quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
I'm going to trust the boatloads of personal accounts from the time. I don't think the reporters on the ground were making most of the shit up at they saw. It's unfortunate that their was some controversy over some of the detention camp photos, but overall I think the reporters there did a solid job.

The ICTY did a thorough investigation and agreed
with most of the personal accounts. It's caviler to dismiss all of it as being, potentially misleading. It's also revisionist.

History is malleable because we allow it to be so. "let's all keep an open mind," doesn't wash with facts. The world doesn't operate n the principle that everyone can be right, nor should it.

I'm speaking of Bosnia and Croatia 1991-1995, the Serbs made a big fucking tragedy out of that place. That isn't an opinion any more than it's an opinion than the US invaded Iraq. I happened.

Period.

I'm not dismissing the personal accounts of the Kosova survivors nor denying the words of the journalists on the ground.

What I am saying is that only listening to one side of the story and dismissing the other side out of hand is to intentionally mislead yourself. Of course those atrocities happened, they're documented and I don't doubt them.

Do that with Israel and the Zionists arrived off the boat in the 1800s to a land that was largely deserted, and if any Arabs were there they'd been neglecting the land and obviously didn't care for it. They just showed up afterwards or at about the same time the Zionists got there and tried to pretend they'd been there all along. Then the U.N. gave the Jewish people the land that justly belonged to them, because it belonged to their ancestors 2000 years ago, and abandoned them to die at the hands of the Arabs. Ever since then they've been victimized unceasingly and without provocation of any kind and aren't even allowed to take reasonable precautions without being damned by the international committee.

That's what happened if you dismiss the opposing view without consideration. If you don't listen to the other side what do you have to measure the currently preferred version of events against?



An insistence only discussing actions within a certain time period be that between 1991-1995 or 1939-1945 is equally, if not even more, misleading. It's a deceitful approach to history because no events happen in isolation, it turns them into random occurrences that occur with no precipitating factors or place in an ongoing situation.

My World War 2/Holocaust example is (I think) a good example for this point. If you just take those six years then it's pretty fucking obvious that the Germans are just plain evil. Look at the stuff they did, if any of us described actions that would be the definition of utter evil it would probably be those ones.

But why did that happen? How did the Germans let their society fall so far into decadence, violent repression and the intentional decision to permanently remove several races and groups of 'undesirables' from Europe? You won't find those answers in those six years.

Most people would agree (at least I think they would) that an adequate discussion would include the Treaty of Versaille in 1919, the occupation of the Ruhr in the 1920s, the collapse of the German economy (the mental image of a woman pushing a wheelbarrow full of money to buy one loaf of bread has stuck with me since high school) and a declaration of martial law after the Reichstag fire in 1933. Without including those things in the discussion then it's incomplete and it lacks context.

It's just random evil.

It is incredibly misleading to dismiss as irrelevant stories like these from the New York Times in 1980s which describe increasing nationalism and belligerence on the part of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

They begin to set context for the events of the 1990s, they show a climate of tension, hostility and fear growing. To ignore the Albanians actions in the 1980s is to make the conscious decision to view one ethnic group as innocent victims and another ethnic group as remorseless monsters.

Understanding that both sides encouraged added to the hostility and violence doesn't detract from the horror of the events, nor does it diminish the responsibility of the guilty parties.


EXODUS OF SERBIANS STIRS PROVINCE IN YUGOSLAVIA*
The New York Times, Monday, July 12, 1982
free excerpt
article in full

IN ONE YUGOSLAV PROVINCE, SERBS FEAR THE ETHNIC ALBANIANS*
The New York Times, Monday, April 28, 1986, Late City Final Edition
free excerpt
article in full


History is malleable because it's all a matter of how it's interpreted. History of any event doesn't belong to one group and one interpretation is never the only valid interpretation.

Look at my Israel example. For a while that was the accepted version of events, and in some parts it still is. Many people would say that there are elements of truth to it, but heavily saturated with self-serving self-deception.

The same can be said for the Palestinian version of events. They're both self-serving bullshit, but they both have elements of truth to it.


* I'm not going to pretend the source for the full articles is reliable or dependable. I wasn't willing to pay for the articles on the NYT archive so I found what appeared be the same articles elsewhere. The first couple of lines matched up in both cases.

If anyone has access to the archive feel free to compare.

