CDZ Imperialism and mass murder or noninterventionism and virtue?

[Tehon]

To anyone who is interested in knowledge, look up my claims about the Haavara Agreement, and do an internet search for "jews declare war on germany in 1933".

There's always a certain type of person interested in that kind of knowledge.

That type of person can sometimes be described as being intellectually honest. That you think there is a type of knowledge that should not be learned is revealing, thank you for being so candid. The knowledge that there are masses of people such as yourself, unwilling to challenge your own beliefs, takes much of the mystery out of the success propaganda has in our society.

Edward Bernays, Propaganda

In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on
public questions and matters of private conduct. In
practice, if all men had to study for themselves the
abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved
in every question, they would find it impossible to
come to a conclusion about anything. We have
voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government
sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so
that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical
proportions. From our leaders and the media they
use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and
the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions;
from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a
favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we
accept a standardized code of social conduct to which
we conform most of the time.

 

[Tehon]

Liminal, then what was the point of making the following statements:

You wrote: "So you don't approve of mass murder. How would you suggest we kill these people? Would it be better if we murdered them one at a time?"

You wrote: "That's quite a list, but it seems incomplete. You missed the time in 1968 when I beat up the kid down the street for stealing my bike"

If you do not advocate American Imperialism and mass murder, then why are you belittling the points about mass murder, and ridiculing the concept of mass murder?

Why are you even commenting here? You still have not answered the two questions, because either you know where they are leading, or you are trolling. Which is it?

I think FIRST -- you need to explain why American intervention in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo are American Imperialism? What did we take? Do we have demands on those countries? Are we taxing them? Installing governors there in the style of the 18th Century Britain?

Might have been misguided to bomb a European capital for 40 days and 40 nights. But it AIN'T "imperialism"..

why do you avoid defending your initial assertions? Can't waste time arguing about American Imperialism as YOU defined it... I think maybe "too much Noam Chomsky" is part of the problem here..

I defended my initial assertions right here:

On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism or imperialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).

However, the 700 or more military bases in other nations, are still physical Imperialism.

For those who are interested in understanding, Read:
'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens to You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins
'A Republic, Not An Empire' by Pat Buchanan
'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' by Gary Allen
'Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq' by Stephen Kinzer

Well that's a sketchy definition. Apply that to Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia interventions.

In this context you must first understand what precipitated the humanitarian situation in the former Yugoslavia. You should try to understand the implications of US policy toward the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Origins of the breakup—a U.S. law/ Control of the purse strings

A year before the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on Nov. 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. This bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would lead to a bloody civil war.

A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previous warning cut off all aid, trade, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within six months. It also ordered separate elections in each of the six republics that make up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. The legislation further required U.S. personnel in all international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut-off policy for all credits and loans.

 

[Liminal]

To anyone who is interested in knowledge, look up my claims about the Haavara Agreement, and do an internet search for "jews declare war on germany in 1933".

There's always a certain type of person interested in that kind of knowledge.

That type of person can sometimes be described as being intellectually honest. That you think there is a type of knowledge that should not be learned is revealing, thank you for being so candid. The knowledge that there are masses of people such as yourself, unwilling to challenge your own beliefs, takes much of the mystery out of the success propaganda has in our society.

Edward Bernays, Propaganda

In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on
public questions and matters of private conduct. In
practice, if all men had to study for themselves the
abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved
in every question, they would find it impossible to
come to a conclusion about anything. We have
voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government
sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so
that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical
proportions. From our leaders and the media they
use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and
the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions;
from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a
favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we
accept a standardized code of social conduct to which
we conform most of the time.

Yes the swastika is very honest.

 

[Liminal]

Blame the victims is a classic tactic of Jews, that is correct.

You evidently have few reasons to continue living. You should draw the appropriate conclusions and act accordingly.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Over half of your 200 million murders in the 20th century can be attributed to Communist countries and another big chunk to WWI which the US tried to stay out of until German sank the Lusitania. The huge number killed during WWII that the US did not start and tried to stay out of until an attack by Imperial Japan.

 

[flacaltenn]

Liminal, then what was the point of making the following statements:

You wrote: "So you don't approve of mass murder. How would you suggest we kill these people? Would it be better if we murdered them one at a time?"

