Troskyite leftists turned conservative right wings, their character has not changed. Most of them were students and admirers of Leon Strauss, hence their nickname "leo-cons." Apparently, most of America doesn't know about this group of people mostly associated with the Defense Department. How could they?! Most of America watches the heavily "edited" news networks, some of which (Fox) can be considered government mouthpieces.
77 posted on 06/14/2003 11:47:22 AM PDT by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: getoffmylawn; All
I was wondering why the dems were so hot and heavy about claiming Bush had "fabricated" information. This is what they always do. It's called a pre-emptive strike agains negative info being released about x42. They have been doing this for years.

This is just par for the course. The dems knew this was going to come out - because x42 claimed there were 100,000 graves of muslims who had been killed - the UN only found 2,200. As usual, the media has ignored the story and has since turned their attention to blaming Bush for "fabricating" the intel to go to war with Iraq.

Just more of the dem's "everybody does it". Amazing!!!
78 posted on 06/14/2003 12:17:20 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uplandgame
I appreciate both your reply and kostas.

I don't have any knowledge of neo conservatism. Any other pertinent links or articles that you could recommend?

79 posted on 06/15/2003 12:16:39 AM PDT by chichipow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson