The facts are that we destroyed Serbia's bridges, Serb hospitals, and the Serb military which could protect them from terrorists. It was an illegal war, launched by executive authority without the consent of Congress. That is not peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is foolish anyway if it is at NATO's behest. They need us to enforce their will and we do not need them. We will face greater danger in the future because of this disaster. Serbia will never trust us again.

Actually, Russia provided and continually provided arms to Serbia in their bombing of their neighbors in the Republic of Croatia and in Bosnia Herzegovina during Serbia's jihad against democracy in the 1990s, which was supported by a majority of Serb voters until Milosevic's "betrayal" of 90% Albanian Kosovo.

The problem with your argument is that you do not take into consideration the fact that Yugoslavia was a terrorist state as well as a state sponsor of terrorism, as was Serbia until Milosevic's fall from "grace."

Having served in Kosovo and having a few Albanian Kosovar friends, I can tell you that you are way off. The mosques were and remain empty there, and Kosovar Albanian Muslims drink alcohol and eat pork like it is going out of style. They are as secular as they come -- the four involved in the Ft. Dix case are an extreme exception to the rule.

As for Serbia standing up to Hitler, that is laughable. The "Uzicka Republic" died within a week, and Serbia had a Nazi puppet state under Milan Nedic. The Chetniks, under Draz Mihailovic, did not fire a shot against the Germans after the spring of 1942. Chetniks in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina (then the "Independent State of Croatia") had signed agreements with the Nazis, Italians, and the Ustasha puppet regeme of the ISC in the Spring of 1942 until the end of the war.

Serbia and the Serbs have always sided with Russia and continue to do so. Their flirt with democracy was never anything of note, because the only truly democratic party in Serbia, Ceda Jovanovic's LDP, has never received more than 5% of the vote. Milosevic's Serbian Socialist Party and the openly fascist Serbian Radical party were the most popular parties and took a solid 70% combined during the war (their alliance peaked in 1991 with 94% of the vote), and lost out to the "reformed" Serbian ultra-nationalist Zoran Djindjic only because of the surrender, by Milosevic, of the 90% "Serbian Jerusalem" called Kosovo. Every single party, no matter what their title, in Serbia, supported all of Milosevic's wars minus Jovanovic's LDP (Liberal Democratic Party). Serbia has always seen itself as a "little Russia" -- endless melodramatic poems and books have been written on this, and Serbs themselves have a saying, "Nas i Rusa 300 Milion" -- "We and the Russians make 300 Million."

In the elections in January, the party of Hague indictee Vojislav "We will dig the Croats' eyes out with rusty spoons" Seselj (other notable quotes include "We must nuke Zagreb," "Muslims like to be raped, its part of their culture," and my all-time favorite "We need to infect the Albanians with AIDS"), the Serbian Radical Party, took 48.5% of the Serbian vote. The "modern" wing of the party split -- they openly state that they will achieve their goal of a "Greater Serbia" through diplomacy, not guns -- whilst Seselj's wing still agitates for war.

Russia was Serbia's voice of misreasoning in the UN and media, defending their every action. Serbia is cuddling up to the EU because Russia doesn't have money for investment, not because Serbia believes in the EU or democratic values -- the political polling and positions of the parties are proof positive of this.

As for a future conflict in the region -- here is what the NYTimes has to say:
"www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/world/europe/14bosnia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=bosnia%20&st=cse]Fears of New Ethnic Conflict in Bosnia"

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

To be honest with you thrust, I think it is Serbia that has to build trust with us, and their neighbors, by apologizing for, distancing themselves from, and codifying into law making it illegal for any repeat of their genocidal wars of imperialist aggression.

If the Serbs want to be bought out by the Russian Oliagarchy and remain in a state of shambles that is their decision. They are vehimately anti-Western (exception being the 5% that votes for Jovanovic's LDP).

Sullivan:

I would add the following to your reading list:

The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (Tim Judah)

Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia 1961-1991 (Sabrina Ramet)

Kosovo, A Short History (Noel Malcom)

Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deciet of History (Cohen)

Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation (Laura Silber, Allan Little)

Croatia, A Nation Forged in War (Marcus Tanner)

As I recall, when MG William Nash received the intel brief, the briefing officer said something along the lines of, "The first thing you gotta know about the Balkans, sir, is that there are no good guys." I was with IFOR during that first year, and nothing could be more true. Each of the three major factions: Croats, Muslims and Serbs committed their share of atrocities. The Serbs had the advantage of having the political high ground. Other than that, there was very little differences between the sides.

