N.A.T.O. - the American outpost in Europe

[rodneymackinnon]

"Well, Yugoslavia was ruled by the last diktator ever in Europe."


Not to nitpick, but isn't Belarus essentially a dictatorship under Aleksander Lukashenka (sp?)? Has all the signs of being one.

[This message has been edited by rodneymackinnon (edited 24 October 2000).]

[Nonson]

...and Serbia is now tucked securely in the arms of an up-and-coming dictator. The CFR and TLC is probably intensely interested in the latest developments there.Peace

[Dr_Woland]

>> "Well, Yugoslavia was ruled by the last diktator ever in Europe."

Not to nitpick, but isn't Belarus essentially a dictatorship under Aleksander Lukashenka (sp?)? Has all the signs of being one. <<

Not to nitpick, but both Milosevic and Lukashenka are/were *democratically elected*.

I guess we get to call them "dictators" when the USA doesn't like the results of the election, though?

Dr W.

[oca]

Dr_Wodland:

By your postings in general, I feel that you are loosing your focus in real issues and are becoming another Nonson. You are now openly attacking other users in a very child like manner, openly anti-American (that is your prerogative) and petty much destroying your image of a very solid and stable individual.

Can you revert back to the well spoken and articulate person that we all enjoyed reading and learning from instead of "paper tiger" that you are turning into?


Oca

[Dr_Woland]

Hello Oca

I am sorry that you feel that way, but cannot agree with you. I've not attacked anyone (except Nonson, in other threads, in "defence") in this thread at all!

I attack US Foreign Policy, but that is a different thing to attacking an individual member of this forum, I think you'll agree? :-)

Have a look at my post? My concern is this, and it's related to what Heather was writing about in another thread.

We glibly use such words as "dictator" to denigrate rulers whom we do not like. However, the word "dictator" has a very specific implication - that of a demagogue who has imposed him/herself upon a population peremptorily, who conducts him/herself without regard to the law, or the wishes of the people he/she claims to represent.

There are many examples of dictators in our present-day world. Pol Pot was one. Saddam Hussein is another. The Military Junta in Myanmar (Burma) is yet another. The leadership in North Korea could be termed thus. HOWEVER, as I pointed-out, Milosevic was returned to power TWICE in democratic elections that were UN-monitored. Lukashenka's re-election last week in Belarus similarly followed monitored elections. There is no suggestion from the monitors that these elections were improper.

We cannot, therefore, correctly call either of these men "a dictator".

NOW!! This brings us to my criticism of President Clinton! On what grounds or basis does Clinton have the right to start calling the Heads of State of other countries "dictator" "tyrant" or any of the other words he used?? They were elected on the same basis as, for example, the leaders of France, Iceland, Turkey, or China.

Now China and Turkey have APPALLING records on human rights. China is KNOWN to have killed, tortured and imprisoned without trial THOUSANDS more people that the total of which Milosevic (rightly) stands accused. Yet when Mr Jiang went to Washington, he was greeted by a smiling Clinton, given a State Banquet, and was rewarded with a Most Favoured Trading Nation status, and a tacit agreement that America would support China's application to join the WTO.

Britain also received Jiang. I don't excuse my own country from blame. But I am equally not arrogant enough to believe that what a small island near Europe thinks or does matters a damn - whereas what America thinks is of critical importance to the whole world.

America holds - as we all know - a hegemonic position in the world. No state, innocent or guilty can afford to fall foul of America's somewhat arbitrary favours. Sudan got bombed - simply because America was sore and wanted someone to bomb. America's never, ever apologised. America bombed Libya, without provocation - no apology for the massive loss of civilian life. And each time, I regret to say, the motivation to lash-out was a result of a US President's difficulties AT HOME.

I put this hypothesis to you.... Clinton knew about Milosevic for YEARS. I was in Kosovo myself TEN YEARS before the conflict, and it was happening THEN. Clinton also blocked the trial of the Pan-Am Lockerbie bombers for legalistic reasons. Within two weeks of the Lewinsky scandal emerging, Clinton had mysteriously dropped all opposition to the Lockerbie trial (what changed after TEN YEARS?), and launched a war against the first enemy he could find.

Slobodan Milosevic was not doing anything in Kosovo in those two weeks, which he had not been doing for the preceding 8 years. But suddenly, it became of great interest to Clinton to have a patriotic war overseas, and Milosevic became a "dictator". The Kosovo actions were USELESS. They did not attack Serbian positions in Kosovo. They attacked Milosevic's own house in Belgrade, proving that all the talk about "saving the Kosovan people" was a heap of hypocritical bull. Clinton didn't send ANY aid to Kosovo for the refugees. Instead he left this job to the UN (for which, as we know, America has not fully paid its membership).

It was left to Albania (one of the poorest nations on earth) to look after the refugees.

To follow-up on Petri's point - let us forget any pretence that NATO is an independent organisation. It is a tool of US Foreign Policy, and at the mercy of events on Capitol Hill.

I can appreciate you may not agree with the interpretation I have put on the events above. But they do not denigrate any member of this forum, and nor did my posts preceding it either :-)

Dr W.

[Nonson]

How in the hell did this 'shader of meanings' come up with something that I agree with completely? One of us must be tired and/or getting old. Peace

[rodneymackinnon]

Dr. W.,
It is my understanding that as soon as Lukashenka took power he removed all trappings of a democratic state. He closed down the nation's largest newspaper for criticizing him. These and other actions classify him in my eyes as a dictator. I am not reading these facts in American papers but from several websites run by Belarussans.. As the Lewinsky scandal almost demonstrated, Clinton can be removed from office if enough senators agree, even for something as politically forgivable as adultery. I agree that US foreign policy towards China is reprehensible, but Lukashenka is a dictator.