Q: What weapons will be used in the third world war?
A: I do not know that, But the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstien
A: I do not know that, But the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstien
Per Nielsen said:
<sigh>
Last time I looked, the OIL in Iraq is of the same value to the EU as the USA. Saddam's populace are too poor to fund weapons, yes, but hasn't anyone read of the BILLIONS Saddam funnels every year into his own coffers...and this DOES fund such weapons!
Iraq is yet another kleptocracy, with a merciless dictator that has repeatedly proven to ALL OF US just what his true nature is. He has murdered, is murdering, and will continue to murder, whilst the world waits for him to miraculously "change his mind". Trust me on this point: Saddam will not become a benevolent leader; he will not allow peace as long as he is in power.
Pedja,
I have arguments and i don't wanna give lesson to anybody.
After Slovenia leave Yugoslavia , next year Croatia declare his independency. First country how recognise Croatia as independent country was Germany . Many European states blame Germany for this fast actions and acuse her for involve in the other state busines . But Germany has right becouse every people big or small have the right to be free.
This is just an example to understand that time to time only one have right and many other not.
What do Milosevic to Yugoslavia ?
1. 1990 - Yugoslavia was a big country with a good and healt economy . 3 milion people work outside Yugoslavia and send home 500.000.000 DM /month. 1 - 2 milions tourist come and spent 1,5 bilion DM per year.
2. 1991 - Slovenia want more economic freddom but Milosevici do not understand that the time was change and Slovenia leave Yugoslavia.
3. 1992 - Croatia was the next. Milosevic start the war against Croatia . Serbian kill inocent croatian people , croatian kill serbian inocent people.
This scenario repeat in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Do Milosevic know about people like Arkan ? Yes .
Concentration camp in Europe at 20th century end ?
Milosevic aprove that .
What do Milosevic to Yugoslavia ?
- 10 years of war .
- Serbian people need visa to go in Europe.
- All investors run and not come back.
- Your roads are not safe and turism is down.
- Huge inflation and economy banckrupcy.
- 50-80 Euro per month salary if you are lucky.
- Coruption and organized crime .
"But, if you want to say that he is guilty because he exposed us to the incomparable stronger (i.e. strongest) power, yes, among the other things, he is guilty for that."
Yes is guilty becouse he was stupid to lose Kosovo . If it was smart NATO will help him to figt with albanian terorist .
I am sad to tell you that but this is what can do a stupid dictator to his people.
Like Milosevici , Hitler , Stalin , Ceausescu , Honeker - Saddam kill own people in many ways .
All dictators do not respect any law ( national and international ) and do murder in the name of the people.
NATO and USA means prosperity and democrathy. If some people don't understand that , that is.
Regards !
P.S.
Per Nielsen ,
Usa don't need Irak petrolium.
It have more than the can consume from Kuweit, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Alaska and in the future from Kazachstan and Caspic Sea subcontinental platform ( 200 years or more ).
I have arguments and i don't wanna give lesson to anybody.
After Slovenia leave Yugoslavia , next year Croatia declare his independency. First country how recognise Croatia as independent country was Germany . Many European states blame Germany for this fast actions and acuse her for involve in the other state busines . But Germany has right becouse every people big or small have the right to be free.
This is just an example to understand that time to time only one have right and many other not.
What do Milosevic to Yugoslavia ?
1. 1990 - Yugoslavia was a big country with a good and healt economy . 3 milion people work outside Yugoslavia and send home 500.000.000 DM /month. 1 - 2 milions tourist come and spent 1,5 bilion DM per year.
2. 1991 - Slovenia want more economic freddom but Milosevici do not understand that the time was change and Slovenia leave Yugoslavia.
3. 1992 - Croatia was the next. Milosevic start the war against Croatia . Serbian kill inocent croatian people , croatian kill serbian inocent people.
This scenario repeat in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Do Milosevic know about people like Arkan ? Yes .
Concentration camp in Europe at 20th century end ?
Milosevic aprove that .
What do Milosevic to Yugoslavia ?
- 10 years of war .
- Serbian people need visa to go in Europe.
- All investors run and not come back.
- Your roads are not safe and turism is down.
- Huge inflation and economy banckrupcy.
- 50-80 Euro per month salary if you are lucky.
- Coruption and organized crime .
"But, if you want to say that he is guilty because he exposed us to the incomparable stronger (i.e. strongest) power, yes, among the other things, he is guilty for that."
Yes is guilty becouse he was stupid to lose Kosovo . If it was smart NATO will help him to figt with albanian terorist .
I am sad to tell you that but this is what can do a stupid dictator to his people.
Like Milosevici , Hitler , Stalin , Ceausescu , Honeker - Saddam kill own people in many ways .
All dictators do not respect any law ( national and international ) and do murder in the name of the people.
NATO and USA means prosperity and democrathy. If some people don't understand that , that is.
Regards !
P.S.
Per Nielsen ,
Usa don't need Irak petrolium.
It have more than the can consume from Kuweit, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Alaska and in the future from Kazachstan and Caspic Sea subcontinental platform ( 200 years or more ).
What can we do to foster PEACE?
Howzabout fostering the reformation of many (dare I saw most??) of the institutions, as they presently exist, in the Arab world...
http://www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/
Sorry if I've offended the cultural relativists in this community.
Howzabout fostering the reformation of many (dare I saw most??) of the institutions, as they presently exist, in the Arab world...
http://www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/
Sorry if I've offended the cultural relativists in this community.
djdan,
please a little bit more carefully.
You know one of the nations that doesn´t want to respect international law at the moment is USA. (Among others)
But if USA doesn´t accept this international law its a larger problem than with others.