You wrote: "That's quite a list, but it seems incomplete. You missed the time in 1968 when I beat up the kid down the street for stealing my bike"

If you do not advocate American Imperialism and mass murder, then why are you belittling the points about mass murder, and ridiculing the concept of mass murder?

Why are you even commenting here? You still have not answered the two questions, because either you know where they are leading, or you are trolling. Which is it?

I think FIRST -- you need to explain why American intervention in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo are American Imperialism? What did we take? Do we have demands on those countries? Are we taxing them? Installing governors there in the style of the 18th Century Britain?

Might have been misguided to bomb a European capital for 40 days and 40 nights. But it AIN'T "imperialism"..

why do you avoid defending your initial assertions? Can't waste time arguing about American Imperialism as YOU defined it... I think maybe "too much Noam Chomsky" is part of the problem here..

I defended my initial assertions right here:

On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism or imperialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).

However, the 700 or more military bases in other nations, are still physical Imperialism.

For those who are interested in understanding, Read:
'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens to You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins
'A Republic, Not An Empire' by Pat Buchanan
'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' by Gary Allen
'Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq' by Stephen Kinzer

Well that's a sketchy definition. Apply that to Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia interventions.

In this context you must first understand what precipitated the humanitarian situation in the former Yugoslavia. You should try to understand the implications of US policy toward the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Origins of the breakup—a U.S. law/ Control of the purse strings

A year before the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on Nov. 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. This bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would lead to a bloody civil war.

A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previous warning cut off all aid, trade, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within six months. It also ordered separate elections in each of the six republics that make up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. The legislation further required U.S. personnel in all international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut-off policy for all credits and loans.

And how is that Amer. Imperialism to cut off trade and foreign aid to a Central Govt that was prepared to use genocide to keep the Old Yugoslavia together??

Not a UNILATERAL decision either. MANY western nations participated. That's not --- imperialism..

 

[Kalki]

flacaltenn, do you believe America is not an Empire, contrary to all the facts and evidence?

Empires often use their subject nations when going after another kingdom to take as a prize and call it multilateralism, by installing a central bank subject to their own, and adjusting the currency exchange rates.

America has committed the most genocides of any nation in modern times.

 

[Liminal]

Over half of your 200 million murders in the 20th century can be attributed to Communist countries and another big chunk to WWI which the US tried to stay out of until German sank the Lusitania. The huge number killed during WWII that the US did not start and tried to stay out of until an attack by Imperial Japan.

Something in the German mindset fits easily into an authoritarian society. The fact that it manifested itself through Nazism has more to do with an inherent self loathing based on feelings of inadequacy. Amazing how many Nazis turned out to have serious latency issues or outright sexual depravity.

 

[oldsoul]

I never said only America is guilty. This forum is mainly about American politics. I am writing about America in this thread. It is a logic fallacy called 'whataboutery' to imply other people may be guilty too, in a thread on the topic of American Imperialism. If you think the holocaust was wrong because some innocent people died, then the same can be said about what America has done. WWII did not need to happen and the holocaust would not have happened if the bankers in New York City and London and the Jewish International community did not force it to happen. Look up the Haavara Agreement.

Wait, wait wait. I must be reading this wrong. THE JEWS CAUSED THE HOLOCAUST?
Now I know you are delusional.

 

[Kalki]

Oldsoul, everything you know about Nazis and the holocaust was taught to you by Jews. Who hated Hitler the most? Who taught you about Hitler? You have never heard the other side of the story.

"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races...and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jews will exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel...will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition..." -Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy, quoted in Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, p. 574'

"Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later" ('Les Annales', June 1934 by Emil Ludwig.

"Whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur's men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: 'The real reason that boy went to his death, was because Hitler's anti-Semitic movement succeeded in Germany'" (The American Hebrew, July 24, 1942).

"The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end." (Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)

"Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. Israel has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend Israel! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened Israel. And the world will defend us." ('Epitres aux Juifs by Pierre Creange 1938)

"Judea declares War on Germany." (Daily Express, March 24, 1934)

"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany" (Mascha Rjetsch by Valadimir Jabotinsky, January 1934).

 

[Tehon]

Liminal, then what was the point of making the following statements:

You wrote: "So you don't approve of mass murder. How would you suggest we kill these people? Would it be better if we murdered them one at a time?"