Your wasting your time arguing with the self-appointed arbiter of morality. Once Uberdog has decided how it was, that's how it was.

If I'm the arbiter of morality the world is in a dire way.

But it's not about morality as such, it's about accepting responsibility for a people's decisions.

Egalitarian Tom Foolery only serves to allow all parties to slip from blame in all situations by callow relativism.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: UberDog,

quote:

Originally posted by Witness:


That's what happened if you dismiss the opposing view without consideration. If you don't listen to the other side what do you have to measure the currently preferred version of events against?

Objective reality from observers there who had allegiance to neither "side." Reporters don't represent Serbs or Bosnians, at least not the foreign journalists there.

quote:

An insistence only discussing actions within a certain time period be that between 1991-1995 or 1939-1945 is equally, if not even more, misleading. It's a deceitful approach to history because no events happen in isolation, it turns them into random occurrences that occur with no precipitating factors or place in an ongoing situation.

History is what got people into the Bosnian mess to begin with. Drudging up the past to explicate why people act like morons in the present. Since we don't heed the lessons of history we would be better off loosing ourselves from it.

History is used as an excuse for all manner of foolishness, who's owed what to who and the like. It serves no one with any fidelity. Decontextualizing events into a kind of phenomenological view puts the responsibility for an event only on those involved, not on the storied shoulders of those who suffered or abused before.

The Jes have had a shit time in history, so, should we allow Israel to do whatever it pleases now in recompense?

quote:

My World War 2/Holocaust example is (I think) a good example for this point. If you just take those six years then it's pretty fucking obvious that the Germans are just plain evil. Look at the stuff they did, if any of us described actions that would be the definition of utter evil it would probably be those ones.

But why did that happen? How did the Germans let their society fall so far into decadence, violent repression and the intentional decision to permanently remove several races and groups of 'undesirables' from Europe? You won't find those answers in those six years.

I am talking about people accepting responsibility for their actions. The Treaty of Versailles and horrid economics doesn't excuse the Holocaust.

Period.

quote:

It is incredibly misleading to dismiss as irrelevant stories like these from the New York Times in 1980s which describe increasing nationalism and belligerence on the part of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

I'm still talking about Serbia and Bosnia, not Kosovo. I'm not clear as to where you decided I was talking about Kosovo.

I was addressing Marvin's seeming unwillingness to believe the Serbs were largely responsible for the war in Bosnia.

quote:

They begin to set context for the events of the 1990s, they show a climate of tension, hostility and fear growing. To ignore the Albanians actions in the 1980s is to make the conscious decision to view one ethnic group as innocent victims and another ethnic group as remorseless monsters.

Not at all, that is hyperbole. What it is to ignore the events outside the context of a given situation is to come to it without the clutter of the past and with a clearer mind with which to resolve it.

Again, the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the world explains Israel's position but does not excuse Palestine, does it?

Being cognizant of facts and using them to make assessments are different things.

quote:

Understanding that both sides encouraged added to the hostility and violence doesn't detract from the horror of the events, nor does it diminish the responsibility of the guilty parties.

I am arguing that it clutters the events and allows people to make excuses that should not be heeded.

I liken it, perhaps spuriously, to a playground. the teacher separates two fighting students who immediately launch into the history of who said what. The teacher says, "I don't care who started it, stop it!"

Later the students are punished for fighting.

But, if one is whaling on the other, then he is the one who is punished. The teahcer doesn't care that the bully's mother was called a bitch by the kid he was whaling on.

You deal with what's in front of you or you are are inexorably pushed back into the past. There is a time to say, fuck history and attempt to move forward.

I'd argue that for the current conflict people look only to what's going on now.

I was attempting to explain to Marvin why people think the Serbs were the ones at fault in Bosnia, which doesn't need to bear on the current conflict but inevitably will.

And that's the insoluble problem with memory and history, we never escape it. We laud it, mythologize it and prop it up as reason for all manner of acts both horrific and sublime. We are tethered to pasts most of us never experienced.

But I've moved passed the initial bounds of the debate. Which is fine with me, but I don't want to hear more clamoring about thread-jacking or the like. I'm not talking about you here.

quote:

History is malleable because it's all a matter of how it's interpreted. History of any event doesn't belong to one group and one interpretation is never the only valid interpretation.