I have the impression many politicians in USA have a problem with their own care for USA laws too.
If you put all these together, you could put a lot of our prsidents into the same pot. You can´t compare these men!
Honeker wasn´t a dictator (i´m not from eastern germany, i ´m not a communist!) He did´nt kill more of his people than Kohl or Reagan at the same time. A lot of eastern germans regret the way thing went later. The evil was not really this Puppet Honecker - more the players behind him in UDSSR. And you can´t compare with Hitler. Read his book - you will learn he was ill.
War against dictators and moral: It is a point a dictator could be killed to free a land. (german"Tyrannenmord" a classical motiv) But bombing and killing as much people as possible, and what happens to the POWs the USA cought and brought to cuba is not free a land and kill his dictator. This is war against people, civil people, war and killing against everything? that looks arabian?
If we want something good for a country, there must be a better way than throw all the old bombs on it we else have to pay a lot of money for getting rid of them - and make profit by producing a lot of new bombs.
Speaking of oil and 200 years: Last scenarios was 20-40years. Enough: its not the point if its enough (USA has a lot of own oil, but they don´t pump it out with priority because of strategical reasons) The point is control of oil. They control us. Thats not really a problem we could live with this. But the bombed and killed people not. I think the reason for this very agressive policy of Mr Bush et Co. is innerpolitical. If there is war and terrorism - he is the hero of war aginst terror - the "leader" of his nation and the so called western or free world. If there is no terrorism and war - everyone look on his legitimation - the election he not really won.
Is this a good base to solve other countrys problems?
please a little bit more carefully.
You know one of the nations that doesn´t want to respect international law at the moment is USA. (Among others)
But if USA doesn´t accept this international law its a larger problem than with others.
I have the impression many politicians in USA have a problem with their own care for USA laws too.
If you put all these together, you could put a lot of our prsidents into the same pot. You can´t compare these men!
Honeker wasn´t a dictator (i´m not from eastern germany, i ´m not a communist!) He did´nt kill more of his people than Kohl or Reagan at the same time. A lot of eastern germans regret the way thing went later. The evil was not really this Puppet Honecker - more the players behind him in UDSSR. And you can´t compare with Hitler. Read his book - you will learn he was ill.
War against dictators and moral: It is a point a dictator could be killed to free a land. (german"Tyrannenmord" a classical motiv) But bombing and killing as much people as possible, and what happens to the POWs the USA cought and brought to cuba is not free a land and kill his dictator. This is war against people, civil people, war and killing against everything? that looks arabian?
If we want something good for a country, there must be a better way than throw all the old bombs on it we else have to pay a lot of money for getting rid of them - and make profit by producing a lot of new bombs.
Speaking of oil and 200 years: Last scenarios was 20-40years. Enough: its not the point if its enough (USA has a lot of own oil, but they don´t pump it out with priority because of strategical reasons) The point is control of oil. They control us. Thats not really a problem we could live with this. But the bombed and killed people not. I think the reason for this very agressive policy of Mr Bush et Co. is innerpolitical. If there is war and terrorism - he is the hero of war aginst terror - the "leader" of his nation and the so called western or free world. If there is no terrorism and war - everyone look on his legitimation - the election he not really won.
Is this a good base to solve other countrys problems?
djdan said:
djdan,
It's not so much that USA doesn't need Iraq's petroleum, (although free petroleum is nice!) but the control of the sale of petroleum is more important. Have a read of this link I posted earlier:
http://64.176.94.191/article1243.htm
Regards,
🙂
Till ,
Honecker was a dicatator . Many people was killed at the borders and at the Berlin wall when try to escape from east-germany .
Stasi kill others . Did you say that russian tell Honecker to do that ?
In second world war in april , may and june 1944 USA and U.K bomb Caen and other big citys in Normandy. Huge number of inocent french people was kild .
40.000 inocent people was killed in Dresda and other 150.000 in Hamburg in one month.
You tell me if it worth !
If somebody speak about money please read another point of view ( Is not mine and I do know not if is true ) :
Monday, February 23, 1998 Published at 13:48 GMT
Iraq: the French connection
BBC NEWS
French President Jacques Chirac (right) meets Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahhaf
By Henri Astier
France has long had a special relationship with Iraq
France has historically been Iraq's best friend in the West. The special relationship began three decades ago, when General de Gaulle cultivated Arab countries in the wake of the 1967 war in the Middle East. This policy was seen by Paris as a way of boosting trade ties with oil-rich nations and extending French influence in an area which had been dominated by the "Anglo-Saxons".
In 1974 Jacques Chirac called Saddam Hussein a personal friend
By 1970 France was one of Iraq's main trading partners. Diplomatic and economic ties were given a crucial boost in 1974, when the then French Prime Minister, and current President, Jacques Chirac, called Saddam Hussein a personal friend; his government agreed to build an experimental nuclear reactor near Baghdad, which was later bombed by Israel. Arms sales continued apace, as did French infrastructure projects in Iraq; by the late 1970s France was second only to the USSR as supplier of both civilian and military equipment to the Iraqis.
The trend continued under French socialist governments in the 1980s. Like other Western countries, France strongly backed Iraq in its war against Iran. Paris supplied Baghdad with sophisticated weaponry, including Mirage fighter bombers and Super Etendard aircraft equipped with Exocet missiles. When the Iraqis found it hard to pay up, Paris rescheduled the debt.