I take issue with this fallacy of composition. Basically, as was reported in nearly every Congressional intelligence report, reported repeatedly by the NYTimes, and agreed upon by nearly every historian, journalist, and expert on the region that Serbia not only instigated and prosecuted the wars but was responsible for 90% of the attrocities while the Bosniaks, Albanians and Croats split the rest.

Everyone knows the fate of the Sudeten and Prussian Germans at the end of WWII, but when we discuss WWII, we do not examine it through a prism of Czech or Pole reprisals after years of occupation and persecution -- I would hope the same applies to the Balkans in the 1990s.

On that note Serbia still has not captured the alcoholic general and architect of the Srebrenica genocide, Ratko Mladic, nor the No. 2 ICTY fugitive, Serb terrorist and ethnic cleanser Goran Hadzic.

quote:

Originally posted by Americro:
To be honest with you thrust, I think it is Serbia that has to build trust with us, and their neighbors, by apologizing for, distancing themselves from, and codifying into law making it illegal for any repeat of their genocidal wars of imperialist aggression.

You're only a fanatic.

Thrust,

I noted you finally responded to my last post three months after our discussion. Please forgive me for overlooking your reponse until now.

A definition of terms is in order. I hold a 'Primary source' as a document or account written at the time of the historical event. Some evidentiary information like filed orders, personal account or written speaches, diplomatic documentation, etc are also considered primary source material.

An analysis by a contemporary writer who was NOT witness to the events (newspaper accounts, etc.) is generally known as a secondary source.

An analysis by a non-contemporary historian of primary and secondary source material is a teritiary source.

Both secondary and tertiary sources are sometimes highly suspect in terms of bias and are generally less useful for a student of history. Even when these are the only accounts available, the lack of primary source material should be taken into account and a certain level of skepticism is in order when reading tertiary source material, ESPECIALLY if it is in contrast to other respected histories.

In short, Xenophon's "Anabasis" is a primary source - he was there. Thucydides (Pelopennesian War) is a secondary source - he was there for a portion of the war, but not at every single location he writes about. Hans Delbruck's analysis of the Battle of Marathon, while remarkable, cannot be considered as anything more than a tertiary source - he wrote about it 23 centuries later.

You can argue til the cows come home about secondary and tertiary sources, but primary sources are generally indisputable.

Sullivan013

You may notice that I have other things to attend to. I'll respond at my leisure like I always have.

Anyway, Mosier calls on primary sources such as the chiefs of staff of the German armies he discusses as well as French accounts, which should be a no-brainer as he is a francophone and as the British are notoriously arrogant historians.

I agree with his arguments.

On the topic of the rape of Serbia: They were doing fine until Nato came in and destroyed their country. With all of the hysterical anti-Islamic sentiment on the boards, you'd think people wouldn't be so enthusiastic about killing white Christians and carving up their country in favor of Islamic splinter groups that don't even represent the country that spawned them ages ago.

Re:

quote:

notoriously arrogant historians

As a race? As a nation? Or is the Church of England at fault? I suppose all other nations are filled with saintly historians who never have such failings.

You see, it's statements like the above which cause me to doubt your ability to rationally judge both sides of an event with any hint of impartiality. It is my opinion that you assign "Good" and "Evil" to events, people, nations and religions with such fervor and finality (i.e. Islam=evil past, present, future) that simply precludes any rational debate or understanding of history.

Good day, sir.

You must make such judgements of men as evil. I'm not one of these morons who hates Muslims wherever they are. I hate the copkilling Balkan Muslims who have stolen sovereign Serbian land with the aid of a hypocritical, corrupt, and evil President 'religious fanatics deserve to die' Clinton. More to the point, my judgement of right and wrong IS affected by the true history of America and by the hateful lies of the enablers of child rape: Lincoln was evil, we were right. Sherman's gang of children's grave robbers and murderers was evil and so are those that try to cover such things up. These liars are the same ones who also preach American exceptionalism (a modern bypass of moral language but the same essential concept) and the right to intervene in any conflict. One self described 'FDR socialist' told me the day after Russia launched a defensive war against Georgia that we should make war on Russia! Who are these stupid cherries? Don't they understand, at the very least, that we will be weaker if we make more foes for no reason?
We lack the advantage we had even from the 70's to 1990, when Russia and China hated each other. Now with an inevitable war with China, to whom we owe money (a parallel with Hamilton's deal with the bank of England and the war of 1812 that WE had to turn around), we are pushing Russia away from neutrality and into a position to where war with us would be in their favor.

The rape of Serbia was only the first insult. The neocons have pressed for expanding NATO into Eastern Europe and basically daring Russia by spitting on its honor.....nevermind that we aren't equipped to make such a challenge. That, more than anything else, is a reason that it may be best that the last election went the way it did. I truly hope that they aren't the war party after all. Ironically, we need to be stronger in case of a real war and warmongers don't help us in that regard.

