Pellaken
The one and only.
1) Milosevic rigged virtually every one of his elections and his party apparatus controlled virtually all media in the country to help it along. God knows where you got the idea he didn't. The only thing that ever went wrong with his last election was that the army vote turned against him, and he hadn't planned how to rig that in advance. In the chaos, his vote rigging sytem broke down. And btw, the US would have stopped bombing when the Rump Yugoslavia stopped destabilizing the region by condoning atrocities against its own citizens. It started bombing because the last two times it had listened to arguments like yours, tens of thousands of people died and millions more were made homeless or refugees as a consequence. What id Rump Yugo voted to do that stuff? would the US bomb its citizens? replace it with a non-democracy, that wouldent do that? and when are these last 2 times?
2) There is no evidence that Izbegovic committed war crimes. There IS evidence that Bosnian federal troops committed war crimes on their own initiative, but somewhat more rarely then their Croat nationalist counterparts, and far, far more rarely than their Serbian nationalist counterparts. Bosnia's better record might have something to do with the fact that it was clearly the victim of aggression from two sides, and its federal army included large contingents of croats and serbs within it - which should tell you something about the character of the country you are so quick to slight. Croats, Bosnians, the point is that they are not serbs. Yes, the serrbs did alot of war crimes, but so did the other sides, and yet, low and behold, Germany's friend, Croatia, gets in no trouble, and Bosnia is the "good guy" and so cant get into trouble. just remember, in ww1, X-mass of 1914, when the soldiers came out of the trenches... in 1915, it was the ALLIES who attacked on that day. sometimes, the good guys arent so good. we are all capable of evil.
And once again, those crimes were committed on a piecemeal basis, which is entirely different from the situation in Bosnian Serbia or the Rump Yugoslavia, where the leadership clearly encouraged, condoned and occasionally even ordered atrocities. and the croation leadership dident? I strongley doubt that when right on thier flag is the red-white nazi checkerbord that they used during WW1 when they killed serb after serb.
3) I am sick to my stomach at how the Canadian left has become so narrow-minded as to actually insist that just because the US was involved in a war, it was somehow "illegal." Frankly, I couldn't care less if it was illegal by the botched, inconsistently applied, undeveloped standards of international law. I care if the war was just or not, and given the comparative records of NATO states in the last few decades vs. Yugoslavia's, I was prepared to give NATO more than the benefit of the doubt that their motives were purely altruistic. But I'm prepared to offer you a deal, Pellaken - the moment that the Rump Yugoslavia ponies up and agrees to pay reparations to Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia for the use of JNA heavy weapons against the citizens of those three republics, then maybe I will accept the U.S. should chip in a dollar or two in reparations, ok? I do not represent the canadian left, and the fact that the canadian left is narrow minded sickens me as well. you claim that just because the US was involved in a war, it was somehow "illegal." well, according to the UN, unless IT endorses a war, it IS illigal, that war WAS illigal. then again, so is the one in afganistan, but we all agree that that one is a good idea. NATO isent the question. NATO only supported the war cause Germany and the US did. Greece almost pulled out. NATO is just the US with a mask on. I'm willing to give the benifiet of the doubt to Italy, France, Sweden, Holland, and Greece, but not the US, or its 'pawns' like the UK and Canada. I'd support the JNA paying to rebuild Slovenia, but the facts in Croatia and Bosnia are clear, that they started the war **
It's amazing what Serbian/Social Democratic propaganda can accomplish in this country. Take my brother, who served as a peacekeeper in Croatia, for example. Read his service diary, and all he writes about day after day is UN operational decisions that kowtowed to the Serb nationalists in an effort to be "neutral."
Then, years later, helped in part by Gen. Lewis Mackenzie's kind paid work on behalf of Serbian lobby groups, his "recollection" was of a place where the Serbs were hard done by. Happily, the spectre of a war in Kosovo refreshed his memory. Kosovo WAS serbia's fault. Bosnia&Croatia was not.