Which is why it is limited in usefulness. But there are certain objective reports that I think one can take to be the overall reality of a situation, in the same fashion we allow for arbitration of reality by other observers in most events we are not directly witness to.

So, do we allow history to be shuttled back and forth so that it becomes a nebulous goo which has no use to anyone?

Or do we divorce ourselves from it?

Or do we look for the most objective accounts?

Or what?

quote:

Look at my Israel example. For a while that was the accepted version of events, and in some parts it still is. Many people would say that there are elements of truth to it, but heavily saturated with self-serving self-deception.

The same can be said for the Palestinian version of events. They're both self-serving bullshit, but they both have elements of truth to it.

But neither version does anything to solve the current problem. if one syas, enough, this, all of this history is off the table, then the two sides must deal with each other only in terms of what goes between them now.

But we aren't, as a race, good at doing that. We cling to history because it lends us a sense of immortality and purpose by connecting us to the entirety of the race and allows us to believe in a purpose and progress to the events that have been selected to define the narrative, personal and collective.

quote:

Reporters don't represent Serbs or Bosnians, at least not the foreign journalists there.

Really??? Oh, yeah, they don't. They represent their employers. Why not take a look at Al Jazeerah and other fonts?

quote:

I was addressing Marvin's seeming unwillingness to believe the Serbs were largely responsible for the war in Bosnia.

Well, but is not Marvin a "first hand account" on the facts? Because everything he has said has been questioned in favor to some journalists that by now are probably covering war in other points of the planet... (in the case they are still alive). Well, I guess that living in a conflicted area provides a smaller "first hand" status than to be a journalist for some Occidental newspaper/tv.

quote:

You deal with what's in front of you or you are are inexorably pushed back into the past. There is a time to say, fuck history and attempt to move forward.

If you don't care about the past you cannot understand what is in front of you or else you will be arbitrary. To say "fuck history" is exactly what made Hitler possible.

Regarding to Serbians, Bosnians, Croats, Macedonians, the problem has been overseen since before the WW-I. Don't let us forget that war ecloded after Ferdnand I of Austria was shot by Gavrillo Princip, a militant of the "Black Hand" organization that intended to unify the Serbian Populated territories.



So, the problems in the region are the same since before 1914 and are related to the Occidental Imperialism. So, it is not surprising that Serbians don't trust "counseling" from the western powers.

Just take a look at it:


"The Bosnian Crisis of 1908-1909, also known as the anexation crisis, erupted into public view when on October 5, 1908, Bulgaria declared its independence and on October 6, 1908, Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, Italy, Serbia, Montenegro, Germany and France took an interest in these events. In April 1909 the Treaty of Berlin was amended to accept the new status quo bringing the crisis to an end. The crisis permanently damaged relations between Austria-Hungary on the one hand and Russia and Serbia on the other. The annexation and reactions to the annexation are contributing causes of World War I."

Basically, what you have is a coil. You can press the coil but then you will have to keep it pressed.

By the way, this link to wikipedia is very interesting to the ones who want understand the troubles in the Balkans

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cb4(r2)3t0,

quote:

Originally posted by cbarreto:
[QUOTE]Reporters don't represent Serbs or Bosnians, at least not the foreign journalists there.

Really??? Oh, yeah, they don't. They represent their employers. Why not take a look at Al Jazeerah and other fonts?

quote:

War correspondents who flew their ass over their, often on their own dollar, to get shot at and shit aren't doing it for their employer.

Your response is the standard line, everything that someone gets paid to do is circumspect... and so on.

Corporations are all evil. Everyone doing anything does it to suck up to the powers that be...

Unoriginal and untrue.

I'm sure guys like Ron Haviv, when he was being beaten and interrogated by combatants were saying: "How can I spin this to make my paper happy?"

Let's assume everyone is lying and making shit up for the purposes of dark and sinister cyberpunk corporations.

[QUOTE]
Well, but is not Marvin a "first hand account" on the facts? Because everything he has said has been questioned in favor to some journalists that by now are probably covering war in other points of the planet... (in the case they are still alive). Well, I guess that living in a conflicted area provides a smaller "first hand" status than to be a journalist for some Occidental newspaper/tv.

It was my understanding that he was in Serbia in the time, not Bosnia and quite possibly about 4 years old.

quote:

You deal with what's in front of you or you are are inexorably pushed back into the past. There is a time to say, fuck history and attempt to move forward.

quote:

If you don't care about the past you cannot understand what is in front of you or else you will be arbitrary. To say "fuck history" is exactly what made Hitler possible.