France's relations with Iraq were soured by the 1991 Gulf War
France's response to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 must be viewed in the light of this long-standing relationship. The French felt that they were in an ideal position to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw; just a few days before Operation Desert Storm began, French envoys were in Baghdad, trying to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
On the face of it, it seems hard to understand why France remains more favourably-inclined towards Baghdad than other Western countries. Economically, ties with Iraq have been a costly disaster. After helping Saddam Hussein build airports, factories and weapons, France is saddled with $4bn in unpaid bills. Military cooperation also backfired: the French helped arm a power which they later had to fight. And politically, French diplomacy has yielded scant results.
France wants diplomacy to work
So why does Paris still prefer to view Saddam Hussein as a potential ally, rather than an enemy? Many in Britain and the US argue that France's policy towards Iraq is driven by the prospect of lucrative deals for French companies, notably oil giants, once UN sanctions are lifted. This may be true, but it's not the whole story. Most previous contracts with Iraq have been anything but lucrative for the French. The belief that diplomacy can work wonders without the threat of force, and a perennial reluctance to follow the Anglo-Saxons' lead, are probably as strong as any perceived economic interest
And Other:
[See Kenneth R. Timmerman's article, "Eurobiz Is Caught Arming Saddam," in the current issue.]
The Iraqi documents portray a worldwide network of banks that actively assist or have assisted Saddam Hussein in his efforts to procure weapons of mass destruction during the last 20 years. Among those named and their location:
Germany: Dresdner Bank (Aschaffenburg, Frankfurt and Hamburg); Deutsche Bank (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt); Commerze Bank (Düsseldorf); Vereins and West Bank (Hamburg); UBAE Arab German Bank (Frankfurt); Berlin Handels und Frankfurt; DG Bank (Frankfurt); Westdeutsch Landes Bank (Düsseldorf); Bayerische Landes Bank (Munich); Hypo Bank (Munich); Manufacturers Hanover Trust (Germany).
Switzerland: Union Bank of Switzerland (St. Gall); Gothard Bank (Lugano).
Spain: Banco Exterior De Espana.
Austria: Girozentrale, Creditanstalt Banken Verein (Vienna).
Undeterred, Karl Kolb went back in 2001 as a prominent participant in the Baghdad International Fair, according to a list of participants posted on the fair's official Website (www.baghdad-international-fair.de/eng/ws04.html). They were not alone. Chemical companies and machine-tool makers abounded, as did major industrial players such as telecommunications giant Siemens AG and DaimlerChrysler AG, whose U.S.-based vice president for government affairs told a reporter at the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Wall Street Project conference last month that conservatives such as U.S. President George W. Bush "have a rather myopic view of the world."
Other major suppliers mentioned in the Iraqi documents include German chemical giant Preussag, equipment maker Schott Glasswerke, Dutch chemical suppliers Melchemie, KBS and Philips Export, Fluka Chemia AG of Switzerland and French partners De Dietrich and Protect SA. In all, the Iraqis named 14 German, three Dutch, three Swiss and two French companies as their top CW suppliers, although dozens more played supporting roles.
According to U.N. databases we were able to access, since 1998 French companies lead the pack in applying for U.N. licenses to sell potential weapons material to Iraq, with more than 272 different license applications worth billions of dollars. The United States put 93 of those contracts, worth $217 million, on hold. Among them was the sale as "medical equipment" of a series of lithotripsy machines for treating kidney stones without surgery manufactured by the company Karl Storz Endoscopie France SA. Perfectly normal? Think again. The lithotripter employs a high-speed krytron switch similar to those used to trigger nuclear warheads. Along with the six medical machines, Iraq sought 120 spare krytrons, the U.N. Website reveals.
After France, countries with the most applications were Jordan (184), Russia (154), the United Arab Emirates (112), Italy (97) and China (66). While German companies had made only 36 applications, the dollar value was believed to be in the billions, just behind France. "Whenever the French and the Germans criticize the U.S. for going to war against Saddam," one congressional insider tells Insight, "we should understand that it's really all about the euros."
The money don't smell , right ?
Regards and good night !
( See you tomorrow )
Honecker was a dicatator . Many people was killed at the borders and at the Berlin wall when try to escape from east-germany .
Stasi kill others . Did you say that russian tell Honecker to do that ?
In second world war in april , may and june 1944 USA and U.K bomb Caen and other big citys in Normandy. Huge number of inocent french people was kild .
40.000 inocent people was killed in Dresda and other 150.000 in Hamburg in one month.
You tell me if it worth !
If somebody speak about money please read another point of view ( Is not mine and I do know not if is true ) :
Monday, February 23, 1998 Published at 13:48 GMT
Iraq: the French connection
BBC NEWS
French President Jacques Chirac (right) meets Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahhaf
By Henri Astier
France has long had a special relationship with Iraq
France has historically been Iraq's best friend in the West. The special relationship began three decades ago, when General de Gaulle cultivated Arab countries in the wake of the 1967 war in the Middle East. This policy was seen by Paris as a way of boosting trade ties with oil-rich nations and extending French influence in an area which had been dominated by the "Anglo-Saxons".
In 1974 Jacques Chirac called Saddam Hussein a personal friend
By 1970 France was one of Iraq's main trading partners. Diplomatic and economic ties were given a crucial boost in 1974, when the then French Prime Minister, and current President, Jacques Chirac, called Saddam Hussein a personal friend; his government agreed to build an experimental nuclear reactor near Baghdad, which was later bombed by Israel. Arms sales continued apace, as did French infrastructure projects in Iraq; by the late 1970s France was second only to the USSR as supplier of both civilian and military equipment to the Iraqis.
