By William Markiewicz
Saddam now, Milosevic next? The usual punishment for weakness, with no end in sight. Will Baghdad continue to be bombed? Will Belgrade be bombed, will Banja Luka be bombed? There is no possibility of negotiating with the bombers; the only outcome they will accept is total surrender. For the Serbs it means what Peter Handke defined as "holocaust for the Serbs." As for Iraq, it means changing their regime into a 'democratic' one, which in practice means to install a regime similar to those in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates -- religious absolutism, veiled women, and oil for Western powers. I want to be corrected if I am wrong but Iraq is probably the most secular, if not the most secular of Arab countries. Everybody there can drink whatever or wherever he wants without being asked if he is a Muslim, and women enjoy professional and educational freedom. Now the USA and its Serbian protégés want the demise of Milosevic and to replace him with a "true democratic" government as one more step toward further parceling of Serbia. So all those targeted nations have practically no other choice than to follow the examples of Numancia, Massada, Warsaw Ghetto, Warsaw Uprising ... If I were Iraqi, I would rather fight than live under justice that cuts heads and hands, veils my daughter and gives my wealth to foreigners. If I were Serb, I would fight before being "eaten by worms" (borrowed from non-Serbian sources). Whatever does or doesn't happen, one thing is certain -- we have come back to the time of the Caesars or to the Turkish Empire where there was one super power on top surrounded by a wreath of the privileged and, below them, the mass of underdogs of uncertain future. The marks of favour are wandering. There are some, still in grace, who may take this as a warning.
Clinton's impeachment? I don't want to know how guilty is Clinton and how "right" American justice is. The only thing I know is I don't want a system which lets people like Linda Tripp and Kenneth Starr make history. What, at present, is the most important quality required from the important men (no women on the list till now) in the USA? To be faithful to their spouses. Superpowerhood quickly becomes boring and a new set of 'problems' has to be invented.
American democracy: a giant in free fall holding his own hair to stop it.
Loosely quoted from an Italian film (I believe with Mastroianni): According to the dictionary, incest excludes marriage, but it isn't mentioned whether love is forbidden. Clinton quoted some ruling that oral sex is not sex. Is freedom to choose your source of definition equivalent to lying? Is opportunism a crime? It's only human to choose, among various points of view, the one which most suits us. Also, in politics whipping boys are chosen in the name of convenience, not of what's right or wrong.
For some time now we've been hearing about galloping anti-Semitism in Russia. More recently there's news about 'New Russian" tycoons, as the right and left wingers in Russia call the Jewish nouveaux riches. Nobody I know asks the obvious questions: Where did those 'New Russians' come from? Why and when did this trend start? And why are they mostly Jewish? We know that the Japanese discovered the American market and started to buy en masse. Has the same thing happened with Jews in Russia? Did they come to Russia with their money as the Japanese came to America, or did they make their money in Russia? If they brought money from abroad, then nobody should complain because every country loves the outsider who brings money. Since there hasn't been the slightest curiosity about these obvious questions, it's no wonder that things are turning sour, through ignorance. I notice that public interest develops only if news is triggered by some ideologists, public relations agencies and clever media manipulations. Brother Earthlings: Is our planet growing more and more stupid or has it always been like this?