And that's why the UN sucks. Because it is build on an idealogy that believes that there can be a "middle ground" in conflicts like the FOUR CONSECUTIVE WARS that Federal Yugoslavia initiated. It's an institution that believes that right and wrong can be decided by votes in a chamber where votes are monopolized in the hands of state governments controlled by the likes of Slobo Milosovic, Lukashenko or Saddam. It's an institution that priorizes soveriegnty above all else, and a part of a system of international law that gives greater sway to the rights of people like Mobutu, Mugabe and Marcos than it would to literally billions of stateless citizens. the UN sux cause they are sensable, yet have no power to enforce it with.
and dont even get me STARTED on the US election. the fact remains, more people in florida went IN to the voting booths wanting and intending to vote for Al Gore, but due to a ballot wrror, more came OUT having voted for Bush. with each re-count there were ballots lost cause of damage and "chads" so we will NEVER know who really won. wer got bush, and the world dident end, so I'll live with it, but I still maintain the Gore won.
**=
Here, the facts:
Serbs in Croatia one day decided to hold a referendum, to see weather they, in the Krajina, the area which they formed the majority in, wanted to join Serbia or not. Polls showed that they would have voted yes, but the government in Zagreb {capital of Croatia} decided that there shouldent be a referendum. then, Bosnia voted out of Yugoslavia. the serbs in Bosnia then decided that, again, in the area which they formed the majority, should be allowed to leave. this is when Croats in both naitons began to push serbs out of these nations, useing the same "Ethnic Cleansing" used in Kosovo. only this time, the Serbs had the bigger army, so when they fought back, it was more bloody. Eventually, the US came in and said all serbs gotta go back into Croatia. why? well part of it was cause the croats claimed that serbia was so "dominant" in yugoslavia. look at the facts: after WW1, serbia was given Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia. GIVEN. so the nation IS serbia. remember Tito? he wasent serbian, no, he was Croatian. and he dident allow areas which obviousley SHOULD have been part of serbia to become part of serbia. no. instead, be started calling muslim Serbias, Bosnians, and it just stuck. Also, in 1938, serbs were about 60% of kosovo. but during WW2, croats, killed many thousands of serbs, and afterwards, Tito prevented serb migration to Kosovo. throughout its history, Yugoslavia was dominated from Zagreb, not Belgrade. The serbs did end up taking to war, and war crimes, but that is no reason to punish thier entire nation for the crimes of a few people. I will not be happy untill one of 2 things happens.
1- all lands serbian in 1989 become Serbian in a greater serbia.
2- this compromise (map below)
the fact remains. 40% of people in bosnia are serbs, 30% are bosnians, and 20% are croats.
2) There is no evidence that Izbegovic committed war crimes. There IS evidence that Bosnian federal troops committed war crimes on their own initiative, but somewhat more rarely then their Croat nationalist counterparts, and far, far more rarely than their Serbian nationalist counterparts. Bosnia's better record might have something to do with the fact that it was clearly the victim of aggression from two sides, and its federal army included large contingents of croats and serbs within it - which should tell you something about the character of the country you are so quick to slight. Croats, Bosnians, the point is that they are not serbs. Yes, the serrbs did alot of war crimes, but so did the other sides, and yet, low and behold, Germany's friend, Croatia, gets in no trouble, and Bosnia is the "good guy" and so cant get into trouble. just remember, in ww1, X-mass of 1914, when the soldiers came out of the trenches... in 1915, it was the ALLIES who attacked on that day. sometimes, the good guys arent so good. we are all capable of evil.
And once again, those crimes were committed on a piecemeal basis, which is entirely different from the situation in Bosnian Serbia or the Rump Yugoslavia, where the leadership clearly encouraged, condoned and occasionally even ordered atrocities. and the croation leadership dident? I strongley doubt that when right on thier flag is the red-white nazi checkerbord that they used during WW1 when they killed serb after serb.