The trend continued under French socialist governments in the 1980s. Like other Western countries, France strongly backed Iraq in its war against Iran. Paris supplied Baghdad with sophisticated weaponry, including Mirage fighter bombers and Super Etendard aircraft equipped with Exocet missiles. When the Iraqis found it hard to pay up, Paris rescheduled the debt.
France's relations with Iraq were soured by the 1991 Gulf War
France's response to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 must be viewed in the light of this long-standing relationship. The French felt that they were in an ideal position to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw; just a few days before Operation Desert Storm began, French envoys were in Baghdad, trying to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
On the face of it, it seems hard to understand why France remains more favourably-inclined towards Baghdad than other Western countries. Economically, ties with Iraq have been a costly disaster. After helping Saddam Hussein build airports, factories and weapons, France is saddled with $4bn in unpaid bills. Military cooperation also backfired: the French helped arm a power which they later had to fight. And politically, French diplomacy has yielded scant results.
France wants diplomacy to work
So why does Paris still prefer to view Saddam Hussein as a potential ally, rather than an enemy? Many in Britain and the US argue that France's policy towards Iraq is driven by the prospect of lucrative deals for French companies, notably oil giants, once UN sanctions are lifted. This may be true, but it's not the whole story. Most previous contracts with Iraq have been anything but lucrative for the French. The belief that diplomacy can work wonders without the threat of force, and a perennial reluctance to follow the Anglo-Saxons' lead, are probably as strong as any perceived economic interest
And Other:
[See Kenneth R. Timmerman's article, "Eurobiz Is Caught Arming Saddam," in the current issue.]
The Iraqi documents portray a worldwide network of banks that actively assist or have assisted Saddam Hussein in his efforts to procure weapons of mass destruction during the last 20 years. Among those named and their location:
Germany: Dresdner Bank (Aschaffenburg, Frankfurt and Hamburg); Deutsche Bank (Düsseldorf, Frankfurt); Commerze Bank (Düsseldorf); Vereins and West Bank (Hamburg); UBAE Arab German Bank (Frankfurt); Berlin Handels und Frankfurt; DG Bank (Frankfurt); Westdeutsch Landes Bank (Düsseldorf); Bayerische Landes Bank (Munich); Hypo Bank (Munich); Manufacturers Hanover Trust (Germany).
Switzerland: Union Bank of Switzerland (St. Gall); Gothard Bank (Lugano).
Spain: Banco Exterior De Espana.
Austria: Girozentrale, Creditanstalt Banken Verein (Vienna).
Undeterred, Karl Kolb went back in 2001 as a prominent participant in the Baghdad International Fair, according to a list of participants posted on the fair's official Website (www.baghdad-international-fair.de/eng/ws04.html). They were not alone. Chemical companies and machine-tool makers abounded, as did major industrial players such as telecommunications giant Siemens AG and DaimlerChrysler AG, whose U.S.-based vice president for government affairs told a reporter at the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Wall Street Project conference last month that conservatives such as U.S. President George W. Bush "have a rather myopic view of the world."
Other major suppliers mentioned in the Iraqi documents include German chemical giant Preussag, equipment maker Schott Glasswerke, Dutch chemical suppliers Melchemie, KBS and Philips Export, Fluka Chemia AG of Switzerland and French partners De Dietrich and Protect SA. In all, the Iraqis named 14 German, three Dutch, three Swiss and two French companies as their top CW suppliers, although dozens more played supporting roles.
According to U.N. databases we were able to access, since 1998 French companies lead the pack in applying for U.N. licenses to sell potential weapons material to Iraq, with more than 272 different license applications worth billions of dollars. The United States put 93 of those contracts, worth $217 million, on hold. Among them was the sale as "medical equipment" of a series of lithotripsy machines for treating kidney stones without surgery manufactured by the company Karl Storz Endoscopie France SA. Perfectly normal? Think again. The lithotripter employs a high-speed krytron switch similar to those used to trigger nuclear warheads. Along with the six medical machines, Iraq sought 120 spare krytrons, the U.N. Website reveals.
After France, countries with the most applications were Jordan (184), Russia (154), the United Arab Emirates (112), Italy (97) and China (66). While German companies had made only 36 applications, the dollar value was believed to be in the billions, just behind France. "Whenever the French and the Germans criticize the U.S. for going to war against Saddam," one congressional insider tells Insight, "we should understand that it's really all about the euros."
The money don't smell , right ?
Regards and good night !
( See you tomorrow )
For those interested in a different American perspective: If you get CNN in your country, former President Clinton will be talking about Iraq, possibly among other things, with Larry King from 9 to 10 PM Eastern Standard Time. What is that-2 AM Greenwich Mean Time?
Christopher Hitchens (hardly a war-mongering man of the right) does a devastating dissection of Chirac, his history, and his venality in the Wall Street Journal. Available online at www.opinionjournal.com , registration required, but free.
Hello djdan,
Germany claimed they will do that to stop the war. After Germany did that, war flared. So, what right Germany had? I hope you don’t think the Serbs in Croatia did not have a right to be free. And what Germany thought about that right? Of course, it is not a problem anymore. No Serbs in all those critical parts of the Croatia. Nor they hope they will back. But yes, their leader is war crimes indicted in Hague. Because he shoot a few missiles to the Zagreb and several civilians died. And because he was fool enough to admit he is personally responsible for that. (For those in Hague it is almost unknown what happened with the Serbs. Policy, eh.)
Well, you want the story from the beginning?