You wrote: "That's quite a list, but it seems incomplete. You missed the time in 1968 when I beat up the kid down the street for stealing my bike"

If you do not advocate American Imperialism and mass murder, then why are you belittling the points about mass murder, and ridiculing the concept of mass murder?

Why are you even commenting here? You still have not answered the two questions, because either you know where they are leading, or you are trolling. Which is it?

I think FIRST -- you need to explain why American intervention in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo are American Imperialism? What did we take? Do we have demands on those countries? Are we taxing them? Installing governors there in the style of the 18th Century Britain?

Might have been misguided to bomb a European capital for 40 days and 40 nights. But it AIN'T "imperialism"..

why do you avoid defending your initial assertions? Can't waste time arguing about American Imperialism as YOU defined it... I think maybe "too much Noam Chomsky" is part of the problem here..

I defended my initial assertions right here:

On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism or imperialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).

However, the 700 or more military bases in other nations, are still physical Imperialism.

For those who are interested in understanding, Read:
'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens to You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins
'A Republic, Not An Empire' by Pat Buchanan
'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' by Gary Allen
'Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq' by Stephen Kinzer

Well that's a sketchy definition. Apply that to Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia interventions.

In this context you must first understand what precipitated the humanitarian situation in the former Yugoslavia. You should try to understand the implications of US policy toward the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Origins of the breakup—a U.S. law/ Control of the purse strings

A year before the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on Nov. 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. This bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would lead to a bloody civil war.

A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previous warning cut off all aid, trade, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within six months. It also ordered separate elections in each of the six republics that make up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. The legislation further required U.S. personnel in all international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut-off policy for all credits and loans.

And how is that Amer. Imperialism to cut off trade and foreign aid to a Central Govt that was prepared to use genocide to keep the Old Yugoslavia together??

Not a UNILATERAL decision either. MANY western nations participated. That's not --- imperialism..

There was no genocide taking place and crippling Yugoslavia economically was not the correct decision if one wanted to stop such a genocide from occurring. That policy can only exacerbate tensions, everyone knew it and it did. As I said, in order to understand the conflicts that took place in the former Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia you should understand this as the first step to the neocolonialism that followed with the implementation of the Dayton Accords.
Avalon Project - Dayton Peace Accords
and
Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing Bosnia-Herzegovina
Neocolonial Bosnia
Resting on the Dayton accords, which created a Bosnian “Constitution,” the US and its European allies had installed a full-fledged colonial administration in Bosnia. At its head was their appointed High Representative, Carl Bildt, a former Swedish prime minister and European Union representative in the Bosnian peace negotiations.3 Bildt was given full executive powers in all civilian matters, with the right to overrule the governments of both the Bosnian Federation and the Republika Srpska (Serbian Bosnia). To make the point crystal clear, the Accords spelled out that “the High Representative is the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of the agreements.”4 He is to work with the multinational military implementation force (IFOR) Military High Command as well as with creditors and donors.

The UN Security Council had also appointed a “Commissioner” under the High Representative to run an international civilian police force.5 Irish police official Peter Fitzgerald, with UN policing experience in Namibia, El Salvador, and Cambodia , was to preside over some 1,700 police from 15 countries. Following the signing of the Dayton Accords in November 1995, the international police force was dispatched to Bosnia after a five-day training program in Zagreb 6.

The new “Constitution” included as an Appendix to the Dayton Accords handed the reins of economic policy over to the Bretton Woods institutions and the London based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The IMF was empowered to appoint the first governor of the Bosnian Central Bank, who, like the High Representative, “shall not be a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina or a neighboring State.”7

Under the IMF regency, the Central Bank is not allowed to function as a Central Bank: “For the first six years … it may not extend credit by creating money, operating in this respect as a currency board.”8 Neither was Bosnia to be allowed to have its own currency (issuing paper money only when there is full foreign exchange backing), nor permitted to mobilize its internal resources. Its ability to self-finance its reconstruction through an independent monetary policy was blunted from the outset.

While the Central Bank was in IMF custody, the EBRD heads the Commission on Public Corporations, which supervises since 1996, operations of all public sector enterprises in Bosnia, including energy, water, postal services, telecommunications, and transportation. The EBRD president appoints the commission chair and is in charge of public sector restructuring, i.e., the sell-off of state- and socially-owned assets and the procurement of long-term investment funds.9 Western creditors explicitly created the EBRD “to give a distinctively political dimension to lending.” 10.

