Skip to main content

View Diary: Quotes from GOP About Bosnia War... (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Chomsky and Huntington (none)
    I'm still underwhelmed, and that's being generous.

    And don't condescend to me, I know who Huntington is, and he doesn't speak for some monolithic "establishement."  Have you not been paying attention over the last four years as State, DoD and the intellegence agencies have fought each other?

    Stick with your Chomskyite phraseology like "manufactured consent."  I'll approach life with the belief that things are more complicated.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 08:16:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The book stems (none)
      from an article in Foreign Affairs. It had influence on US policy. You may not agree with either writers, but you do agree with the establishment treatment of the Yugoslavian intervention, which is that is was done out of a humanitarian neccesity.

      Just as the MSM all towed the administration line on Iraq, they did the same with Yugoslavia. Many people were being slaughtered in other places on the globe at the same time, and in far greater numbers. If it was on a larger scale, but being done by an ally such as Turkey or Indonesia, the media, and obviously you, did't apply the same standards to their lives.

      The MSM and the military were all concerned about a relatively small number of deaths in a strategically convienant location while ignoring far greater numbers occuring in places where we actually DID have a chance to change the situation for a humanitarian reason, because we were actively funding it with our money.

      •  Psst, Quit Assuming I Don't Know At Least... (none) much about this as you do.

        I know the origins of Huntington book; I've read the article.  The fact that I'm criticizing it doesn't mean I'm not familiar with it.

        And there is no monolithic establishement except in the fevered ranting of Chomsky and Pat Buchanan, the  two most prominent opponents of the Bosnia intervention who weren't elected Republican officials.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:27:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Get your (none)
      Stick with your Chomskyite phraseology like "manufactured consent."  I'll approach life with the belief that things are more complicated.

      Statements like that do not make a very strong case for your point of view.  To the extent that I can even discern your point of view (picking through your ad-hominem attacks on those who disagree with you), I think I can pick out some threads of thought.  And these threads are mistaken.

      Since you are allergic to references, having produced none yourself in your 4 posts (and having dismissed Chomsky and Huntington when others quoted them), I won't drop any references on you.  If you want references, I can provide you with a short reading list at the end of my post.  You started off by telling me to "learn some facts", and you wrote:

      Yugoslavia and Albania were most definitely NOT part of "the formerly Russian sphere of influence."  Other than a brief period--as in a couple of weeks, and only in Voivodina in extreme NE Yugoslavia--Soviet troops were never in any part of Yugoslavia, it was never part of the Warsaw pact, and Tito and the Kremlin were adversaries.  Tito claimed to have a better approach to communism, and was quite hostile to the USSR.

      You're stuck in 1948.  Yugoslavia under Tito remained non-aligned, playing the Warsaw Pact off NATO and getting billions of dollars in aid from both sides.  But Tito died in 1980.  The period between Tito's death and the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989 saw a power struggle for Yugoslavia between the Soviet Union and the U.S.  

      Both sides backed their favorite factions within Yugoslavia.  The Soviets backed the Serbs in Belgrade.  The U.S. backed the Albanians in Kosovo.  But really, each side just wanted to destabilize Yugoslavia to the point where an intervention would be required.  While the involvement of each bloc kept things balanced, both sides bear responsibility for stoking the fire.

      Then in 1989, the Soviet empire started to collapse.  The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.  The Berlin wall fell.  Yugoslavia was no longer a priority for the Soviets.  This meant it was less of a priority for the U.S.  It was no coincidence that the serious violence in Yugoslavia started right after this.  The balance was upset, and all the shit we stirred up started to escalate.

      And as we all know, NATO later decided to intervene.  And NATO is still there.  I think at the point of intervention, there was a real fear of genocide among many people.  But the U.S. media just framed it as "Oh, it's the Balkans, ethnic strife is ingrained in the region" as if U.S. foreign policy had nothing to do with it.  That is my point, and the point you are clearly missing.

      Oh, let me point out that you're wrong about there never being Soviets in Yugoslavia.  In 1999, in what I think is a nice metaphor for the entire Yugoslav conlfict, NATO troops and Russian troops faced each other down at the Priština airport.  Feel free to split hairs on Russian vs. Soviet if you like to waste time arguing.  Not like the Russians were in a position to do anything in 1999, but that's also beside the point.

      Oh, I promised you some references.  First, read Tim Judah's excellent "History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia".  Then you might want to read Laura Silber's "Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation", which is slightly less important.  Then for contrast, read Wes Clark's book and Richard Holbrook's book if you can keep the vomit from rising in your throat while doing so.  Wes did a competent job as a general, but there's no mention in his book of how things got to the point where he had to do his job.

      I don't hold out much hope that you're actually going to read any of this stuff.  You're going to come back here and argue with everyone to try to save face. :)

      •  You're Like the Other Guy (none)
        You're assuming that since I don't share your point of view I must not have read about the Balkans, including the books you mentioned (and plenty of others).  

        And to think the difference between Soviets and Russians is splitting hairs is quite revealing; makes me think the accusation about trying to "save face" reveals more about you than what it says about me.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:32:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site