3) I am sick to my stomach at how the Canadian left has become so narrow-minded as to actually insist that just because the US was involved in a war, it was somehow "illegal." Frankly, I couldn't care less if it was illegal by the botched, inconsistently applied, undeveloped standards of international law. I care if the war was just or not, and given the comparative records of NATO states in the last few decades vs. Yugoslavia's, I was prepared to give NATO more than the benefit of the doubt that their motives were purely altruistic. But I'm prepared to offer you a deal, Pellaken - the moment that the Rump Yugoslavia ponies up and agrees to pay reparations to Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia for the use of JNA heavy weapons against the citizens of those three republics, then maybe I will accept the U.S. should chip in a dollar or two in reparations, ok? I do not represent the canadian left, and the fact that the canadian left is narrow minded sickens me as well. you claim that just because the US was involved in a war, it was somehow "illegal." well, according to the UN, unless IT endorses a war, it IS illigal, that war WAS illigal. then again, so is the one in afganistan, but we all agree that that one is a good idea. NATO isent the question. NATO only supported the war cause Germany and the US did. Greece almost pulled out. NATO is just the US with a mask on. I'm willing to give the benifiet of the doubt to Italy, France, Sweden, Holland, and Greece, but not the US, or its 'pawns' like the UK and Canada. I'd support the JNA paying to rebuild Slovenia, but the facts in Croatia and Bosnia are clear, that they started the war **
It's amazing what Serbian/Social Democratic propaganda can accomplish in this country. Take my brother, who served as a peacekeeper in Croatia, for example. Read his service diary, and all he writes about day after day is UN operational decisions that kowtowed to the Serb nationalists in an effort to be "neutral."
Then, years later, helped in part by Gen. Lewis Mackenzie's kind paid work on behalf of Serbian lobby groups, his "recollection" was of a place where the Serbs were hard done by. Happily, the spectre of a war in Kosovo refreshed his memory. Kosovo WAS serbia's fault. Bosnia&Croatia was not.
And that's why the UN sucks. Because it is build on an idealogy that believes that there can be a "middle ground" in conflicts like the FOUR CONSECUTIVE WARS that Federal Yugoslavia initiated. It's an institution that believes that right and wrong can be decided by votes in a chamber where votes are monopolized in the hands of state governments controlled by the likes of Slobo Milosovic, Lukashenko or Saddam. It's an institution that priorizes soveriegnty above all else, and a part of a system of international law that gives greater sway to the rights of people like Mobutu, Mugabe and Marcos than it would to literally billions of stateless citizens. the UN sux cause they are sensable, yet have no power to enforce it with.
and dont even get me STARTED on the US election. the fact remains, more people in florida went IN to the voting booths wanting and intending to vote for Al Gore, but due to a ballot wrror, more came OUT having voted for Bush. with each re-count there were ballots lost cause of damage and "chads" so we will NEVER know who really won. wer got bush, and the world dident end, so I'll live with it, but I still maintain the Gore won.
**=
Here, the facts:
Serbs in Croatia one day decided to hold a referendum, to see weather they, in the Krajina, the area which they formed the majority in, wanted to join Serbia or not. Polls showed that they would have voted yes, but the government in Zagreb {capital of Croatia} decided that there shouldent be a referendum. then, Bosnia voted out of Yugoslavia. the serbs in Bosnia then decided that, again, in the area which they formed the majority, should be allowed to leave. this is when Croats in both naitons began to push serbs out of these nations, useing the same "Ethnic Cleansing" used in Kosovo. only this time, the Serbs had the bigger army, so when they fought back, it was more bloody. Eventually, the US came in and said all serbs gotta go back into Croatia. why? well part of it was cause the croats claimed that serbia was so "dominant" in yugoslavia. look at the facts: after WW1, serbia was given Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia. GIVEN. so the nation IS serbia. remember Tito? he wasent serbian, no, he was Croatian. and he dident allow areas which obviousley SHOULD have been part of serbia to become part of serbia. no. instead, be started calling muslim Serbias, Bosnians, and it just stuck. Also, in 1938, serbs were about 60% of kosovo. but during WW2, croats, killed many thousands of serbs, and afterwards, Tito prevented serb migration to Kosovo. throughout its history, Yugoslavia was dominated from Zagreb, not Belgrade. The serbs did end up taking to war, and war crimes, but that is no reason to punish thier entire nation for the crimes of a few people. I will not be happy untill one of 2 things happens.
1- all lands serbian in 1989 become Serbian in a greater serbia.
2- this compromise (map below)
the fact remains. 40% of people in bosnia are serbs, 30% are bosnians, and 20% are croats.
Thanks
