Anger about Kosovo: Make the U.S. a U.N. Protectorate?
Adding to the unconscionable campaign of death and depredation NATO has already waged — including the intentional bombing deaths of television production, public utility, and factory workers, as well as the slaughter of hundreds of women and children — NATO has just now bombed a hospital in Nis, killing 15 and wounding 70 civilians. NATO also caused causalities when it hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade with several missiles.
The calculated, relentless, and remorseless savagery with which NATO is stepping up its assault on all parts and sectors of Yugoslavia, primarily against clearly civilian targets, should put to rest forever any question of the alliance’s allegedly humanitarian motives.
Let’s face it: The Kosovar ethnic Albanians are — and have always been — pawns in a cynical and brutal game. The leading NATO nations have other military and geo-political designs and Kosovo was simply a convenient pretext for the current war. NATO wants to colonize the South Balkans under some sort of protectorate provision like it has done in Bosnia. But in the interests of world peace, rather than Yugoslavia becoming a NATO protectorate, perhaps the U.S. and its English cohort should be made U.N. protectorates.
Yours for peace,
Our Kosovo Coverage: Balanced or Biased?
As one of what seems (here in New Zealand) to be a deplorably small number of people who are opposed to the actions of NATO in Yugoslavia, I thank you. The one-sided news reporting here pains me, so it is heartening to see an organized group dedicated to at least giving a voice to another side and offering hope of a reasonable solution. Also, you give evidence of the far-less-than-innocent nature of the self-proclaimed “peacemakers,” something people either don’t know, or refuse to believe is possible.
Thank you again,
I’ve been following your coverage of the Kosovo conflict for over a month now and it’s disturbing to see a trend developing.
While I haven’t been too happy with the mainstream media towing the government line so often, I’ve also been unhappy seeing MoJo go from taking an anti-bombing stance to becoming more and more of a Serbian mouthpiece.
If only the Kosovar refugees had as much airtime on your Web site as the Serbian voices have had. While we read many stories about your Serbian “correspondents” living without power, I don’t see many stories about Kosovars and their continuing plight, in and out of Kosovo. While I don’t doubt that NATO is creating hardships for the average Serbian and causing many deaths, somehow it still seems to pale in significance to the potential mass-grave sites and the stories of mass rape and starvation that continue to be documented and substantiated by international relief associations and the U.N.
Though one needs to hear more than one side of an issue, it’s plain that MoJo is becoming as biased as the mainstream media it has been criticizing.
Readers Comment on Our Picks for ‘Alternative News’
I find on your Web site an anti-Serb article taken from The New Republic magazine listed in the “alternative news” section, which claims to be “news from non-traditional media.” If The New Republic is considered to be “non-traditional media,” then what, in your opinion, is not “non-traditional”? Unless I’m horribly mistaken, The New Republic is an unashamedly mainstream publication, as much so as Time, Newsweek, U.S. News, etc.
Dear MoJo Wire:
I very much appreciate getting your updates — they have put me on to so many good things I would otherwise never have known about.
But I take exception to putting the Chris Hedges piece from Foreign Affairs on the MoJo Wire.
One has the feeling that people on the West Coast, and especially armchair leftists in the Bay Area, take the washed-up East Coast foreign-policy establishment, with its main mouthpieces, The New York Times and Foreign Policy magazine, a little too seriously and much more seriously than we jaded Easterners do.
The fact is that, while the Times occasionally will scoop other newspapers because of its excellent D.C. contacts (when the Democrats are in power), no one has taken the Foreign Policy Association or its magazine seriously for 30 years.
Foreign Affairs doesn’t even have the utility of back issues of National Geographic: it collects dust in remainder bins in book stores selling for 50 cents a copy until it is inevitably sold for pulp. At least some people hoard back copies of National Geographic.
Thanks again for your updates,
Louis B. Massano
Jersey City, NJ