Posted July 3, 2003

Regarding "The Serbian Lincoln?" by Nebojsa Malic:

Wow, this piece reads like a 180 degree turnaround of all the past Yugoslavia history that has passed through this board over the last several years. It's almost like reading the (expected) memoirs of Holbrooke in his (one-sided) interpretation of that recent Balkan tragedy. My take on the events there starting in the early '90s is that the Serbs and their leadership were clearly demonized and were the target of a concerted program of propaganda to create a world view (at least for the U.S. public's consumption) of sympathy for the Croatians, Muslims in Bosnia and the Albanian expansionists/ secessionists in Kosovo and Macedonia (subsequently) that was initiated to justify US/ NATO's blatant aggression on that sovereign country and its citizens. Recall the cry to bomb Belgrade: the Serbs are killing 100,000 ethnic Albanians, and the so-called Raczak massacre, etc.

After the one-sided "war", and the claim to uncover dozens of massacre sites with the use of forensic experts from many western nations – surprise, surprise – "there is nothing here (not a shred of evidence of any such massacres having occurred)" stated by one such expert from Spain. (It kind of sounds ... like our recent "adventure" in Iraq – where are the WMDs? – in justification of the attack on that sovereign country. Another oddity: how come we never heard once of any Serb attack on any NATO or US occupier in Kosovo, Macedonia, and elsewhere in the Balkans – in contrast to the occupation troops in Iraq today?)

How does this background info connect to the subject of Malic's piece? It is my sense that Milosevic had a very strong (correctly-so) belief that the media demonization against his people was so powerful and effective; and lacking any meaningful Serbian-American support in the US (as was a reality with the Albanians, both in money and volunteers joining the KLA), he realized there was no chance of anybody coming to Yugoslavia's aid: vocally, money-wise or militarily. Indeed, had the Russians so much as lifted their eyebrows against the US/ NATO's involvement in the Balkans at that time, I would bet the civil war and the Croat/ Bosnian/ Kosovo machinations there would have been a nonevent – amazingly in contrast to the truly horrible goings-on in Africa in those years.

Interestingly, had Milosevic held on a little more during that bombing period (it appeared more countries were becoming sympathetic to the Serbs), had the US committed ground troops and lost some with bodybags returning home, history might have been altered to the Serbs' advantage. Maybe. But then again, recall the bombing TV target success of Belgrade's only source of media rebuttal? How else could SM respond than to seek the best he could win in negotiations?

Finally, how ironic Malic's depiction of Milosevic as a conciliator (than an aggressive political fighter), while he incarcerates in prison accused of "war crimes"? ...

~ Pyotr K.

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Well, as I said, it's high time for some revisionism, especially given the extraordinary percentage of outright lies in the current perception of the Balkans. Your questions are very pertinent, and I'll try to answer them concisely.

Though Iraq is almost as sectarian as Bosnia, most of its Arabs loathe the occupation, and as a result, many fight it. In the Balkans, many Muslims, Croats and Albanians actually support the occupation, to the extent their leaders believe it could further their goals. So if any Serbs were to (hypothetically) revolt, they would have to fight them as well as the Imperial troops. One doesn't have to have read Sun Tzu to realize those are some really long odds. On top of that, there just aren't enough Serbs in Kosovo to do anything but survive. Though the occupation is killing the Serbs softly, if Imperial troops reverted to their original posture and let the KLA do as it pleases again, there would be no Serbs left in Kosovo after a week.

Secondly, please note that I did not refer to Milosevic as conciliatory. He was an appeaser, which is quite different. In 1992, that course made some sense, because the US and the UN could still be viewed as trustworthy. By 1995 and Dayton, that notion was seriously doubtful. By 1998, even Milosevic should have realized that he'd been tricked twice before – and yet he fell for the same trick again, with the 'Chernomyrdin-Ahtisaari' plan. I will save the further explanations for future columns, but I hope I've answered some of your questions.

