<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jerry:
Nowhere Man, trust me - many people didn't really like Clinton too much either. But if you are comparing Clinton to Slobodan Milosevic, then I have to say you're a little off here. Do you see the U.S. in a complete state of disarray, with no economy, rebellion and chaos everywhere, religious fanaticism tearing apart neighbors that had lived together for centuries, and parts of the country split off into separate and equally chaotic countries? I don't think so. The U.S. did not create these conditions, so I can't believe you would blame them for anything in that region of the world. It's too easy to blame the U.S. for the world's problems.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jerry, I'm not comparing Clinton to Milosevic in terms of the economic well-being of each country, but specifically for war crimes and atrocities committed - he is no better or worse than Milosevic. It's irrelevant to compare them by economic factors, especially given the fact that the US 'military' budget alone is larger than the budget of all other NATO countries combined, plus the budgets of the countries considered to be their likely adversaries. Russia spends an estimated $55 billion on its military, China spends about $38 billion. The US, on the other hand, has $324.8 billion to play toy soldiers with.
Yugoslavia was crippled by eight years of international sanctions before the bombing began and it's economy was dismantled piece by piece by the NATO airstrikes. $40 billion in damage has been caused since NATO began its operations. The destruction shaved at least a third off the country’s $15 billion GDP last year, so you can't tell me that the US and NATO was not in some way to blame. The facts speak for themselves.
Yugoslavia’s two largest oil refineries, in Pancevo and Novi Sad, have been destroyed; so has the plant in Krusevac (the largest heavy machinery plant in the Balkans); the Zastava auto plant in Kragujevac (which employed 38,000 workers and produced the Yugo car); as well as power stations, a domestic appliance factory, chemical factories, airports, bridges, schools, hospitals, television transmitters and stations. That's not even the tip of the iceberg.
Factories are working at a low capacity, and agricultural activity has virtually come to a halt. Unemployment has soared to nearly 50 percent. Some 500,000 people have been laid off since the first strike, adding to the more than 1 million previously unemployed. Schools and universities were closed shortly after the first NATO attacks, and fuel rationing has forced municipal authorities to cut public transport by half. Thank you NATO.
If the US was put under sanctions for all that time, had all its trade links cut and exports frozen, and had every other country join together to bomb it to shreds, do you think the US would be in disarray and that its economy would be blown to pieces together with everything else? Yes. Might even be some rebellion and chaos thrown in too, just for good measure.
The US has more money than it knows what to do with - and they can throw around pocket change in the form of bribes wherever they please. They offered Yugoslavia $100 million to "help" them get back on track. Oh, but only in return for Milosevic's arrest - they wouldn't be receiving a penny otherwise. Not exactly a tax-free offer. So of course Yugoslavia will make the effort to do what NATO or the US could not do in all their time there - capture Milosevic and dethrone him from power. Same happened in Iraq, they achieved nothing there - Saddam still rules supreme. And the bombing continues there even today. The US may not have started the war in either of these two regions, but they certainly did their bit in helping to prolong it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jami:
It's funny how people in other countries are always quick to blame the US for their own problems. In most cases, these are the same people who will end up asking the US (with or without the UN) for help, either in battle or reconstruction. Would Japan be as advanced as it is without the US? Not likely!! Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the horrors of WWII, we helped Japan get back on it's feet. How many countries aid in the rebuilding of a bitter, defeated enemy? Not many, if any! We are not a perfect nation by any means, but we are the strongest, and that makes us an attractive target and a valuable friend. If China was about to take over Australia, who would be called in to save the day? Iceland? Maybe Finland? Probably not!!! Our system does have flaws, but it sure is better than having one person (and his or her family and friends) control 99% of the wealth!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm afraid you're completely missing the point, dear Jami. "Would Japan be as advanced as it is without the US? Not likely!!" No, not likely. It would probably be even further advanced. But, of course, the US wouldn't want that would it. Japan had every right to ask the US for help after the devastation it caused by dropping those atomic bombs there. Bet you forgot about that little misdemeanour, huh? Maybe if the US was hit by an atomb bomb or two you would appreciate the situation. If you've had family killed in Yugoslavia by senseless bombing, you would understand it too. Again, it comes back to what I was saying earlier.
