US/NATO Losses In Yugoslavia - What's The Truth?

By Jeff Rense 6-19-99

What is the truth about US/NATO losses in the 'concluded' war against Yugoslavia? The president says the US and NATO lost only two aircraft...in over 30,000 SORTIES over a 2 and 1/2 month campaign. Meanwhile, rumors and reports continue to come in painting a far different picture.

During his June 7 appearance on the program, Chicago-based journalist Sherman Skolnick said he had received multiple, reliable reports from sources in Europe that the USS Gonzales had possibly been sunk and that the carrier Roosevelt had been heavily damaged and knocked out of action. This raised several complaints about Mr. Skolnick's statements from listeners. We have been endeavoring to research these reports ever since. Here are two emails just received that address these issues. I am deleting the names of the individuals who sent them for obvious reasons. ______

I compliment you on your show: it is enjoyable, entertaining, stimulating and informative. There is no comparable programme in the UK. So the only available means is the internet and broadcast.com. Though this results in high telephone charges, all calls in the UK are charged, it does mean that we can listen at our convenience.

On your recent shows featuring Mess. Sherman Skolnick and John Whitley referred to the sinking of the SS Gonzales - I hope that is the correct spelling. For your information this would appear to be not the case. An email I received from a chap called xxx states (in reply to questions on Gonzales and Roosevelt):

"I cannot say anything certain about the Roosevelt, but the USS Gonzales returned back to the US heavily damaged. I know this because I live nearby a Naval repair base where Gonzales is sitting right now."

http://members.xoom.com/ggromozeka/aviation/.

If you have not visited this site may I recommend you do so. NATO and Jugoslav losses are itemised. According to official Jugoslav sources NATO has lost 128 aircraft, 14 helicopters, and 60 UAVs. This may include B2-As which are mentioned elsewhere on this site: Spirit of Washington and Spirit of Missouri.

I hope that this information is of use.

Keep up the good work and I hope to have the opportunity to hear your live some time in the future here in the UK. _______

And then this email from another source:

I have heard the story about USS Gonzales from a number of people in Yugoslavia and Italy. Information I have suggests that the destroyer was hit by one or more American-made AGM-65 Maverick anti-armor missile, which is carried by Yugoslav IJ-22 Orao ground strike aircraft. There was a secondary explosion(s) of the ammunition onboard the USS Gonzales, resulting in a massive damage to the ship's superstructure. If I am not mistaken, US 6th Fleet's press service announced that the Gonzales left for the US for repairs.

About the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier, I have the following information, which was circulated in Serbian communities in Australia:

"The information about USS Theodore Roosevelt is quite true. The carrier was attacked by a group of Yugoslavian fighters and it was seriously damaged. Most of the aircraft on the upper deck were destroyed and the carrier is out of operation since early May. This was the main reason why American decided to relocate 24 of their F/A-18 ground strike aircraft to Hungary. Usually this type of aircraft operate from carriers like the Theodore Roosevelt.

F/A-18s represent a unique and significant capability in NATO strike force and Americans could not just quit using them. There is no hard evidence to substantiate this information. One theory suggests that the carrier was attacked by a group of 8 J-22s and that one of the aircraft crashed into the carrier in a Kamikaze attack, destroying much of the flight deck and causing an emergency shut-sown of the nuclear reactors, which left the carrier without propulsion."

The situation with NATO's carriers is very interesting. French Foch carrier left for repairs, British Invincible carrier also left the action at the most intensive point of NATO's strikes. Nothing was heard from Roosevelt, although there were several reporters from CNN and other agencies at the beginning of the campaign (and so they were on Gonzales).

I find this interesting because carriers were NATO's only chance to deliver a surprise attack on Yugoslavia. All aircraft taking off from ground bases in Italy, Britain, and Germany were observed around the clock by aviation enthusiasts, photographers, journalists, professional spies, and just curious locals. They could see everything, especially with today's technology, including the number and types of aircraft taking off and landing, tail numbers, types of weapons carried, etc. Carriers provided NATO with the element of surprise. __________

We are actively seeking to confirm or deny this information. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. It is most certainly NOT our intent to cause undue stress and worry to the families our servicemen and women...we seek only to determine the truth. We have a right to know the truth. Were only two US/NATO planes lost during 10 weeks of combat and 30,000 sorties flown?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 19, 1999

Answers

I don't know, but you're not flyin' anywhere "vacation boy" until you find out. Got it? I need to get to bed, and I expect some answers in the morning!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 20, 1999.

OK, I'm waiting for No Spam to call me an imbecile again...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 20, 1999.

The only place the Roosevelt could go for such extensive repairs is Newport News Va. My son is stationed there and knows nothing about it. I put him on the job however. I shall report back if I learn anything.

Bill in South Carolina

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), June 20, 1999.

Great Bill - Will will be pleased :)

The Yugoslavs are claiming a pretty high tally, this sort of thing cannot be hidden for long, Arlin, where are your contacts???

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 20, 1999.

Andy......have a wonderful trip, but hurry back.....will miss your O.T. newsy items.....have learned a lot from them.

-- Jo Ann (MaJo@Michiana.com), June 20, 1999.

all it would take is a single engine aircraft with a passenger that has a telephoto lens near the ship yard.

worldnetdaily will do this - mystery will be solved.

-- living in (the@real.world), June 20, 1999.

There are thousands of sailors on the Roosevelt. Don't you think a few would have called relatives or friends? Don't you think the hospitals would have noticed all the casualties? Think everyone there would also be so tightlipped that this wouldn't get out? With the low opinion most military people have of Slick Willie many would not hesitate for a moment to leak something this bad to the press. Not to mention if a FLY got within 150 miles of that carrier he would have a dozen Phoenix missles up his ass. Nope sorry can't buy this one.

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), June 20, 1999.

This is the sort of Wacky-Andy claptrap I love. Booga, booga stuff about hundreds of lost planes, sunken ships and (one assumes) many dead Americans. Proof? Well it was reported on Worldnetdaily...

Newbies, if you need any basis for not believing the Y2Krackpots on this forum, I can think of no better thread than this. Doom Zombies do not hold kook views on just one subject, generally, their illness allows them to believe in:

poisin contrails

UN troops in america

The illuminati(sp?)

NWO nonsense

Concentration camps being built in the US

Flying saucers

The power grid is going down

...And many many others. What do they want? Can you say Jim Jones?

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 20, 1999.

y2kpro,

I agree that a lot of doomers believe in those off the wall tales. But don't think that this fact is a valid argument that y2k will be a bump in the road. I'm sure you don't feel so optimistic about the y2k issue that you aren't going to do ANY preparations? Are you?

For that matter, is there ANYONE reading the forum who has said they are making no preparations or contingency plans? I'd like to hear how they could justify that attitude.

-- malcolm drake (jumpoff@echoweb.net), June 20, 1999.

Folks, especially those of you who are relatively new to this forum,

Note another rhetorical trick by Andy:

>OK, I'm waiting for No Spam to call me an imbecile again...

I've never called Andy an imbecile.

(Will Andy try to argue that "again" was intended to modify "am waiting" rather than "to call"? Stay tuned.)

This isn't about just whether or not I have called or will call Andy by a certain epithet. It's part of Andy's pattern of rhetorical trickery to try drawing the reader's attention away from the glaring loopholes in Andy's arguments that I and others point out, rather than answering the criticisms head-on or admitting that he made mistakes.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 20, 1999.

No Spam - yes dad!

y2k pro aka peedog, glad to see that you have become one of my more fervent disciples, glad to see that I am edumacating you a little, keep up the good work, good dog!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 20, 1999.