“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Tuesday, April 02, 2013

Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and next Iran? How did these illegal and undeclared US wars become so common?

I found this article about the Russian view on the illegal US war against Yugoslavia. Had Ron Paul been listened to at that time and Congress exercised its constitutional duties, mush of the dismal history of the past 17 years could have been avoided. Instead we have the unstable and deranged John Kerry running in the footsteps of Hilary Clinton, bound and determined to get us involved in the wreck and carnage of Syria and ultimately in a war with Iran:

How could Russia have reacted to USA's aggression against Yugoslavia?

"We should have considered the issue of the American aggression against Yugoslavia in the Security Council, and to should have created a court together with other countries. Clark and Albright should have been held criminally responsible," said Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov. He talked about this issue in an interview with Inna Novikova, chief editor of Pravda.Ru.
"Mr. Ivashov, you said that under the modern doctrine we gave up the idea of attack and decided to focus on defense. It is my understanding that when the events of 1999 took place in Yugoslavia, we then decided that we had to stay home and protect our own garden? After all, this was the first time when the Americans realized that they could do whatever they wanted. You, too, were involved in these events."

"We have, in fact, deployed that battalion to Pristina. We planned to deploy three battalions there, and with this one, we planned to make a forced march, and enter Kosovo's Mitrovica. We made military decisions without even informing our Foreign Ministry."
"In the end, you made the legendary forced march, and what then?"

"In order to win, you need to deepen the formed breakthrough. We, the military, have created preconditions for strong political and diplomatic offensive. We took a key area and did not let the Americans there and they crawled on their knees to negotiate, beg us. That's it. Then politicians and diplomats had to build on this success. The first thing they should have done is introduce the issue of aggression in the Security Council."

"But this was a real aggression."

"Yes, it was aggression. According to the UN Charter, it is a violation of international peace ... We should have created a court together with other countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to bring to justice Clark and Albright."

"Why did it happen?"
"You know, we kept acquiring allies, we had to solve military problems. We were not just sitting in Pristina, and in agreement with the Serbian leadership we were ready to bring a number of units there to increase our presence. That is, politics, diplomacy and the military had to go on the offensive."

"It looks like this was it. I understand that we had to develop and maintain. I assume they cursed you, too."

"[We] lost and [were] betrayed. Why am I talking about betrayal? You know, Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, they were hiding from us, from the military, from Marshal Akhromeev especially, and tried to whisper with the Americans. John Baker, former U.S. Secretary of State, writes about it ... And they started playing behind the country's back on the side of the Americans, even on matters of strategic weapons."
"Why? Did they want money? What did they want?"

"[They wanted] to please the United States and get transatlantic support."

"Financial support, for their personal pockets?"

"Secondly, you know, Gorbachev, the person with limited regional experience, unable to manage large systems, was told by his advisers that it was necessary to put an end to the arms race, to reduce the army."

"That the Western Group of Forces had to be withdrawn."

"Quickly, too."

"Then we'll live happily ever after. However, our general staff has long been proposing a balanced strategic arms reduction, and this process continued starting from the 1970's... Gorbachev and Shevardnadze hoped for Western aid, Western investment, especially loans. But [the West] started placing conditions, and as a result, even under START agreements, we were lagging seriously behind the Americans in terms of medium-range missiles. Well, imagine the reduction of "Pioneer" complex, a self-propelled rocket launcher with a range of 5,000 kilometers, three warheads."
"I am listening to this, thinking, what a horrific weapon humanity has invented, 5,000 kilometers [range]."

"These characteristics are equivalent to the U.S. "Pershing-2A" with the range 1800. Tow-type, dragged by a tractive vehicle, one warhead. And we, as a class, destroyed 1.5 times more missiles than Americans destroyed their primitive ones."

"The military must have been very unhappy with these decisions."

"Well, of course. Alexander Nadiradze, chief designer of the system, when shown how these complexes were destroyed, died of a heart attack. Then we began yielding Americans in START. Baker told Marshal Akhromeev and Kornienko, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, that "all the matters have been resolved, we agreed with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze." That is, they solved issues like Medvedev, for example, solved the START-3 issue. Probably, our readers, viewers remember the phrase he said solemnly, "what our experts could not agree on over six months, we have agreed on in 15 minutes." But the fact is that we just gave away the most important element. If Gorbachev and Shevardnadze gave away the entire missile system, Medvedev gave away the metric system of measurement of test launches of our missiles. Americans do not currently plan to develop ballistic missiles. We are planning several types. Our experts thought that we would agree, and exchange a launch for a launch."