Regarding Candice Proctor's letter posted June 27:

Candice Proctor, in her letter responding to Justin Raimondo's "Empire of Liberty?" has given an excellent summary of the spirit of the history of the United States. My only disagreement with her is that the American Revolution was only ostensibly fought over economic matters or as Dr. Thomas Woods would like us to have it, the opposition between tradition and Parliamentary legal positivism.

The various tax acts affected primarily the relatively small manufacturing/ commercial sector of the American Colonies. The majority of the population were farmers and most of them had no quarrel with them.

No, the real cause of the Revolution that galvanized and united the colonists (farmer and merchant, banker and manufacturer) was the prejudice and bigotry of nonconformist preachers, like Jonathan Mayhew and Ezra Stiles built on 150 years of colonial anti-Catholicism. In other words, the Parliamentary Act which excited them to fury was the Quebec Act of June 1774, which allowed legal rights to French Catholics in Quebec including the practice of their religion. In the Suffolk County Resolves of September 1774, Article X was filled with anti-Catholic
sentiments, and called for action to preserve the liberties of Protestant Christians in the Colonies. Within two weeks, the Resolves were confirmed by the First Continental Congress and late in 1775, Benedict Arnold led a force against the Catholics in Quebec, but failed.

That old Freemason, Benjamin Franklin, in conversation with several British friends affiliated with the Government, told them the tax acts were negotiable, the Quebec Act was absolutely unacceptable to the colonists. Cardinal Gasquet, the early 20th century Benedictine historian, and Professor Van Tyne acknowledge, from their studies, that the primary motive for revolution was religious prejudice and they flatly state that the tax acts were secondary causes or pretexts.

Its too bad there are not more teachers like Candice.

~ Jerry C. Meng

10,000 Nuclear Triggers?

I am on a one woman crusade (to use George Bush's lingo) to stop the DOE from building the new proposed nuclear trigger facility. I am providing a link to a story about the 2-4 billion dollar mistake our government is quietly trying to build. Here is the link to a recent article outlining the plans.

I first heard of this in the fall of 2002 when I was traveling through Carlsbad and saw the story on the front page of the newspaper. I contacted some media sources and they said quote "It is not the political climate right now for a story like this due to the impending war with Iraq." Well, the war is over and I feel it is time for everyone to hear about the trigger plant and voice our objections loudly.

We have until April of 2004 to stop this lunacy! Los Alamos already provides more than enough of these "spheres" to blow us all to kingdom come, so why do we need more? ...

~ Lisa G., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Regarding "Casualties in Iraq: The Human Costs of Occupation" by Mike Ewens:

Do you know of any research into the number of civilian deaths caused by US forces since World War II? Any suggestions of where to find this info would be very helpful.

~ Phil Broek

Mike Ewens replies:

I don't think you will ever find "casualties caused by US forces." There were many armies and nations fighting on each side, so tallying whose bomb or bullet caused what seems a daunting task.

I did find a list of World War II civilian deaths on Google: http://www.stokesey.demon.co.uk/wwii/casualty.html.

Remember, when you have a question... Google it!

I see that you updated the Casualties in Iraq page at 3 in the morning and thought it was time to send my thanks. I have visited Antiwar.com everyday for months and wanted to let you know that I appreciate the work all of you do on this website. I have no money to send to support this page but would if I had any. Please keep up the good work in keeping us informed since our press won't.

~ LL

Mike Ewens replies:

Thank you for the email. It was actually 12am my time when that was updated (we post Eastern Standard Time and I am on Pacific time), so I won't take credit for being up that late.

Regarding "The Road Map" by Justin Raimondo:

I feel like yelling, "Yippee" because, as you've been skirting around the truth of the issue so far, you finally hit the nail on the head with regard to how the US is really playing Israel. The only other site that has expressed this same feeling has been Emperor's Clothes (http://tenc.com/). Not that I like the likes of Robertson, who presumes to know the mind of God. But the truth you said, that the US will try to force Israel to accept the so-called "road map" so that it can take full control Israel as well as the Palestinians, which will lead to disaster for the US (as well as an end to US imperialism?), is right on the mark. You are right, and there WILL BE US troops in Israel!

I can't wait to see how the dispensationalists read that one!

