The End Of Sovereignty : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The End Of Sovereignty

By Exegesis 4-18-99

With this edition, this column celebrates its fourth birthday, and my, how it has grown! Thanks to our devoted readers, this small soapbox has grown into a podium from which to share observations about the onward march of history. Thank you so much for your encouragement, guidance and comments. We are celebrating with a double length edition.

When we began, I'll admit I was naive. I thought Republicans and Democrats were opposites. I still had faith in justice, politics, the electoral system, the integrity of the British Royal Family and the sovereignty of nations. I believed that politicians really intended to keep their promises. I no longer believe any of those things. It isn't that I've become cynical: cynicism is skepticism without knowledge. Rather, I now know how things work. I now understand almost all politicians are actors, some more polished than others, who play different roles in a worldwide repertory company owned and operated by a surprisingly few multinational business leaders. And the leading actor, he who remains in the White House despite all the odds, has ensured that we have not lacked for stories. He has never disappointed us: he has gone from bad to worse, from mischievous playboy to demonic tyrant.

Above all, these four years have confirmed two trends: first, a considerable acceleration of the pace at which Western nations are discarding the sanctity of national sovereignty in their unseemly rush toward a global government for which there seems to be little popular support; and secondly, the systematic hypnotization of the American people into an Orwellian trance, never better illustrated than in the current rash of propaganda about the bombing of Yugoslavia: "War brings Peace! Killing is the way to save people. Ignorance is Strength! Freedom is Slavery!" Ah yes, and at Clinton's Animal Farm, some animals are most definitely more equal than others: indeed, some are still alive, but others are not; some are wealthy, others are neglected; some are intimidated, yet others tell the truth.

According to the governments participating in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the justification for this military operation is to stop the "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo, never mind that the West ignored it in Bosnia, Tibet, Rwanda and elsewhere.

It is said that Kosovo is seeking independence from Yugoslavia, a sovereign nation which has not attacked or threatened any of its neighbors. Maybe so, but what differentiates it from Chechnya, Scotland or the Palestinians? Are we going to bomb Moscow, London and Jerusalem too? Shall we bomb Istanbul and Athens in protest at the Cyprus problem? Shall we bomb Ottawa to help the cause of Quebec? How about bombing China to free Tibet?

Amnesty International's 1998 Report describes one nation where torture and racial abuse and aggravated sexual abuse by the police is common, as well as ill-treatment of immigrants, the use of chemical sprays against non-violent demonstrators, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in prisons, including rape and sexual assault of female prisoners, and racially motivated prosecutions. The same nation is described in the 1998 report of Human Rights Watch: they refused to ratify several human rights treaties, obstructed the development of international human rights, and used assault vehicles and chemical weapons against its civilian population, including women and children.

Shall we bomb that nation too? And which nation are the reports describing? You guessed it: it's the United States of America. Are we going to bomb ourselves too?

This is a civil war, though the occupant of the White House, whom other NATO nations seem reluctant to criticize, has led the Western world into a ferocious assault on the pretext of a humanitarian right and duty to intervene in that civil war. The excuse is flimsy and the real truth lies elsewhere. If the bombing of Yugoslavia has removed most other stories from the newspapers and electronic media, who benefits? If the American people have been seduced into forgetting about Chinese espionage, the serial rapist in the Oval Office, and more scandals than anyone can mention, who benefits? Which American companies are being hired to rebuild Yugoslavia's infrastructure? Who will benefit financially from that?

Militarily, enormous miscalculations were made. The White House erroneously believed that the Yugoslav military would shy away from a confrontation, and that President Milosevic would back down at the last moment. As a result of this incorrect assumption, the NATO countries maintained their hyperbole, but failed to match it with military preparations. They believed their own rhetoric, but Yugoslavia did not.

They also wrongly believed that Yugoslavia would surrender after a few bombing raids. In fact, every bomb has strengthened Slobodan Milosevic's position. He is now supported even by his political enemies and those who had previously campaigned against him. Like Bill Clinton, just 25% of Yugoslav people voted for him, but, thanks to the Clintonesque blunder, he is now supported almost universally. And finally, as the folks in the White House, The Pentagon and NATO headquarters were issuing sinister threats to Yugoslavia, they were simultaneously reassuring their own publics that the bombing raids would be limited and very specific. They even named the targets they would hit. Apparently they forgot that Milosevic watches CNN too.

The cost of Mr. Clinton's latest and greatest folly is beyond calculation in every other way. In financial terms, it is enormous, and has disposed of any US budget surplus there may have been. In military terms, it has further depleted the United States' stock of ordnance, especially Cruise missiles. In terms of the diminution of America's national stature, Mr. Clinton has dragged his nation down to his own sordid level: he is a self-confessed liar and deceiver and now a murderer too. Most importantly, in human terms, it has been catastrophic. America and its reluctant allies have brought death and destruction to innocent people, the scars of which will take decades to heal. How many have died as a result of Mr. Clinton's war? Shall we just add these few thousand to the body count, or do they deserve a special category of their own?