No, that's facile. What made Hitler possible, among many things, was embracing how history had wronged Germany.

But please, let's bring up more about Hitler because that let's us know how serious we're being and stuff.

quote:

Regarding to Serbians, Bosnians, Croats, Macedonians, the problem has been overseen since before the WW-I. Don't let us forget that war ecloded after Ferdnand I of Austria was shot by Gavrillo Princip, a militant of the "Black Hand" organization that intended to unify the Serbian Populated territories.



So, the problems in the region are the same since before 1914 and are related to the Occidental Imperialism. So, it is not surprising that Serbians don't trust "counseling" from the western powers.

Just take a look at it:


"The Bosnian Crisis of 1908-1909, also known as the anexation crisis, erupted into public view when on October 5, 1908, Bulgaria declared its independence and on October 6, 1908, Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Britain, Italy, Serbia, Montenegro, Germany and France took an interest in these events. In April 1909 the Treaty of Berlin was amended to accept the new status quo bringing the crisis to an end. The crisis permanently damaged relations between Austria-Hungary on the one hand and Russia and Serbia on the other. The annexation and reactions to the annexation are contributing causes of World War I."

Basically, what you have is a coil. You can press the coil but then you will have to keep it pressed.

No, what you have is too many people, individually listening to people calling on the forces of history to inspire nationalism and violence, that's what you have.

"We were wronged, let us avenge ourselves upon the enemy."

Let's use you Hitler example. Europe wronged us, the Jews wronged us, let us inflict ourselves upon them all."

You're right, that really helps.

Being mired in history does nothing to make progress possible. this is one of the causal factors for man's inability to progress until he is made to do so by external forces such as technology.

The longer we use history as some sort of rallying to unite against what one group finds to be a convenient enemy the further away from a genuine solution to any socio-political problems we are.

History is a collective bin of fucking excuses to keep doing fundamentally stupid shit in the name of justice and fairness.

quote:

War correspondents who flew their ass over their, often on their own dollar, to get shot at and shit aren't doing it for their employer.

Your response is the standard line, everything that someone gets paid to do is circumspect... and so on.

Corporations are all evil. Everyone doing anything does it to suck up to the powers that be...

Unoriginal and untrue.

I'm sure guys like Ron Haviv, when he was being beaten and interrogated by combatants were saying: "How can I spin this to make my paper happy?"

Let's assume everyone is lying and making shit up for the purposes of dark and sinister cyberpunk corporations.

The ones who pay their tickets must sell their stories... Must sell their nasty photos...

Corporations are not evil or good. They are amoral and only represent interests. If you make a Bayesian analysis you may fall inside their scope of interests, borderline or outside their scope of interests. USA people falls inside one scope: they own or profit from the factories that produce the large amount of bombs, missiles and collateral paraphernalia that will be dispersed on the head of people outside USA. American newspapers reflect these interests. Many other news companies in the world reflect similar interests. Thanks God that the Balkans are so far away...

quote:

It was my understanding that he was in Serbia in the time, not Bosnia and quite possibly about 4 years old.

Really... but he has family. This kind of trouble is not the kind people say "geez, what a shit I have made... lets wipe it under the rug". Memories and opinions are long lasting.

quote:

No, that's facile. What made Hitler possible, among many things, was embracing how history had wronged Germany.

But please, let's bring up more about Hitler because that let's us know how serious we're being and stuff.

The only ones that want to wipe history are the ones who get benefits with status quo. That's obvious that England and France wanted to erase past history after Versailles. They tried to create a "new history" where the Germans were fucking villains. Obviously most German population didn't agree with that and, in the lack of other suitable leadership they ranked along with the nazis.

But again, the cause for WW-II was not historic resentments. The cause for WW-II was the competition for strategic resources and external markets.

Now that the Cold War is over, history is being rewritten again.

quote:

Being mired in history does nothing to make progress possible. this is one of the causal factors for man's inability to progress until he is made to do so by external forces such as technology.

The longer we use history as some sort of rallying to unite against what one group finds to be a convenient enemy the further away from a genuine solution to any socio-political problems we are.