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:
You're only a fanatic.

O.K. Let me get this strait. You are engaging in historical revisionism trying to whitewash the criminal history of Russia's only ally West of Belarus, but I am the fanatic (!?). Serbs burned the U.S. Embassy last year and continually agitate and spew hatred agains the US and continually try and obstruct the democratic process -- you attempt to spin all of this into some grand anti-Serb conspiracy theory but I am the fanatic? Gimme a break.

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:
On the topic of the rape of Serbia: They were doing fine until Nato came in and destroyed their country. With all of the hysterical anti-Islamic sentiment on the boards, you'd think people wouldn't be so enthusiastic about killing white Christians and carving up their country in favor of Islamic splinter groups that don't even represent the country that spawned them ages ago.

The "rape of Serbia"? You have got to be kidding me. Every single serious political historian on the region in the West and indeed Serbs in Serbia (see the Scholar's Initiative of Purdue University) admit that a) Serbia was responsible for all of the wars b) Serbs committed the vast majority of all of the war crimes; yet you are calling NATO's bombing of Serbia (which was tame at best in comparison to what Milosevic's hordes did in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina) the "rape of Serbia." The irony is that you use the word "rape" to describe a few sorties agaist Milosevic's regime/ideology (the enemy of all people in the region including the Serbian democratic opposition), when it was the Serbs who raped over 40,000 non-Serbs in Bosnia Herzegovina and who indeed had camps to carry out the rapes.

Your appeals to white racism are offensive -- Serb rape camps, ethnic cleansing, and genocide for/against non-Serbs is what created Islamic fundamentalism which was non-existant in Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo. Bosnia-Herzegovina's Muslim's and Albanian Muslims are the most secular Muslims in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:
The facts are that we destroyed Serbia's bridges, Serb hospitals, and the Serb military which could protect them from terrorists. It was an illegal war, launched by executive authority without the consent of Congress. That is not peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is foolish anyway if it is at NATO's behest. They need us to enforce their will and we do not need them. We will face greater danger in the future because of this disaster. Serbia will never trust us again.

Milosevic's regime was engaging in state sponsored terrorism since 1987 -- the KLA did not form until 1996 and their resources were extremely limited. The NATO campaign was supported by the Security Council and it was a NATO operation. What don't you get? Serbia never had any interest in the West -- except for loan forgiveness -- they are tied to Russia and have, and will continue to, subvert democracy and civil society in the region until the Liberal Democratic Party of Cedo Jovanovic ever comes to power. Being that they are at 5% approval right now, that will not be any time soon. So the interest of the US and EU is to watch the Serbs closely and nothing more or less.

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:
You must make such judgements of men as evil. I'm not one of these morons who hates Muslims wherever they are. I hate the copkilling Balkan Muslims who have stolen sovereign Serbian land with the aid of a hypocritical, corrupt, and evil President 'religious fanatics deserve to die' Clinton. More to the point, my judgement of right and wrong IS affected by the true history of America and by the hateful lies of the enablers of child rape: Lincoln was evil, we were right. Sherman's gang of children's grave robbers and murderers was evil and so are those that try to cover such things up. These liars are the same ones who also preach American exceptionalism (a modern bypass of moral language but the same essential concept) and the right to intervene in any conflict. One self described 'FDR socialist' told me the day after Russia launched a defensive war against Georgia that we should make war on Russia! Who are these stupid cherries? Don't they understand, at the very least, that we will be weaker if we make more foes for no reason?
We lack the advantage we had even from the 70's to 1990, when Russia and China hated each other. Now with an inevitable war with China, to whom we owe money (a parallel with Hamilton's deal with the bank of England and the war of 1812 that WE had to turn around), we are pushing Russia away from neutrality and into a position to where war with us would be in their favor.

The rape of Serbia was only the first insult. The neocons have pressed for expanding NATO into Eastern Europe and basically daring Russia by spitting on its honor.....nevermind that we aren't equipped to make such a challenge. That, more than anything else, is a reason that it may be best that the last election went the way it did. I truly hope that they aren't the war party after all. Ironically, we need to be stronger in case of a real war and warmongers don't help us in that regard.

Corrupt Serbian Orthodox Christians stole and occupied and robbed non-Serb lands in the region since 1918. Indeed it was the Serbs who agitated for and carried out the wars. You are holding the wrong people accountable since it was the Serbs with all of the lawyers, guns, and money in 1991.