The US is just as guilty in committing such "horrors" as other nations, the only difference being they never get punished for such acts. Because they are the law, and they say what goes. They choose where to intervene, it doesn't matter who asks for help or not. Whatever's best for Uncle Sam and his pockets. You may be the strongest nation, yes, but also the greediest. Those two tend to work hand in hand.
Yes, if China was about to take over Australia, the US would be called in. Why? Firstly because we are America's biggest bum lickers (they don't call us the 51st state for nothing), and secondly (and more importantly) for economic and political reasons. It's ALL politics. And that, as much as I'm afraid to say it, is what makes this world turn. It's here where you're missing the point. Would the US go out and attempt to help any nation without anything being in it for them? Not a chance.
Australia (as well as a lot of other countries) is currently seeking a crucial free trade agreement with the US, which has by far the world's biggest export market. But for Australia, the US is far from being the biggest export market, partly because its trade barriers block the way. This is exactly why we always have to play puppy dog to the US and follow whatever it says. We and most of the rest of the world are merely puppets with the US pulling our strings. Exactly why we went to East Timor and Indonesia to "help" cool the situation there - it was left to us to do the dirty work. Why didn't the US come in and bomb Indonesia to pieces so that the East Timorese could get independence? Because they couldn't give a toss. There's nothing much of value to them down here. So again, why must we follow the US's lead? Because, of all the half-plausible partners for a free trade agreement, the US offers the biggest gains - and we and most other countries want a slice.
Moreover, as our Prime Minister recently explained, trade is only part of our purpose. A free trade agreement would also cement the "special" role of Australia in US eyes, raise Australia's profile and influence in the world's most powerful country, and ensure that we are not sidelined by agreements the US makes with other countries. Australia (our Coalition government in particular) was drooling over the arrival of the Bush administration, its ideological soulmate. Bush is more keen to open trade talks between the two countries than Clinton ever was. We've even just set aside $1.8 million to hire lobbyists in Washington to push for Australia's case.
This is becoming serious. And yet until last year, Australia had very little interest in negotiating a free trade agreement with the US because there was general agreement that the things we would want from it are the things the US would not give up. Again, it's the greed and self-preservation factor. So many other countries and issues are jostling for attention in Washington right now. If Australia does not press its claim, it is in danger of being taken for granted.
Back in 1994, the Clinton administration also expressed interest in free trade agreements with countries in Latin America, Asia and the Pacific. But it quickly narrowed the field to Chile, and followed up by promoting a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) to take in the entire continent. It was a statement that, when the chips are down, the US has more to gain or lose on its own continent than here.
Seven years later, the US is still negotiating with Chile and still trying to get the FTAA off the ground. It has no intention in delivering the APEC-wide free trade promised in 1994. And the only other bilateral agreement it is pursuing is with Singapore. In large part, this is due to congressional hostility. Even a Democrat president could not persuade the bulk of the Democrats in Congress to let his administration negotiate trade agreements and present them to Congress for a simple yes/no ratification (to allow Congress to amend trade agreements would be to see such agreements unravel). Now there are more Democrats in Congress but a Republican in the White House. And the future trade supremo, Robert Zoellick, has a lot of higher priorities on his agenda than negotiating an agreement with Australia. It would have to give Australia priority over others that are much bigger or closer to home.