"Can politicians make decisions, negotiate on issues that require special training? Can they give something away not understanding how important it is?"
"Gorbachev and Shevardnadze did just that. This is where betrayal starts. Because the Americans have a growing confidence that if they push a little, [Russia} will give away oil, gas, missiles. When leaders agree behind the country's back, there is always leverage in the form of information leak. Americans most certainly filmed it, recorded it, and tomorrow some "WikiLeaks" will publish it all. In order to avoid publishing, there will be a hint that a bad person wants to publish it. Terrified Gorbachev or someone else would say "what should I do?" [They will tell him] to do this or that and then some. And here a system of control of the ruling elite emerges, and the ruling elite becomes the main target of action of other countries and other civilizations. Install Serdyukov, push him to the Department of Defense and close your eyes ..."

"He could do some major damage..."

"Yes, he could do more damage than an army could."
"So under Gorbachev there were agents of influence. It followed from what we said, what we heard. It turns out that something similar is happening now."
"You know, every worthless person in the wrong place, in the wrong office, is an agent of influence, and even if there is criminal nonsense like in Serdyukov's case, you can destroy anything."
Inna Novikova


  1. We’re under great threat, because we occupy so many countries. We're in 130 countries.

    We have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke. The purpose of al Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it.

    They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11, but we're there occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we're kidding ourselves.

    We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say, China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?

    So I would say a foreign policy that takes care of our national defense, that we’re willing to get along with people and trade with people, as the founders advised, there’s no authority in the Constitution to be the policeman of the world, and no nation-building.

    Ron Paul, 2011 GOP Tea Party debate in Tampa FL , Sep 12, 2011

  2. it’s worth remembering the praise the Democratic senator has in the past heaped on Syrian President Bashar Assad

    Kerry made repeated pilgrimage to Syria, meeting with Assad five times between 2009 and 2011. Last year, he famously used the adjective “generous” to describe Assad, as the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens recalled in a column this past summer:

    On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” … “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.”


    Secretary of State John Kerry says he believes that arms are reaching the rebels in Syria and that the U.S. supports international efforts to put weapons in the hands of the opposition to step up pressure on President Bashar Assad.

    At a news conference in Doha with Qatar's Prime Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, Kerry said Tuesday that "there are greater guarantees that weapons are being transferred to moderates and directly to the Syrian opposition."

    He added that, "you can't guarantee that one weapon or another may not fall, in that kind of a situation, into hands that you don't want it in."

    In Qatar, Kerry was wrapping up a nine-country swing through Europe and the Middle East, his first international tour since becoming secretary of state.

    "We had a discussion about the types of weapons that are being transferred and by whom," Kerry said. “We did discuss the question of the ability to try to guarantee that it’s going to the right people and to the moderate Syrian opposition coalition.”

  3. Kerry: Vote for war was needed to push Saddam on inspectors. (Sep 2003)

    $87B for Iraq only when internationalization is addressed. (Sep 2003)

    Voted NO on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)

    Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

    Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)

    Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)

  4. Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you knew of any widgets I
    could add to my blog that automatically tweet my newest twitter updates.
    I've been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was hoping maybe you would have some experience with something like this. Please let me know if you run into anything. I truly enjoy reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.

    my webpage diet plan for women

  5. Hello! Do you know if they make any plugins to safeguard against hackers?
    I'm kinda paranoid about losing everything I've worked hard on.
    Any tips?

    Also visit my web blog; best diet plan for women

  6. I just like the valuable information you supply
    to your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and test again here frequently.
    I am relatively certain I'll be told lots of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the following!

    Here is my page registry cleaner review

  7. I just like the valuable information you supply to your articles.
    I will bookmark your weblog and test again here frequently.
    I am relatively certain I'll be told lots of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the following!

    Here is my blog :: registry cleaner review

  8. What may not strike you as being artistically creative may be extremely creative in the
    student loans for people with bad credit mix, meaning the mix of elements the business will pay off
    immensely. After the victim wires the money, effort
    and resistance.

    My page: The Student Loan People