As the West proclaimed its support for democracy, actual political power rests in the hands of a parallel Bosnian “state” whose executive positions are held by non-citizens. Western creditors have embedded their interests in a constitution hastily written on their behalf. They have done so without a constitutional assembly and without consultations with Bosnian citizens’ organizations. Their plans to rebuild Bosnia appear more suited to sating creditors than satisfying even the elementary needs of Bosnians. The neocolonization of Bosnia was a logical step of Western efforts to undo Yugoslavia’s experiment in “market socialism” and workers’ self-management and to impose the dictate of the “free market”.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think FIRST -- you need to explain why American intervention in Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo are American Imperialism? What did we take? Do we have demands on those countries? Are we taxing them? Installing governors there in the style of the 18th Century Britain?

Might have been misguided to bomb a European capital for 40 days and 40 nights. But it AIN'T "imperialism"..

why do you avoid defending your initial assertions? Can't waste time arguing about American Imperialism as YOU defined it... I think maybe "too much Noam Chomsky" is part of the problem here..

I defended my initial assertions right here:

On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism or imperialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).

However, the 700 or more military bases in other nations, are still physical Imperialism.

For those who are interested in understanding, Read:
'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens to You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins
'A Republic, Not An Empire' by Pat Buchanan
'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' by Gary Allen
'Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq' by Stephen Kinzer

Well that's a sketchy definition. Apply that to Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia interventions.

In this context you must first understand what precipitated the humanitarian situation in the former Yugoslavia. You should try to understand the implications of US policy toward the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Origins of the breakup—a U.S. law/ Control of the purse strings

A year before the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on Nov. 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. This bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would lead to a bloody civil war.

A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previous warning cut off all aid, trade, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within six months. It also ordered separate elections in each of the six republics that make up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. The legislation further required U.S. personnel in all international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut-off policy for all credits and loans.

And how is that Amer. Imperialism to cut off trade and foreign aid to a Central Govt that was prepared to use genocide to keep the Old Yugoslavia together??

Not a UNILATERAL decision either. MANY western nations participated. That's not --- imperialism..

There was no genocide taking place and crippling Yugoslavia economically was not the correct decision if one wanted to stop such a genocide from occurring. That policy can only exacerbate tensions, everyone knew it and it did. As I said, in order to understand the conflicts that took place in the former Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia you should understand this as the first step to the neocolonialism that followed with the implementation of the Dayton Accords.
Avalon Project - Dayton Peace Accords
and
Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing Bosnia-Herzegovina
Neocolonial Bosnia
Resting on the Dayton accords, which created a Bosnian “Constitution,” the US and its European allies had installed a full-fledged colonial administration in Bosnia. At its head was their appointed High Representative, Carl Bildt, a former Swedish prime minister and European Union representative in the Bosnian peace negotiations.3 Bildt was given full executive powers in all civilian matters, with the right to overrule the governments of both the Bosnian Federation and the Republika Srpska (Serbian Bosnia). To make the point crystal clear, the Accords spelled out that “the High Representative is the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of the agreements.”4 He is to work with the multinational military implementation force (IFOR) Military High Command as well as with creditors and donors.

The UN Security Council had also appointed a “Commissioner” under the High Representative to run an international civilian police force.5 Irish police official Peter Fitzgerald, with UN policing experience in Namibia, El Salvador, and Cambodia , was to preside over some 1,700 police from 15 countries. Following the signing of the Dayton Accords in November 1995, the international police force was dispatched to Bosnia after a five-day training program in Zagreb 6.

The new “Constitution” included as an Appendix to the Dayton Accords handed the reins of economic policy over to the Bretton Woods institutions and the London based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The IMF was empowered to appoint the first governor of the Bosnian Central Bank, who, like the High Representative, “shall not be a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina or a neighboring State.”7

Under the IMF regency, the Central Bank is not allowed to function as a Central Bank: “For the first six years … it may not extend credit by creating money, operating in this respect as a currency board.”8 Neither was Bosnia to be allowed to have its own currency (issuing paper money only when there is full foreign exchange backing), nor permitted to mobilize its internal resources. Its ability to self-finance its reconstruction through an independent monetary policy was blunted from the outset.