Slovenia wanted more economic freedom; one evil dictator did not give them right, and BANG! Croatia was the next, evil dictator at the work, BANG! Than happy, multiethnic Bosnia, evil dictator again, BANG! Then Kosovo, should I say the same… Where did you hear that? On CNN? Yes, I heard the same, but it is overoveroversimplified. It was not the Hollywood. The good guys and the bad guys? Bloody history of the Balkans did not start with the Milosevic. Slovenia did not want more economic freedom, it wanted independency. Croatia did not fight for democracy, it fought for independency. Bosnian Muslims did not fight for multiculturalism, they fought for independency. Kosovo Albanians did not fight for the human rights, they fought for independency. It is the result of some historical processes. It is important to understand that during 80’s national oligarchies were made in all ex-Yugoslavian republics. It is not Milosevic made other national leadership, they already existed. Any doubt about it? For all of them it was a gift from heaven to have a “dictator” for the enemy.
When country was pulverous enough, he gone. Then gone to the Hague. When I saw him in the Hague, for the very first time I had some, hmmm..., sympathy for him. Simply because the only reason he came there, was the NATO bombing. If you follow the process all the proofs prosecutors have are not as strong as it was supposed they will be. Take note, he was indicted during the NATO bombing. Prosecutors, former and current, claim there was not political pressure to indict him. Hahaha… Anyone remembers, 5, 6, 7 years ago, after he signed Dayton agreement, the West called him a “guaranty of the peace and stability in this part of the Europe”. Yes, after all those bloody wars in Croatia and Bosnia. Anyone remembers, we demonstrated every day, more than three months, to defend the results of the local elections in the winter 96./97, but at that time, the West simply was not against him.
While it is almost sure Arcan was his man, it is still not sure what he has with those camps. Also, you’ll easily find some Arcan at the other side.
Incomings are better now, we are apart from where we been. I don’t see any sign anyone will help to this country, at the autumn 2000. known as champion of democracy. Someone talked the West have moral responsibility to help after bombing, and democratic changes, but as I see it did not happen…
Corruption and organized crime are direct consequences of the sanctions. For a few years we went the road from the country practically without the criminal, to the country with the organized criminal. Other than isolated and ruined economy, it was the main thing the sanctions made.
This is interesting. As I did not been in war at all, neither kill anyone nor committed any crime, even if I participated in all protests against the “dictator”, I will most likely soon start to pay, together with all citizens of this country some rates that will International Court Of Justice in Hague define for the genocide in Bosnia. I think Milosevic will not be here to do the same. So, yes, none can escape the fact he/she is a citizen of his own country.
Who do not, will be bombed. 🙁
Pedja
PS: I hope readers will find connection with the topic of the thread.
Germany claimed they will do that to stop the war. After Germany did that, war flared. So, what right Germany had? I hope you don’t think the Serbs in Croatia did not have a right to be free. And what Germany thought about that right? Of course, it is not a problem anymore. No Serbs in all those critical parts of the Croatia. Nor they hope they will back. But yes, their leader is war crimes indicted in Hague. Because he shoot a few missiles to the Zagreb and several civilians died. And because he was fool enough to admit he is personally responsible for that. (For those in Hague it is almost unknown what happened with the Serbs. Policy, eh.)
Well, you want the story from the beginning?
Slovenia wanted more economic freedom; one evil dictator did not give them right, and BANG! Croatia was the next, evil dictator at the work, BANG! Than happy, multiethnic Bosnia, evil dictator again, BANG! Then Kosovo, should I say the same… Where did you hear that? On CNN? Yes, I heard the same, but it is overoveroversimplified. It was not the Hollywood. The good guys and the bad guys? Bloody history of the Balkans did not start with the Milosevic. Slovenia did not want more economic freedom, it wanted independency. Croatia did not fight for democracy, it fought for independency. Bosnian Muslims did not fight for multiculturalism, they fought for independency. Kosovo Albanians did not fight for the human rights, they fought for independency. It is the result of some historical processes. It is important to understand that during 80’s national oligarchies were made in all ex-Yugoslavian republics. It is not Milosevic made other national leadership, they already existed. Any doubt about it? For all of them it was a gift from heaven to have a “dictator” for the enemy.
When country was pulverous enough, he gone. Then gone to the Hague. When I saw him in the Hague, for the very first time I had some, hmmm..., sympathy for him. Simply because the only reason he came there, was the NATO bombing. If you follow the process all the proofs prosecutors have are not as strong as it was supposed they will be. Take note, he was indicted during the NATO bombing. Prosecutors, former and current, claim there was not political pressure to indict him. Hahaha… Anyone remembers, 5, 6, 7 years ago, after he signed Dayton agreement, the West called him a “guaranty of the peace and stability in this part of the Europe”. Yes, after all those bloody wars in Croatia and Bosnia. Anyone remembers, we demonstrated every day, more than three months, to defend the results of the local elections in the winter 96./97, but at that time, the West simply was not against him.
While it is almost sure Arcan was his man, it is still not sure what he has with those camps. Also, you’ll easily find some Arcan at the other side.
Incomings are better now, we are apart from where we been. I don’t see any sign anyone will help to this country, at the autumn 2000. known as champion of democracy. Someone talked the West have moral responsibility to help after bombing, and democratic changes, but as I see it did not happen…
Corruption and organized crime are direct consequences of the sanctions. For a few years we went the road from the country practically without the criminal, to the country with the organized criminal. Other than isolated and ruined economy, it was the main thing the sanctions made.
This is interesting. As I did not been in war at all, neither kill anyone nor committed any crime, even if I participated in all protests against the “dictator”, I will most likely soon start to pay, together with all citizens of this country some rates that will International Court Of Justice in Hague define for the genocide in Bosnia. I think Milosevic will not be here to do the same. So, yes, none can escape the fact he/she is a citizen of his own country.