In the year to June, Australia's merchandise exports were $9.6 billion, but our imports were $23.2billion. US exports face few restrictions in Australia. In agriculture, its main complaint is that Australian quarantine laws are too restrictive and slow to change. In manufacturing, it is that Australia has opened up too much and allow in pirated CDs and DVDs through parallel imports. And in services, its prime complaint is over Australia's local-content quotas on TV. By contrast, many Australian exports face severe import restrictions in the US. Dairy and sugar exports face savage tariff quotas; Australia once exported 800,000 tonnes of sugar a year to the US, yet are now allowed to sell only 100,000. US law bans imports of fast ferries, in which Australia has a third of the global market. And the US does not make trade concessions without getting at least as much in return.
What happens on Wall Street also affects what happens to the rest of the world. Precisely why we are forced to play slave to the US. If we behave, we might just be lucky enough to be thrown a peanut.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><HR>
Our system does have flaws, but it sure is better than having one person (and his or her family and friends) control 99% of the wealth!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure that there's a difference between one person controlling 99% of a country's wealth to one country controlling 99% of the world's wealth. You must understand the history, politics and economics behind what everyone is playing for before you can make such statements. And without the proper facts, your argument is useless, non-existant. The US walked into the Balkans without knowing a single piece of history about the region. All they knew is that there have been different ethnic groups fighting there for a long time, but for what purpose seems to be irrelevant. I mean, it was ages ago, right? So who cares?
Well, let me give you a brief and basic rundown of the facts you need to know before making any judgements:
The Serbs have been living in the territory of 'Kosovo and Metohija' (as it's properly known) since the 6th century. Kosovo and Metohija is very important for the Serbian history and for the cultural-civilization identity of Serbia - it was the centre of the Serbian statehood. Kosovo became the political and cultural centre of the Serbian kingdom in the 14th century when the most important monasteries, medieval churches (in the year 200) and castles were built in this area. The question of Kosovo is not only a question of territory or the number of Serbian or Albanian population: it is an inalienable national treasury, indispensable for the identity of the Serbian people.
In the mid 15th century, Kosovo came under the Ottoman Turkish rule and remained under the Turkish occupation until 1912 and the times of the Balkan wars. In the meanwhile the demographic situation in Kosovo and Metohija gradually changed and a once majority Serbian population was slowly replaced by the ethnic Albanian majority which massively converted to Islam and settled in the area of Kosovo and Metohija. The systematic persecutions of the Serbian and Montenegrin population, and the policy of high birth rate substantially changed the ethnic and demographic picture in Kosovo. In 1912-1913 the Serbian army liberated Kosovo and Metohija which became the part of the Serbian Kingdom. After World War I the region became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and later of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Between the two wars the royal government tried to bring an additional Serb population to Kosovo, which always faced great opposition from the Albanian side. During World War II thousands of Serbs were persecuted from Kosovo and many of them were killed by the Albanian Balli Combetar units.
With the creation of Socialist Yugoslavia, the Constitution of Serbia provided for the formation of two provinces in which national minorities enjoy all the civil rights and freedoms. During the period of the Albanian autonomy a large number of Serbs left Kosovo and Metohija under the constant pressure. So, from 1990 the autonomy of Kosovo within Serbia was seriously reduced in order to prevent the planned secession of Kosovo from Serbia. Conclusion: Without Kosovo and Metohija the Serbian people will be people left without history, and without identity.
How would you feel if a large population of Mexicans migrated to New Mexico. They begin a massacre of the American people there and start to take over, eventually claiming the area as their own. But the Mexicans have their own country, you say, called Mexico. Well, the Albanians have Albania too, but that sure didn't stop them. And what Yugoslavia just went through would have been the same if the world had suddenly turned up on America's doorstep and started bombing them for not allowing the Mexicans their independence and self-rule in New Mexico - because their cry for freedom must be heard, no matter what happened previously. I don't think you'd like it very much either. You'd dislike it even more if the rest of the world basically put handcuffs on you, took your rights away and gave them to someone else.
Anyways, thanks for reading everyone, sorry for those of you who I bored to tears. Maybe next time I'll just write a book.