Thanks for this timely article.

~ Deborah Lagarde

Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:

I don't know about US troops in Israel, but that there'll be US troops in Palestine seems like a pretty good bet (CIA advisors are already there).

I have to admit, though, that I got my previous prediction – that the US would plant wmd in Iraq – wrong (so far, at least). I still can't figure out why that hasn't happen. Too many BBC reporters around perhaps?

A National Lottery for President

William F. Buckley once said that the would rather be governed by the first hundred names in the New Haven Connecticut phone book than by the faculty at Yale, and I personally feel that a motorcycle gang could have run our foreign policy as good or better than the present occupants of the White House, so I’ve come up with what I think is a working solution. My idea is a national lottery.

Anybody that wants to can have their name submitted and they are assigned a number, then a computer randomly chooses a number between one and however many people there are who are in the contest, and the winner becomes president and forms a government. The only qualifications would be that a contest applicant would have to be at least twenty one, a citizen of the United States, not be incarcerated, and never have been convicted of a violent crime.

This would give us a vast pool of people to pick from, and then as a nation we would vote on whether or not the president is doing a good job. We could phone in, like on American Idol, for example if you want to continue President Morgan Fairchild’s government, press one, if you want the government dissolved and have another drawing, press two, or you could vote on the Internet. Of course we wouldn’t vote all the time, only every six months or whatever.

I think this would work as good as spending God knows how many million every four years to elect the same type of corporate stuffed shirts.

~ William Clough, Carrollton, Illinois

Regarding Pledge Week:

I am happy to write you to say thanks for doing all you do. I've checked out some of the other news sites on the net and you are by far the most comprehensive. Thank you so much for your contribution to the world. You are invaluable to us.

Regarding your pledge week, it was and still is my intention to send you a contribution; however, we're still trying to get on our feet here ourselves. I have an envelope ready to go and will soon send something though. You have many, many supporters though, and I am very happy that so many have stepped up to the plate to help. You deserve it, all of you, for all your hard work. I am relieved to know you're staying online. And I still have my little envelope ready to go for when we get some money to send you. Just thought you'd like to know.

~ Deidre M. Arizona

Associate Editor Mike Ewens replies:

Thank you for the email and kind words. Don't stress over making a pledge – just keep reading the site!

Regarding Alex Chaihorsky's letter posted June 27:

I agree with Alex Chaihorsky berating anonymous cowards appearing on Antiwar.com. I sincerely hope that he is the Real McCoy libertarian and not just Russian Neocon making a list and checking it twice (for Armageddon purposes)! I for one lived for twenty years under communist regime in former Czechoslovakia and can appreciate the "unpleasantnesses" of being "noticed" by authorities. Would that be where our societies are heading? Be it as it may, your site for all its shortcomings still remains a beacon of free thinking based on higher principles of humanity and occasional misfires as Justin's reading of US history in "EMPIRE OF LIBERTY" are exceptions, rather than rules.

As for myself, I have always been (since I was a kid) admirer of United States and its people, even as I had learned throughout my adolescence of most of the flaws in creation of this great nation. The documents created by a handful of visionaries – US Constitution and Bill of Rights guaranteed, that throughout the history there always will be enough people with courage to point out those flaws and demand corrections. Present actions of the US government is case in point. Thanks for what you're doing for people like myself (former member of lunch bucket brigade), seeking answers in this confused world in constant spin! I am sending my humble contribution (wish my name was Rockefeller)!

~ Frank Bousek, Ontario, Canada

Regarding "The Culture of Imperialism" by Justin Raimondo:

The U.S. refuses to allow inspection of its nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare arsenals, or to destroy the nuclear warheads it now possesses. Without inspection and destruction of America's weapons of mass destruction, the world cannot be safe. Who knows, the US might strike at any nation that displeases it.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that Washington 'reserves the right' to overthrow all regimes it considers a danger. As for terrorism, the US has sponsored terrorist groups in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba, El Salvador, Congo, Nicaragua, Angola, Sudan, and Indonesia. The US tried to assassinate Egypt's president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Iran's Islamic leadership, Khadaffi in Libya. Nearly every one of America's wars were for some kind of trade advantage or money or for territory or oil! My God, how many wars have been fought in the name of freedom?