So let's get some perspective. The war was started unilaterally by a discredited, impeached President, devoid of any moral authority and of dubious sanity, a proven liar, held in contempt, who has bombed a sovereign nation which has never remotely threatened the United States or any of its allies or interests.

He is supported in this gross abuse of International Law by his idiotic left-hand puppet and sidekick, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who frankly, should know better. Mr. Clinton's aggression was not authorized or recommended by the Constitution, by the United Nations, by Congress or even by his own military advisers. He has tried to justify the wholesale slaughter of innocent people as a "moral imperative". What utter nonsense. Is he giving himself a pep talk? All he has done is united a divided Yugoslavia behind President Milosevic and ensured that US troops have sort out the mess he has created.

Mr. Clinton's war is costing $40 million a day, so we won't expect to hear any more blather about the cost of Kenneth Starr's investigation. And maybe it will continue until the threat of exposure of Chinese espionage inside the White House is deemed to have passed.

No matter what the results on the ground, at the very moment when Mr. Clinton's business allies and masters decide they have all the rebuilding contracts they can handle for a while, and presumably when his Swiss bank account has been sufficiently replenished, he will suddenly order the bombing stopped, declare victory and hail himself as a hero, ordering the ludicrous US media to join in the sycophantic applause. Perhaps he'll arrange a tickertape parade for himself down Fifth Avenue. As the rest of the world already knows, he is, of course, quite insane.

One of our most reliable sources in Yugoslavia reports that John Heard, formerly a major in the US Army, who now serves as the Macedonia country manager for the U.S. energy, services and construction group, Brown & Root Services company, said that "the U.S. Army had instructed him to build a military infrastructure in Macedonia that can operate for three to five years." Brown & Root is a subsidiary of the Dallas-based Halliburton Company, which has a five-year, almost $1 billion "life cycle management" contract to support the US Army in the region.

Is it possible that all the death and destruction has been created simply to divert attention from other scandals, to make Mr. Clinton look like the presidential timber he has never been? Is it to line the pockets of the American companies which will rebuild the devastated bridges and buildings? It is all the above and much more: it is an effort to impose an international 'new world order' on even those who prefer not to participate. It was actually Tony Blair who, writing in Newsweek this week, spelled out the real agenda. He called for a "new internationalism" in which the world never again tolerates the repression of an ethnic group by a dictator struggling to remain in power. Sovereignty becomes irrelevant.

So the concept of the nation state is superseded by the New World Order. If they can't get their way by persuasion, they will use bombs. Sorry about the "collateral damage". Mr. Blair goes on to suggest that NATO's action in Yugoslavia could be a model for future international relations: "This is a conflict we are fighting not for territory but for values, for a new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated, for a world where those responsible for such crimes have nowhere to hide. We are fighting for a world where dictators are no longer able to visit horrific punishments on their own peoples in order to stay in power." It may be an idealistic and even well-intentioned notion. The only obstacle is the concept of the sovereign nation state. If the principle is established that nations may intervene in the business of other sovereign states to halt conduct they dislike, we have arrived at a world government, where nations conduct their affairs only at the behest and sufferance of socialist do-gooders who will bomb them if they digress from their arbitrary standards.

Perhaps the real point is the utter duplicity of the world community as represented by the leaders of the "new world order", i.e. Bill Clinton and those who pull his strings. The atrocities committed in China, just to mention one of many nations, are far worse than anything seen in Yugoslavia. Yet they have been given unlimited access to America's top military secrets, freedom to roam the White House and various government departments, and even encouraged to build an air base less than 50 miles from Washington!

The most difficult dilemma confronts us when we try to see the current Balkan War in Christian terms. On one hand, how can killing people ever be right? On the other hand, if we see people being hurt and killed, have we not a moral duty to try to stop it? Alas, we have the worst of both worlds. The killings have not been stopped, and we have killed thousands more by trying to do so. Does it matter that we are killing people in order to save them? It not only matters greatly, it is insane, criminal and absolutely tyrannical.

The China story hides many well-known personalities who press China's case like George Bush, Henry Kissinger and, interestingly Sandy Berger, who currently serves as National Security Adviser. As "Heads Up" reports, prior to joining the Clinton Administration, Berger practiced law with the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson, where he was a partner and director of the firm's international trade group, specifically dealing with the trade office of the Chinese Government.

We know the White House is desperately trying to keep the lid on the Cox Report into Chinese espionage at the highest levels of the US Government. We know that the National Security Adviser has recently been a paid lobbyist for the Chinese Government, that he authorized the sale to China of America's most sophisticated satellite and missile technology, that Chinese spies were allowed to steal the United States' most sensitive secrets, and that the Chinese donated millions to keep Mr. Clinton in office. Might those be the reasons why they wish to conceal the report? And not for the first time, we are left to wonder exactly whose interests Mr. Clinton and his cronies are representing, and where this will all lead.