Here you're right: what allows progress is power and not reflection. If you're centered in building dozens of nuclear aircraft carriers, nuclear vectors, nuclear bombs, etc, why to bother with history?

Why to mind about setting things through diplomacy? Through pacific arbitration?

Isn't it beautiful to let Kosovo get free to join Albania and start trouble in Macedonia and Montenegro? After a while it will be necessary to send the aircraft carriers and use the B-2s based in Italy to bomb them. Good justification for keeping US$2bil bombers and even more expensive carriers... And, after shit is done, the newspapers will be talking about the ruthless Albanians...

quote:

Originally posted by cbarreto:
Well, but is not Marvin a "first hand account" on the facts? Because everything he has said has been questioned in favor to some journalists that by now are probably covering war in other points of the planet... (in the case they are still alive). Well, I guess that living in a conflicted area provides a smaller "first hand" status than to be a journalist for some Occidental newspaper/tv.

Let me tell you guys something. I was born and grew up in Belgrade. 10 years of my life I spent in a country isolated from the outside world by the outside world. I was 11 when the fighting started (English is not my first language so ... sorry if I "sound" like a eastern Europian brat).

My mother was born in (Kosovska) Mitrovica. That's in Kosovo (just thought I point out the obvious). My grandfather was born and used to live in Prizren, Kosovo. Actually my family from my mothers side comes from Prizren, Pristina and Mitrovica. Now they all live scattered throughout Serbia as refugees. Albanian immigrants live in their houses in Kosovo.

I like to believe that I have an insight to what happened in the region at that time.

On the other hand, I'm being dismissed as revisionist, stubborn Serb unwilling to admit that his countrymen did something wrong.

I'll try and state my opinion this last time, and will not bother you any more, since I get the feeling that I was right about your opinions the first time around. No matter what I say, history is already written. Not by winners or by losers, because there are no winners in wars, everyone involved lost. History in this case was written by politicians, journalists and others that were nowhere near Serbia or Kosovo or Bosnia or Croatia.

- Majority of 8 million Serbs living in Serbia were not involved in any fighting - wars

- There were no wars within Sebia's territory

- Serbian population in Croatia was fighting against Croatians in Croatia (Those Croats called themselves "ustase" - look it up)

- Serbian population in Bosnia was fighting against muslims and Croats in Bosnia

* Muslims in Bosnia fought Croats in Bosnia as well

* Muslims in Bosnia fought Croats in Croatia as well

- Milosevic (president of SR Jugoslavija (Sebia and Montenegro) at the time) was providing financial support to Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia behind the scenes (even though it was completely obvious) and that is why Serbia was under economic sanctions by the UN

- Some Serbians from Serbia volunteered to help Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia, left Serbia, went there and got involved (this represents a small percentage of Serbian population of Serbs in Serbia)

- Among them were people like Arkan and his followers (criminals doing what they want in a lawless region at the time) -- don't confuse them with Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia fighting for their lives, families and homes

- Terrible things happened in all these wars during the 90s committed by Serbs

- Terrible things happened in all these wars during the 90s committed by Bosnians and Croats as well

- US and UN did get involved, and did pick a side to support (Weapons transported in UNCHR containers and delivered to Bosnians and Croats in Bosnia by UN -- look it up)

** However all this doesn't have anything to do with Kosovo

I've already tried to explain what took place in Kosovo and Metohija over the last couple of decades. Some of you had genocide, ethnic cleansing and Bosnia and Croatia used as an argument to justify everything that happened there (against Serbia).

Finally, I wish that no one ever has to go through what all the people in the region (Serbs and Croats and Bosnians) have gone through. I also wish that Serbia doesn't get blamed again for future events, and actions against it justified by waving genocide and ethnic cleansing in the face of the world audience. Otherwise, how are we ever to get another Nikola Tesla.

Sve najbolje (Best wishes)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Marvin Freestyle,

I've read your posts with great interest, Marvin, and I hope you stay. Internet arguments are mostly pointless, no one is really swayed from their original positions. Some people just like to argue. Don't let the argument in this thread push you away from a great web community.

quote:

Originally posted by cbarreto:

The ones who pay their tickets must sell their stories... Must sell their nasty photos...