Who do not, will be bombed. 🙁
Pedja
PS: I hope readers will find connection with the topic of the thread.
To Pedja from former Bosnian
Bosnian Muslims did not fight for multiculturalism, they fought for independency.
I would not be so sure about your statement as I was a part of people who were bombed and snipered (while they were propagating peace in front of the parliament in Sarajevo) by the Serbians and Yugoslav army. They were already being killed by Serbians at the time when they voted for independence.
Let me just remind you, that the real problem started way back in 1988 when he started nationalism in Kosovo, with his Serbian party with only one goal and that was a big Serbia.
How many Muslims and Romano Catholics are living in Serbia now??? On the other hand take and look at how many Serbians are right now, not only living in Bosnia, but rather waiting for reimbursement that war has cause to their homes. Many of them have already got that money and are saying that they are Serbians not Bosnians even if they were born Bosnians. I think you know more than you are trying to show here so please have some reality in your posts not only well known Serbian pride.
Haw much gold and material-goods ended in Serbia and all from Bosnia and Croatia, thanks to Serbian's well paid criminals.
😡 😡 😡
Trigon.
Bosnian Muslims did not fight for multiculturalism, they fought for independency.
I would not be so sure about your statement as I was a part of people who were bombed and snipered (while they were propagating peace in front of the parliament in Sarajevo) by the Serbians and Yugoslav army. They were already being killed by Serbians at the time when they voted for independence.
Let me just remind you, that the real problem started way back in 1988 when he started nationalism in Kosovo, with his Serbian party with only one goal and that was a big Serbia.
How many Muslims and Romano Catholics are living in Serbia now??? On the other hand take and look at how many Serbians are right now, not only living in Bosnia, but rather waiting for reimbursement that war has cause to their homes. Many of them have already got that money and are saying that they are Serbians not Bosnians even if they were born Bosnians. I think you know more than you are trying to show here so please have some reality in your posts not only well known Serbian pride.
Haw much gold and material-goods ended in Serbia and all from Bosnia and Croatia, thanks to Serbian's well paid criminals.
😡 😡 😡
Trigon.
I hate to stick my nose into this, fellas, but wasn't there the small matter of "Ethnic Cleansing"? That was a new term invented just for the situation in the former Yugoslavia.
As I recall it, the Serbs basically went through Bosnia and threw everyone out of their homes. Then, in Kosovo, Serbian paramilitary death squads went house-to-house, finding the males in the family and killing them in front of their families.
Some of the nicer death squads gave villages a day to desert and leave before the death squads swept through.
This is the backdrop of the bombing-to stop the Ethnic Cleansing. It is not like the US threw a dart at a map and when it landed on Serbia, said, "Hey, I'll think we'll bomb that country".
As I recall it, the Serbs basically went through Bosnia and threw everyone out of their homes. Then, in Kosovo, Serbian paramilitary death squads went house-to-house, finding the males in the family and killing them in front of their families.
Some of the nicer death squads gave villages a day to desert and leave before the death squads swept through.
This is the backdrop of the bombing-to stop the Ethnic Cleansing. It is not like the US threw a dart at a map and when it landed on Serbia, said, "Hey, I'll think we'll bomb that country".
kelticwizard said:
In Australia, I managed to catch an excerpt of this interview on the radio yesterday.
Whilst I do not really agree with Mr. Clinton's view on the Iraq issue, I have to say that he is at least able to hold a discussion without resorting to rhetoric and chest-beating like the Shrub.
I cannot help but think that if he were still President, there may have been a diplomatic solution to the Iraq problem.
As an aside, the best Larry King interview I ever saw was with Anthony Robbins and Deepak Chopra........Wow! it was inspirational!
I think Clinton was holding back during the interview. He criticized Bush harshly on the economy, but I think he did not want to cut Bush's legs out from under him in the matter of foreign affairs, especially when war is imminent.
Clinton did say that Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to have the weapons in question, and that Bush would be wise to go by UN resolution. However, Clinton felt that Bush legally did not need a second UN resolution, though he strongly advised Bush to get it.
However, Clinton also said that he thought the greatest foreign threat to America right now was al-Qaeda, followed by North Korea, which is setting up a nuclear weapons export industry because they have no other source of income!!
So, read between the lines. Clinton did not say that war with Iraq is not a good idea, but he did rank Saddam as only threat number three to the US. Draw your own conclusions. I cannot say that Clinton would not have gone to war with Iraq, or that he would have been able to handle Saddam non-violently. But considering Bosnia, I do think he would have tried other avenues, with a fairly good chance of success, though certainly no guarantees.
Clinton did say that Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to have the weapons in question, and that Bush would be wise to go by UN resolution. However, Clinton felt that Bush legally did not need a second UN resolution, though he strongly advised Bush to get it.
However, Clinton also said that he thought the greatest foreign threat to America right now was al-Qaeda, followed by North Korea, which is setting up a nuclear weapons export industry because they have no other source of income!!
So, read between the lines. Clinton did not say that war with Iraq is not a good idea, but he did rank Saddam as only threat number three to the US. Draw your own conclusions. I cannot say that Clinton would not have gone to war with Iraq, or that he would have been able to handle Saddam non-violently. But considering Bosnia, I do think he would have tried other avenues, with a fairly good chance of success, though certainly no guarantees.
Yeah, I agree. He was very diplomatic in his assessment of the Bush administration's handling of the situation. That's why I think he would have been better dealing with the Iraq problem.
Foreign affairs is all about diplomacy.