While the Central Bank was in IMF custody, the EBRD heads the Commission on Public Corporations, which supervises since 1996, operations of all public sector enterprises in Bosnia, including energy, water, postal services, telecommunications, and transportation. The EBRD president appoints the commission chair and is in charge of public sector restructuring, i.e., the sell-off of state- and socially-owned assets and the procurement of long-term investment funds.9 Western creditors explicitly created the EBRD “to give a distinctively political dimension to lending.” 10.

As the West proclaimed its support for democracy, actual political power rests in the hands of a parallel Bosnian “state” whose executive positions are held by non-citizens. Western creditors have embedded their interests in a constitution hastily written on their behalf. They have done so without a constitutional assembly and without consultations with Bosnian citizens’ organizations. Their plans to rebuild Bosnia appear more suited to sating creditors than satisfying even the elementary needs of Bosnians. The neocolonization of Bosnia was a logical step of Western efforts to undo Yugoslavia’s experiment in “market socialism” and workers’ self-management and to impose the dictate of the “free market”.

STILL --- not "american imperialism".. It was a Global effort to get a more peaceful dissolution of Yugoslavia..

Don't really need to review the history. Assume that I know it. YOU need to explain what "EMPIRE" was asserted or what "mass murders" occurred by the hand of US. --- ....... as asserted in the OP..

What you're missing here is that the WORLD needs leadership as well. We might agree how MISGUIDED some our "leadership" was ---- Lord knows, I AM embarrassed by some of our exploits.. But it was NEVER DONE for purposes of "imperialism"... I assign the mistakes to arrogance, stupidity, and incompetence. Not any organized plan to EXPLOIT the results economically..

 

[Kalki]

A similar tactic was done in Ukraine by International Finance.

 

[Kalki]

Tehon, it is a pleasure to see someone who is actually informed on something they write about. This is rare. Most people in the West just resort to one liner insults and demonstrate they know almost nothing.

 

[Tehon]

A similar tactic was done in Ukraine by International Finance.

It works......unfortunately.

On a side note, thanks for pointing me to The Greatest Story Never Told. A real eye opener.

 

[flacaltenn]

A similar tactic was done in Ukraine by International Finance.

So you're changing the subject from American Imperialism to International Finance? Why no answer to my question about how Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo was American Imperialism?

 

[Kalki]

Tehon, it was my pleasure. I only wish everyone could open their eyes to the facts about history. I am moved to meet you, because I almost never see people who are capable of being objective and questioning the foundation of their belief systems.

 

[Kalki]

A similar tactic was done in Ukraine by International Finance.

So you're changing the subject from American Imperialism to International Finance? Why no answer to my question about how Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo was American Imperialism?

Tehon did a splendid job of that. If you don't understand what Tehon wrote, then read 'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens To You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh. Then, read 'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by G. Edward Griffin. Then look up the Bretton Woods Conference, Harry Dexter White, and the IMF, and ponder it in relation to what Tehon already mentioned; Lingbergh predicted that would happen but it was one war later.

International Finance is the head of American Imperialism. Your politicians answer to International Finance headquartered in New York City.

 

[Tehon]

What you're missing here is that the WORLD needs leadership as well. We might agree how MISGUIDED some our "leadership" was ---- Lord knows, I AM embarrassed by some of our exploits.. But it was NEVER DONE for purposes of "imperialism"... I assign the mistakes to arrogance, stupidity, and incompetence. Not any organized plan to EXPLOIT the results economically..

But it was NEVER DONE for purposes of "imperialism"...

I don't believe that for a second.
For me it is a foregone conclusion that business interests dominate American government and have for a very long time. I don't believe foreign policy decisions are based on "democratic" principles. We live in a capitalist society where foreign policy decisions are generally made based on economics and then given a veneer to assuage the population. The CIA coups that took place in Guatemala and Chile are excellent examples if you care to study them. And then there is the first civilian director of the CIA and corporate lawyer, Allan Dulles, who oversaw these coups. Were you aware of his partnership in Sullivan Cromwell?

Sullivan & Cromwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is an international law firm headquartered in New York. It gained notoriety for its impact on international affairs, and for the benefits accrued to its corporate clients by decisions of its alumni, the brothers Allen (CIA Director) and John (US Secretary of State) Dulles.[1][2]

 

[protectionist]

read 'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens To You After the War

How about if you answer my question from 3 days ago, and state why you think the US is at war in Afghanistan ?