Corporations are not evil or good. They are amoral and only represent interests. If you make a Bayesian analysis you may fall inside their scope of interests, borderline or outside their scope of interests. USA people falls inside one scope: they own or profit from the factories that produce the large amount of bombs, missiles and collateral paraphernalia that will be dispersed on the head of people outside USA. American newspapers reflect these interests. Many other news companies in the world reflect similar interests. Thanks God that the Balkans are so far away...

But this doesn't apply to Bosnia nor does any of it have to do with journalists. I don't see the relation between a guy like Anthony Loyd or Ron Haviv and corporate greed.

quote:

The only ones that want to wipe history are the ones who get benefits with status quo. That's obvious that England and France wanted to erase past history after Versailles. They tried to create a "new history" where the Germans were fucking villains. Obviously most German population didn't agree with that and, in the lack of other suitable leadership they ranked along with the nazis.

But again, the cause for WW-II was not historic resentments. The cause for WW-II was the competition for strategic resources and external markets.

Now that the Cold War is over, history is being rewritten again.

I stand by my position on history. What you say here only strengthens my argument.

quote:

Here you're right: what allows progress is power and not reflection. If you're centered in building dozens of nuclear aircraft carriers, nuclear vectors, nuclear bombs, etc, why to bother with history?

Why to mind about setting things through diplomacy? Through pacific arbitration?

Isn't it beautiful to let Kosovo get free to join Albania and start trouble in Macedonia and Montenegro? After a while it will be necessary to send the aircraft carriers and use the B-2s based in Italy to bomb them. Good justification for keeping US$2bil bombers and even more expensive carriers... And, after shit is done, the newspapers will be talking about the ruthless Albanians...

You lost me here.

Are you saying the US want to have a free Kosovo so that it can increase defense spending?

That's ludicrous.

The US already has the better excuse of terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by Marvin Freestyle:
Let me tell you guys something. I was born and grew up in Belgrade. 10 years of my life I spent in a country isolated from the outside world by the outside world. I was 11 when the fighting started (English is not my first language so ... sorry if I "sound" like a eastern Europian brat).

My mother was born in (Kosovska) Mitrovica. That's in Kosovo (just thought I point out the obvious). My grandfather was born and used to live in Prizren, Kosovo. Actually my family from my mothers side comes from Prizren, Pristina and Mitrovica. Now they all live scattered throughout Serbia as refugees. Albanian immigrants live in their houses in Kosovo.

I like to believe that I have an insight to what happened in the region at that time.

OK.

quote:

On the other hand, I'm being dismissed as revisionist, stubborn Serb unwilling to admit that his countrymen did something wrong.

Yes, because previously you seem to want to apportion the blame for what happened in Bosnia and Croatia. But the Serbs attacked them. The Serbs laid siege to Vukovar and Sarajevo, this isn't an opinion of anyone, it is a fact.

quote:

I'll try and state my opinion this last time, and will not bother you any more, since I get the feeling that I was right about your opinions the first time around. No matter what I say, history is already written. Not by winners or by losers, because there are no winners in wars, everyone involved lost. History in this case was written by politicians, journalists and others that were nowhere near Serbia or Kosovo or Bosnia or Croatia.{/quote]

OK.

[quote]
- Majority of 8 million Serbs living in Serbia were not involved in any fighting - wars

The majority of any population is not involved in the wars it's nation fights.

quote:

- There were no wars within Sebia's territory

Yes, true. Serbia attacked Bosnia and Croatia. There aren't Iraqis attacking New York either.

quote:

- Serbian population in Croatia was fighting against Croatians in Croatia (Those Croats called themselves "ustase" - look it up)[quote] The HVO called themselves no such thing. The propaganda machine started to refer to the Croats as ustase in an attempt to swell the hatred needed to persecute the war in the way they needed to push it.

While some faction may have called themselves ustashe, the Croats as a whole did not. That term, from Nazi collaborators, was used to drive hatred and foment crimes.

[quote]
- Serbian population in Bosnia was fighting against muslims and Croats in Bosnia

Yes, but in 1992-93 Slobodan Milosovic put the Yugoslav army (Serbian) under the control of Serbian Militants in Bosnia precisely for posterity so people could say, "Oh, it's their problem, not ours."

