Clinton-approved Iranian arms transfers help turn Bosnia into militant Islamic base

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

http://news.suc.org/bydate/2004/September_10/20.html

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

For the full article:

http://news.suc.org/bydate/2004/September_10/20.html

[cwb]

I remember reading about all this from the London Times sometime back around 1999. They even described much of this activity as being as serious as Iran/Contra....but of course, our media completely ignored the international press at the time. What else seems to be evident is that many of these arms also made their way into Chechnya...so I can't imagine Putin was too pleased with this little deal. Of course, he too, can't complain alot considering his deals with Iran.

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

Yes, this just reinforces the fact that Iran has been, and continues to be, a major problem. More importantly, whoever the next president of the US is, Iran is going to have to be dealt with - and in a serious manner. They (Iranians) cause more trouble than any other coutry in the region.

[Hoplite]

This is a seven year old report.

Subsequent events have shown that Bosnia just isn't quite the "militant Islamic base" or danger to US troops it has been portrayed to be in some circles.

[ehoxha]

nice find

also jives with the fact that our troops currently face a number of "graduates" from the Bosnian Jihad in Afgahnistan and Iraq

[ehoxha]

Yup, tell it to our men and women who are risking their lives trying to survive in the face of Bosnian and Kosovo trained Al-Queeda.

Hoplite - your Bosnina buddies gave OBL honorary citizenhsip for C*rist's sake !

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

But there's a lot of people who are not aware of this US Senate report. (That's why the SUC posted it.)

Not everybody is as smart as you are Hoplite (sarcasm).

[Hoplite]

Nor are there a lot of Serbian Freepers aware that events subsequent to its publishing 7 years ago have rendered it nothing more than an example of the triumph of partisan politics over American interests.

Tell me, LR, what exactly has changed in American Foreign policy regarding the Balkans since George Bush has taken office?

Serbian interests, as enunciated by our Serbian Freepers, and American interests, as turned into foreign policy by whatever administration is in office in Washington, do not coincide.

Deal with it.

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

Examples of "triumphs of partisan politics over American interests" are going to naturally occur. It's just a question of who the partisans are an what defines "American interests." For example, the left in this country would view Bill Clinton's impeachment as a "triumph of partisan politics over American interests." (The right would see otherwise.)

The answer to your second question is obvious - all one has to do is consider the events that occurred three years ago this very day (9-11). We all know that the focus of American foreign policy has been (and continues to be) in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more generally in the middle east. The Balkans has not been a burning oval office issue for George Bush.

Your last sentence can be easily generalized by simply replacing the word "Serbian" with "Croatian" or "Hungarian" or "Russian" or "Korean" and so on....In short, you're not saying very much here.

So, how did I "Deal with it?"

[Hoplite]

Yeah, that's it - the 9-11 hijackers were avenging the victims of Arkan rather than acting on Osama's stated goal of bringing America to it's knees in order to get us out of Saudi Arabia.

In short, you can "Deal with it" by developing a realistic worldview. Serbia's wars against her neighbors, where the profit motive of various criminal paramilitaries engaged in ethnic cleansing operations took precedence over any tactical concerns of the Army, and our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we're looking to install democratic regimes, are about as comparable as black and white. Serbia under Milosevic wasn't part of any solution, it was part of the problem.

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

[In short, you can "Deal with it" by developing a realistic worldview....

I do have a "realistic worldview." In fact, I'm quite certain of it.

So, in general terms, Hoplite, just how realistic is your worldview??

Somehow I get the feeling that you deem your view of the world to be more realistic than mine? (Or am I wrong here?)

[Hoplite]

Which one of us is posting 7 year old material?

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

["Which one of us is posting 7 year old material?"]

Okay, as a statistician, I am very pleased to see that we now have a new measure for "realistic worldview." (In other words, you did a nice of avoiding my question.)

[Hoplite]

Au contraire - I see it as being directly relevant to your question.

The material is outdated, and a cursory reading (again) reveals the concerns of the writers haven't been borne out.

Which gets back to you and why you're posting material on which the expiration date has passed.

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

["I see it as being directly relevant to your question.

No (your question is not at all relevant). And, it doesn't get back me and as to why I posted the material.

That is, the points you're trying to make have nothing to do whatsovever with how "realistic" or "unrealistic" (for that matter) my general view of world is.

I would remind you that you wrote that I needed to; "develop (in general) a more realistic worldview." (Right?)

[Hoplite]

Ok, you explain it then.

Why did you post this?

Try to frame your answer in a way that reconciles your up to date knowledge of the situation in Bosnia (part of your worldview, don't you know) with the outdated concerns contained within the material you posted.

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

["Ok, you explain it then. Why did you post this? Try to frame your answer in a way that reconciles....

Hoplite, I'm you sure that understand that your asking me to invest of a bit of time so that I can provide with you the kind of detailed explanation that your looking for.

In all honesty, I simply don't have the kind of time. Thus, why can't the readers (such as yourself) look at the material and reach or draw their own conclusions - just as you did.

If you want to go through the manuscript point by point and make the adjustments (i.e., updates, addendums) that you deem worthy and subsequently post those changes then be all means be my guest.

[Hoplite]

You don't have time?

How convenient.

Just out of curiosity, did you even take the time to read the material before you posted it? I might be working on an incorrect assumption in that regard.

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

Just out of curiosity, did you even take the time to read the material before you posted it? I might be working on an incorrect assumption in that regard.


I read some of it - not all. The article was posted on the SUC (Serbian Unitary Congress) web cite on Sept. 10-th, 2004. In fact, the Sept. 10-th date is actually part of the title.
Now, I assumed that because it was dated Sept.10-th, 2004 that it there would be up to date changes, etc. in the manuscript. That was my thinking.

By the way, I was really being honest when I said I didn't have "time." Kind of like right now I've got to get going.

L.R.