🙂
Foreign affairs is all about diplomacy.
🙂
Hello Trigon,
Yes, I remember that day, I watched it on TV. It was never clear who actually shoot that day. Serbs, because they are crazy chetniks (what else? – most simple), Muslims (to accuse Serbs for that), Serbs (to accuse Muslims are ready to do anything just to accuse Serbs)... I also remember the first bullet in that war was shoot against the Serbs (it was wedding, do you remember?), not by the Serbs. Yup, that was the vote about the independence whose result was known before it even happened. And the result was: the will of the Serbs will be ignored, we are more numerous. Serbs just have to follow our will. That? You wanted independence? Serbs did not, they wanted to stay in the same country they lived until then. And then started the war. Do you remember Alija Izetbegovic: “I would not sacrifice independent Bosnia to the peace in Bosnia”? And because I tell this, please, don’t put me to the situation to defend crimes committed by the Serbian side in that war. I will not do that. But I don’t accept the opinion which tells Serbs did not have national rights because they had “dictator”.
No, disunion of the Yugoslavia started at late 60s, and after Tito’s death, during 80s, was practically completed. You had almost complete institutions organized at the level of the republics. Economy, party, secret services, Territorial defense… At the late 80s as a final event to this, came leaders. They wrote the books before they became leaders. It is not hard to check who they’ve been.
And no, it is almost sure big Serbia was not his goal. He used nationalism, and its worst kinds and forms, and started lowest motives of the people. But his goal was not a big Serbia, his goal was to take and save the power. To do that, he abused many things. Believe me, I know him (was my president ten years 🙄 ).
The topic that pushed him at the top was the emigration of the Serbs from the Kosovo during previous period. During previous decades tens of thousands of the Serbs left the Kosovo under the pressure of the Kosovo Albanians. It was the first ethnic cleansing after WWII in Yugoslavia. And that was the topic nobody talked about. He used that topic. Then everything went almost automatically, according to the wishes of the other Yugoslavian republics to be independent.
But if you say something like in Serbia appeared nationalist, and others were scared and then decided to go, no, no way, it was not so.
It is not any problem to see the changes in national structure in Serbia, and also in Croatia. Both countries indexed population last year (if this is right phrase). Just check it. These data really does not have anything with what you saw on CNN.
Please, don’t put me to the position to defend criminals. Neither I do that, nor do I have such intention. Actually I try to escape such pitfalls. I could name Bosnian criminals with significant role in that war (and consequently with significant role in the after war economy), but why should I do that? Anyway, if you look more carefully at the criminals at the both sides, you may notice romantic example of the multiethnic cooperation.
Pedja
Yes, I remember that day, I watched it on TV. It was never clear who actually shoot that day. Serbs, because they are crazy chetniks (what else? – most simple), Muslims (to accuse Serbs for that), Serbs (to accuse Muslims are ready to do anything just to accuse Serbs)... I also remember the first bullet in that war was shoot against the Serbs (it was wedding, do you remember?), not by the Serbs. Yup, that was the vote about the independence whose result was known before it even happened. And the result was: the will of the Serbs will be ignored, we are more numerous. Serbs just have to follow our will. That? You wanted independence? Serbs did not, they wanted to stay in the same country they lived until then. And then started the war. Do you remember Alija Izetbegovic: “I would not sacrifice independent Bosnia to the peace in Bosnia”? And because I tell this, please, don’t put me to the situation to defend crimes committed by the Serbian side in that war. I will not do that. But I don’t accept the opinion which tells Serbs did not have national rights because they had “dictator”.
No, disunion of the Yugoslavia started at late 60s, and after Tito’s death, during 80s, was practically completed. You had almost complete institutions organized at the level of the republics. Economy, party, secret services, Territorial defense… At the late 80s as a final event to this, came leaders. They wrote the books before they became leaders. It is not hard to check who they’ve been.
And no, it is almost sure big Serbia was not his goal. He used nationalism, and its worst kinds and forms, and started lowest motives of the people. But his goal was not a big Serbia, his goal was to take and save the power. To do that, he abused many things. Believe me, I know him (was my president ten years 🙄 ).
The topic that pushed him at the top was the emigration of the Serbs from the Kosovo during previous period. During previous decades tens of thousands of the Serbs left the Kosovo under the pressure of the Kosovo Albanians. It was the first ethnic cleansing after WWII in Yugoslavia. And that was the topic nobody talked about. He used that topic. Then everything went almost automatically, according to the wishes of the other Yugoslavian republics to be independent.
But if you say something like in Serbia appeared nationalist, and others were scared and then decided to go, no, no way, it was not so.
It is not any problem to see the changes in national structure in Serbia, and also in Croatia. Both countries indexed population last year (if this is right phrase). Just check it. These data really does not have anything with what you saw on CNN.
Please, don’t put me to the position to defend criminals. Neither I do that, nor do I have such intention. Actually I try to escape such pitfalls. I could name Bosnian criminals with significant role in that war (and consequently with significant role in the after war economy), but why should I do that? Anyway, if you look more carefully at the criminals at the both sides, you may notice romantic example of the multiethnic cooperation.
Pedja
Hello kelticwizard,
Yes, and you will understand it even better if you look at the ethnic maps before and after ethnic cleansing(s).
No, Serbs did not have paramilitary, Serbs had regular police and military formations, Kosovo Albanians had paramilitary (i.e. terrorists).
Tell me really, what this had with the US? Except the fact the Abramowitz’s lobbyist group ICG had a success working for Albanian armed separatists.