To nobody's surprise, Mr. Clinton was held in Contempt of Court this week. The word suits him: he has contempt for the law, for the Constitution he swore to protect and for human life. He has been ruthless and profane. He is a charlatan without a conscience who dismisses hundreds of civilian deaths as "regrettable but inevitable", without a second thought. There are already so many descriptions attached to Mr. Clinton. Only two need now be added: ruthless war criminal and mass murderer.

Hundreds of innocent people are dying, losing limbs, loved ones, homes and livelihoods as a result. In one sense, it indeed creates a diversion and secures contracts for American companies. But in a greater sense, it is part of the great scenario of the End Times described in Matthew 24: "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom." (Matthew 24: 6-7). Note the phrase: "such things must happen". And if you think that's bad, look and see what happens next!

-- Andy (, April 19, 1999


Calm down, I could give you 50 paper written by College professors reporting US coorperate onslaught on humanity. Seems the US/UK want to colonize the rest of the world.

Come on back to Y2K for a couple of days.

-- R. Wright (, April 19, 1999.

Andy, Andy, Andy ... this would fit right in in the The Government of the United States Greenspun forum. Everyone else here can see that too, Andy. Why don't you just give it a try?


Off-topic. OT. Off-topic. Not even a whisper of an attempt to suggest a Y2k connection.

-- No Spam Please (, April 19, 1999.

Ya know No Spam,

You call this off topic, your current mantra-du-jour it seems.

I've been reading every post lately, and what do I find, you always pop up like my friend Prairie Dog, maybe I should refer to you in future as MEERKAT, however my point is that there are many many posts that I would consider off topic.

Now do I harass those posters? - no.

Do YOU harass those posters? - no.

Yet they are off topic according to YOUR rules Meerkat.

That makes you a class one hypocrite.

And by the way, the amount of bandwidth you took up over the last two days about the UN Court Martial was eminently OFF TOPIC my old son, it was also enough to power a Cray Supercomputer for a day or two.

Later, Your problem is that you're not taking any meds.

I would start drinking some beer (Guiness) if i were you and mellow out.


-- Andy (, April 19, 1999.


When you, by far the most prolific off-topic thread-starter, start abiding by the rules of engagement, then I'll move on.

-- No Spam Please (, April 19, 1999.

Spam and Andy,

It's not off topic. It's just....Goddam they piss me off, and I'd like to hear about things other than anticorpgov subject.

-- R. Wright (, April 19, 1999.

"and I'd like to hear about things other than anticorpgov subject."

So would I but when it is so BLATANT I'm gonna post on it. feel free to digitally walk on by.

-- Andy (, April 19, 1999.

And MEERKAT, you can kiss my ass - NATZI.

-- Andy (, April 19, 1999.

My answer in response to another thread's question on the relevance of this post:-

"Thank you Sue, A little more civil than my erstwhile friend Meerkat. Yep it's a pain in the ass what is going on - talk of the draft, reserves being called up, talk on this forum for a long time about mock invasions in Monterrey and Texas, talk of a 200,000 strong invasion task force, talk of nukes on the forum.

So what does all this have to do with y2k - superficially not a lot, other than the possibility of other disputes breaking out elsewhere in the world other than Yugoslavia, thereby stretching the depleted military to perhaps a position of impotence, and what of y2k itself if it hits hard with the majority of those who would have been deployed in the USA off on foreign soil. You believe this has nothing to do with y2k? So what has been talked about on the forum by many people over all these months is off topic and not relevant? Dig a little deeper and you'll find that the y2k card is VERY relevant in this context. The threads are out there if you are interested.

I disagree with you and Meerkat on this point. So can you. Just walk on digitally by. Ignore this topic if you believe it's not relevant. Many believe it IS relevant as I'm getting a lot of private correspondence attesting to this.

Are we going to have censorship on this forum?

Is that what it's coming to?

Where do we draw the line?

Look at recent posts - Joke lists circulating (two or three) - Circuses (two Yourdon ones) - Rats - One Act Plays... Plenty more where these came from...

You get my drift.

Are these y2k related? - I say yes! Why the hell not? The forum is constantly eveolving.

What happens if a suitcase nuke goes off in Des Moines - will this be talked about on the forum? you betcha. Will it be y2k relevant - again - you betcha. Why? Apart from the obvious, to see how the agencies cope, FEMA, the military, water, power - the whole gamut.

y2k encompasses ALL facets of modern life - you and Meerkat would wish to compartmentalise it to fit your preconceived notions.

That's a little arrogant don't you think?

Let's just agree to differ Sue."

-- Andy (, April 19, 1999.

As for the Censorship straw-man argument you keep raising: Will you acknowledge that you've been informed on multiple occasions that there is at least one other Greenspun forum where your topics would be on-topic? Moving them there would satisfy me. I don't suggest that your postings be suppressed -- I just want them posted where they belong.

-- No Spam Please (, April 19, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