He also did it to comply with NATO decrees and his "promise" to stop the war. The fact that he did so on paper doesn't change what actually happened.

quote:

* Muslims in Bosnia fought Croats in Bosnia as well

Yes they did. Does that make what anyone did better? No.

quote:

- Milosevic (president of SR Jugoslavija (Sebia and Montenegro) at the time) was providing financial support to Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia behind the scenes (even though it was completely obvious) and that is why Serbia was under economic sanctions by the UN

Thank you.

quote:

- Some Serbians from Serbia volunteered to help Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia, left Serbia, went there and got involved (this represents a small percentage of Serbian population of Serbs in Serbia)

- Among them were people like Arkan and his followers (criminals doing what they want in a lawless region at the time) -- don't confuse them with Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia fighting for their lives, families and homes

- Terrible things happened in all these wars during the 90s committed by Serbs

- Terrible things happened in all these wars during the 90s committed by Bosnians and Croats as well

I'm not laying the blame on the populous of Serbia Proper anymore that the ICTY did.

quote:

- US and UN did get involved, and did pick a side to support (Weapons transported in UNCHR containers and delivered to Bosnians and Croats in Bosnia by UN -- look it up)

They did nothing of use, they should have bombed the shit out of the serbs far, far sooner. Then, if the other factions (Croats and Muslims) tore into each other, they could have bombed the shit out of them as well. The USA did jack shit to stop this fucking madness. Clinton was a colossal failure in this area as was all of fucking Europe. It was shameful. Jut like Darfur.

I don't want you to leave, I just wanted to clarify what I am talking about.

I don't consider what happened in 1991-1995 to be somehting we should consider regarding Kosovo in 2008.

Kosovo in the late 1990's is another matter entirely.

Marvin, You happen to be a "first hand account". And I do believe that you're completely honest in your considerations. I know you got that the first time.

But:

quote:

UberDog said:
But this doesn't apply to Bosnia nor does any of it have to do with journalists. I don't see the relation between a guy like Anthony Loyd or Ron Haviv and corporate greed.

Unfortunately I do.

quote:

You lost me here.

Are you saying the US want to have a free Kosovo so that it can increase defense spending?

That's ludicrous.

No, US don't give a dime for Kosovo (free or otherwise). US administration only expects hell breaks loose at that region so the neo-liberals can apply their neo-keynesianism (the investment in the military industrial complex as a way of heating economy and avoiding the obvious recession).

It may look ludicrous to the ones who drop the bombs. It happens to be really painful for the ones who are in the ground.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cb4(r2)3t0,

I have been looking at some numbers from the UNHCR and the CIA, to get a picture of the cleansing and how the individual states stand, besides the anecdotal evidence or the individual horrors. The numbers paint quite a story.

The 1991-1995 conflict displaced over two million people, out of a Yugoslavian population of 23 million, or 10 million if you discount those areas not in conflict. More than one in five.

In Bosnia, some 250000 Serbs moved to Serbia itself. Some 400000 Bosniaks were displaced out of Srpska, and 300000 Serbs moved internally to Srpska. Some 150000 Croats were displaced in Croatia, though most returned the following years.

In Croatia, there were still 145000 displaced Croats after the war, from the Serbian control of Krajina, besides those displaced from Bosnia. These returned quite easily. 300000 Serbs from Krajina had taken refuge in Serbia. Probably as many Serbs had taken refuge in other countries. Over two thirds of the local Serbs fled the country. Less than one third of those who left have returned.

Almost no people had moved out from Serbia by the end of the war, though they had received close to half a million refugees. Half of them are still there, ten years later, with over 100000 still living as refugees, rather than having resettled.

In 1999, 400000 Albanians fled Kosovo, into Albania, Macedonia and further away. Quite a lot of people for an "internal police action". Over 300000 of them have returned, while 250000 Serbs and over 100000 Roma have moved out of the country after KFOR took control. This in a "country" with less than two million people.

There were some population movements in Macedonia and Slovenia, but minor compared to the above.

The population of the former Yugoslavia is at the same level as 1990, but with a totally different geographical spread. The big losers have been the Serbs in Croatia, while Bosnia has seen a redistribution of population, to create three ethnically segregated areas.

We can all agree, I suppose, that the Serb cause lost the image conflict, even if we disagree on how just that perception is.

Where no civil war was possible, such as Slovenia, Serbia or Macedonia, there was no real conflict. Where there were sizable minorities, conflict started. Actually the only open intervention of a Balkan state on another was Croatia trying to annex a chunk of Bosnia. Croatia is also the country that has pending border conflicts, with Slovenia, Serbia and Bosnia. All the other conflicts were carried out by internal factions, with varying degrees of international support (Serbia supporting Serbs, Muslims supporting Bosniaks, Western countries through Slovenia supporting Croatia).