~ Ted Rudow III, MA, California

Perception of US citizens abroad

I am a regular reader of your site and a very small donor. A Swiss citizen from Iranian father and I have lived in many parts of the world.

I would like to draw your attention to a fact, of which maybe you are already aware of, and this is the image of Americans as a whole in Western Europe or Middle-East.

Already under Clinton era the American citizens were perceived as arrogant and not very friendly towards the people and the country they were living in. I used to witness by my own eyes the way that Mexicans, Taiwanese, Chinese or Russians were considered by Americans and this is not based on reported tales.

The image is getting worse since G. W. Bush managed to get to power with 200,000 less votes. Living in a country with a long tradition of direct democracy this was really shocking. Since all US media (notably CNN) give an image of the Americans being blindly Patriotic, without any doubt about their good deeds in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have the impression that all the Americans are the same.

In fact to most people here the sentence "USA is becoming a NAZI state" comes often to their mouth and when we compare the ways the NAZI did and what the US governement is currently doing, the sentence seems to be true.

My question is: how can you address this issue, and demonstrate that American people are not all Bush followers and maybe a majority of people are against him?

I lived and have relatives and friends in the US and everybody confirms that the majority of Americans are not as bad as they are currently depicted.

~ Amin M., Switzerland

Michael Ewens replies:

Thank you for the email. I understand the prevalence negative image of America. The only counter to it is remembering that the American State – not the American people – is to blame for most of the problems. Yes, we elected Bush (by a small margin), but the accountability once in office is completely non-existent. Likewise, what Bush was elected for – humble foreign policy and small government – has been ignored for "security purposes."

The negative image of America, which I believe is an outgrowth of the government's interventionist foreign policy, was the main impetus behind the attacks on 9/11. Unfortunately, the 19 men who flew planes into the Twin Towers equated the crimes of the American State with innocent citizens. Therefore, it is crucial that the distinction is made between the citizens and the State.

We try our best to do that here at Antiwar.com by demonstrating the administration's ignorance of American tradition and law, in the hopes of revealing the true source of animosity towards America. Beyond this, I only can only suggest you also try to make that distinction with others.

I hope that this answers your question.

Preaching to the Choir

David Batlle: Most of the stuff in your Backtalk is self-congratulatory. In cases where it's not, you respond to poorly reasoned or softball posts. Show some backbone for a change.

Mike Ewens: I partially agree. However, this is because I think the "poor reasoning" stems from the pro-war position itself, not the specific minds who are emailing us. No matter, if you believe we are filtering the "hardballs," then throw me one... I am more than ready.

DB: Great. I have, but no matter.

However, your format itself invites this trend. Let me explain why. It's because you feel the need to respond and win; the result is that you'll only post the ones you feel you can refute, and delete the hardball posts you can't.

I suggest you just post intelligent posts, regardless of their ideology, without feeling the need to respond. That way you'll overcome the temptation to delete hardball posts (that you can't successfully refute).

Without that, your Backtalk will continue to be just more self-congratulatory preaching to the choir, and boring.

ME: How do you know that we don't post ones that we don't win? Every single email that I respond to which discusses a new argument and topic – hateful and otherwise – has been posted on Backtalk. You think that you understand the workings of Backtalk, but clearly you do not. Sam does a wonderful job editing our letters, which usually involves sending the best (no, that doesn't mean the weakest) arguments to editors such as myself. I make an effort to respond to every single one.

DB: And no, I don't accept the premise that being "pro-war" (your term, not mine) invites poor reasoning. That premise in itself is college freshman shallow (my term).

ME: Perhaps it was a little shallow, but I have yet to be presented a well-reasoned argument in support of the war. Moreover, you generalization of a process you have ignorance of is itself a shallow premise. ...

Sam Koritz: What happened here is that Mr. Batlle sent commentary to Backtalk and then, a few days later, seeing that his message had not yet been posted sent in another message accusing us of ducking his criticism.