I remember the day before the bombing started. After his last talk with Milosevic, and before he will go to the NATO to say negotiation failed, start to bomb them, Richard Holbrook had an interview at one Belgrade TV station. He explained to us, US does not have anything against Serbian people, but US are against dictator and this and that policy etc, etc… When he was asked: “OK, but if some take an arm to fight for, say, independent Texas, what will US government do?” For all these years I saw many kinds of politicians, but that kind of arrogance did not. The answer was like: “Don’t ask me that, I’m not here for that, you’re not in a position to talk with me about that”.
After the bombing, Serbs were ethnically cleaned from Kosovo. In the presence of UN’s forces. They said, let the Albanians give a little revenge. Those who are stood in the Kosovo live in the ghettos. Kosovo surely goes to the independence. What all of this have with the “dictator”?
Could I remember you people, one of the demands to the Serbian side was to allow NATO free movement through whole country. Sounds familiar? Remember when I said it is decided, there will be a war. Yes mate, that is how it goes. One no normal demand, you have a reason for war.
Pedja
Yes, and you will understand it even better if you look at the ethnic maps before and after ethnic cleansing(s).
No, Serbs did not have paramilitary, Serbs had regular police and military formations, Kosovo Albanians had paramilitary (i.e. terrorists).
Tell me really, what this had with the US? Except the fact the Abramowitz’s lobbyist group ICG had a success working for Albanian armed separatists.
I remember the day before the bombing started. After his last talk with Milosevic, and before he will go to the NATO to say negotiation failed, start to bomb them, Richard Holbrook had an interview at one Belgrade TV station. He explained to us, US does not have anything against Serbian people, but US are against dictator and this and that policy etc, etc… When he was asked: “OK, but if some take an arm to fight for, say, independent Texas, what will US government do?” For all these years I saw many kinds of politicians, but that kind of arrogance did not. The answer was like: “Don’t ask me that, I’m not here for that, you’re not in a position to talk with me about that”.
After the bombing, Serbs were ethnically cleaned from Kosovo. In the presence of UN’s forces. They said, let the Albanians give a little revenge. Those who are stood in the Kosovo live in the ghettos. Kosovo surely goes to the independence. What all of this have with the “dictator”?
Could I remember you people, one of the demands to the Serbian side was to allow NATO free movement through whole country. Sounds familiar? Remember when I said it is decided, there will be a war. Yes mate, that is how it goes. One no normal demand, you have a reason for war.
Pedja
It's touching, really, to see Germans so concerned about the health of US sevicemen. Unfortunately, the whole Gulf War Syndrome is more a disease of politics rather than reality. The authors of that link conveniently ignore the rather thorough debunking to which GWS has fallen victim. Because of the political nature of this, it is still highly unpopular here to have any doubts about the reality of GWS, but eppur si muove, or something like that.
I'll say it again: there are rational, logical reasons to argue against military action in Iraq. But those arguments are badly undermined by the use of the scribblings of idiots.
I'll say it again: there are rational, logical reasons to argue against military action in Iraq. But those arguments are badly undermined by the use of the scribblings of idiots.
I think there is a lot of conspiracy theory going on here, it seems that the whole European community here thinks very poorly of anything that the US does concerning foreign policy, and even if the US completely stayed out of all world problems I believe that there would still be outspoken hatred for lack of intervention, there is no way to please all the people all the time. Its pretty easy to sit from here and accuse any government of ulterior motives, and some of it may be true, but usually the Truth lies somewhere in-between, and most governments are not as Evil as we pretend them to be, most are motivated by very simple means like money. And what’s so bad about money being behind the decisions of a government anyway, why is the bottom dollar so maligned, money is what keeps a country going, keeps people from going hungry and gives shelter, every country in the world places money at the top of their priority list and he who pays the bills gets to make the rules, and since the universally hated US feeds and finances just about every country in need they get to make the rules, anyone who don’t like the USA’s foreign policy should stop taking money from them, or quit complaining.
IMO the only way this war will be prevented is for Suddam Husain and his entire regime to voluntarily step down and go into a permanent controllable exile (what are the chances of that). The USA is (IMO) simply tired of spending Billions trying to keep him in check, and since he has shown such defiance against the whole world for so long the only acceptable solution is to remove him, and all of his generals and anyone who would try to stand in his place and continue the defiance and aggression, it’s too late for disarmament, he will still be a thorn in the side of humanity and cost billions more each year he is in power.
Is this so hard for our European brothers to understand, and what’s wrong with using some of the oil to help pay for the long expensive effort that the US and others have had to shell out over the years? BTW the US is and always has had to pay far more than any other country in every war we have been involved with.
Name me one country that doesn’t put the bottom dollar at the top of the priority list..
And to all the Haters of the USA’s policies remember before you complain about your neighbors back yard being dirty, clean your own first.
IMO the only way this war will be prevented is for Suddam Husain and his entire regime to voluntarily step down and go into a permanent controllable exile (what are the chances of that). The USA is (IMO) simply tired of spending Billions trying to keep him in check, and since he has shown such defiance against the whole world for so long the only acceptable solution is to remove him, and all of his generals and anyone who would try to stand in his place and continue the defiance and aggression, it’s too late for disarmament, he will still be a thorn in the side of humanity and cost billions more each year he is in power.
Is this so hard for our European brothers to understand, and what’s wrong with using some of the oil to help pay for the long expensive effort that the US and others have had to shell out over the years? BTW the US is and always has had to pay far more than any other country in every war we have been involved with.
Name me one country that doesn’t put the bottom dollar at the top of the priority list..
And to all the Haters of the USA’s policies remember before you complain about your neighbors back yard being dirty, clean your own first.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.