Although it has always been a conflict area, sharing three major religions and cultures, the seeds of the conflict are not so deep, lying in good part in Second World War and the varying levels of collaboration of the ethnic groups with the Germans, which itself was caused by the perceived unbalance of power between the Serbs and the other minorities, and which led to the share of power in Tito's Yugoslavia.

If we look at the economy, Slovenia is the best off, followed by Croatia and Serbia, still suffering under international sanctions. Serbian economy has actually benefitted, in numbers, from losing Montenegro and Kosovo (even if Kosovo is not official yet, the trickling away of ethnic Serbs makes it irreversible), but losing 25% of your country, even if it is the poor parts, is traumatic. That brings the reflection, why were those regions so poor compared to the core?

Catching up on Serbia, but it is not difficult when you receive 20% of the GDP as foreign aid, comes Macedonia.

Then we have Bosnia, living off foreign support, with a 45% unemployment rate.

Montenegro is officially poorer, but lacking foreign aid, its economy looks healthier, more able to stand on its own.

At the bottom, at the same catastrophic levels as Albania, the newly minted Kosovo. Right now it is estimated 50% of the GDP comes from grey and black markets. I would not say that is a sign of promise.

I would say that for the US it is attractive to have a Muslim country as an ally, and as a symbol. The complaints of Serbia do not worry them much, and in a way I am sure that there are still many that are more comfortable dealing with Russia as a rival than as a potential friend. As well it is the kind of operation where the EU will pick up most of the actual economic cost, so it is quite less expensive a sign. It also reinforces the USA political efforts to block the eastward expansion of the EU, keeping Serbia isolated, putting Macedonia and Bulgaria more strongly on its side, and playing up to Turkey.

No, the US recognition is a no-brainer. What is more strange is how many EU countries have followed suit. Although most of them are countries with sizable Muslim minorities.

quote:

Running out of enemies

Without the rivalry from Russia, where is the threat that justifies spending hundreds of billion dollars every year on war and preparations for war? The Pentagon's answer is simple: there is no longer one powerful adversary to contend with, but US forces still need to be equipped to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously against "rogue states" like Iraq and North Korea.

According to Michael Klare, author of Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws, Colin Powell devised the "two war strategy" once he realized that the United States was "running out of enemies" large enough to justify spending hundreds of billions on the Pentagon every year.

The United States currently spends 19 times more on its military forces than all of the Pentagon's so-called rogue states - Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea - combined. In fact, the United States and its key allies (NATO, Japan, and South Korea) now account for 62% of total global military spending, up from about 50% in the mid-1980s. In short, despite repeated calls for higher military spending to remedy the alleged "readiness crisis" facing US forces, the United States and its allies currently account for a much higher share of global military spending than they did at the height of the Reagan military buildup in the mid-1980s.

The bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (August 1998), the missile tests by Iran (July 1998) and North Korea (August 1998), the NATO's air war in Kosovo (inaugurated on March 24, 1999), and the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon (September 11, 2001) make US military buildup appear reasonable, and defense corporations are only too happy to produce more lethal weapons.

extracted from:

https://aktuell.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/9-11/military_complex.htm

Most other sources are copyrighted or requires usercode/password (subscription) to be acessed.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychophant:
In 1999, 400000 Albanians fled Kosovo, into Albania, Macedonia and further away. Quite a lot of people for an "internal police action". Over 300000 of them have returned, while 250000 Serbs and over 100000 Roma have moved out of the country after KFOR took control. This in a "country" with less than two million people.

It did start as an internal police action. It ended in all out war. Army was brought in when police encountered heavily armed KLA.

I already wrote that Albanians fled Kosovo in large numbers (as well as Serbs, actually everybody was fleeing Kosovo) because of the fighting between Serbian Army and KLA, but more so because of NATO tearing the place apart.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/koso-m15.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/yugo-m14.shtml
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/04/03/kosovo.damage/
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/stoll.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/the-collateral...es-today-635038.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/debates/european/788047.stm

Unrelated, but interesting:

Don't know if you guys knew this ... but NATO actually leveled the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Serbia during "The Merciful Angel" campaign. link