Russia was never neutral -- it was simply weak in the 1990s. Communism was and remains an inferior political and economic system that rewards nepotism and shuns initiative and innovativeness. 1917-1992 is a long time of being in the dark -- the 1990s was Russia's unnatural game of catch-up which was unsuccessful except in terms of oil production facilities. Russia, if anything, poses a far greater strategic threat down the road than China. If China were to call our debt, they would go belly up economically as well. Second, Russia has and continues to back Iran which in turn backs Hezbollah and Hamas. Russia continually tried and tries to defeat the democratic process in fmr. Communist states in Europe by agitating against NATO and EU integration in states where the majority of the populations want to join. That is imperialism, plain and simple. Russia continually pressured fmr. USSR states, successfully (Georgia/Ukraine, the 'Stan's) and unsuccessfully (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) for its own interest and not for the interest of the voters of those states who wanted and still want good relations with the US.

As for Russia's honor,

If Russia would have opened its markets to Western investors in 1991 they could have actually been doing well today and be a semi-democratic state with a growing middle class. They have chose and continue to chose to fight the Cold War 17 years after their loss. Putin has gotten rid of the democratic election of governors to the Kremlin (Putin) appointment of them. There is no media freedom or transparency -- indeed two journalists were liquidated last week and the Russian police and intelligence services aren't even entertaining a sham "investigation."

While we should not put sanctions on Russia and make the situation worse -- if NATO and EU referendums get a majority for than Russia just has to keep pounding shots of vodka and keep quiet. If they had a just and profitable political-economic system countries would gravitate to them. But they don't, so countries gravitate to us.

quote:

you are calling NATO's bombing of Serbia (which was tame at best in comparison to what Milosevic's hordes did in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina) the "rape of Serbia." The irony is that you use the word "rape" to describe a few sorties agaist Milosevic's regime/ideology (the enemy of all people in the region including the Serbian democratic opposition), when it was the Serbs who raped over 40,000 non-Serbs in Bosnia Herzegovina and who indeed had camps to carry out the rapes.

And all of these are unproveable lies, which mean nothing in comparison to the hard facts of the destruction of Serbia to Western Europe's gain. This rape tally is reminiscent of Nazi admonitions against the Red Army. In short, it is meaningless and easily distorted but only exists to draw attention away from the criminality of the Nazis.
And considering that the war against the Serbian people and their ancient homeland was enough to cause even Alexander Solzhenytsin to declare NATO to be the new Hitler, I think that this hyperbolic condemnation of anything and everything Serbian and justification of NATO/Albanian warcrimes is indeed little more than the hatred shown by a fanatic.

The old attacks on nations that are not "democratic" is just characteristic of all modern warmongers from the west. Indeed, the war and the political fallout were the result of an Imperial President that has been made possible by our "democratic" system which we are afraid to fix. Because one man was concerned about his legacy, our Air Force was desecrated with the markings of NATO and used to destroy a sovereign country that was under attack by war criminals (who the valiant Serbs had defeated fairly on the field of honor, prior to the NATO bombing offensive).
If that isn't proof enough that the Presidency has become a dictatorship and must be abolished, then nothing will be and you may as well stop condemning Russia's politics as you are acting the hypocrite.

Unproven? So Milosevic was NOT on trial for documented war crimes when he died in 2008?

I suppose the 8000 Bosnian men and boys rounded up by the Serbian-supported militia in July 1995 (Srebrenica) all died accidentally in the span of three days by falling backwards on knives or ingesting bullets?

Your extreme irrational prejudice on the matter is well known, but every now and then you truely cross the line with your raving. You are absolutely wrong in stating these facts as 'lies'.

The International Court of Justice ruled on the matter, with all the pertinent facts, documents and first person accounts at their disposal. If you dispute this, please provide equal and adequate documentation to refute their findings.

Otherwise you're just spouting nonsense.

Sullivan013

The International Court of Justice ruled for amnesty in the case of two Texas girls who were raped to death in 1992. The cops in that left wing city, Houston, were shocked at the violence because they had assumed the girls to have been run over by a car. That court of justice smiled at the thought of such heinous violence being rewarded. It is the same as the UN's world health organization: a death machine that seeks to cause misery and suffering. The best way to do that is to destroy the sovereignty of a nation. As they tried to do to Texas (with the help of the sellout carpetbagger of a President we just had), they did so to Serbia with that lie. The number of enemies of the state that Milosevic killed was insignifigant: far less than 1,000 and probably closer to 300. That is ALL that were proven and all that could be proven, but it is irrelevant: his country was under attack! And even though the resistance to Albanian/Muslim attacks on Serbia was justified, the liars at the UN could not prove the so called murders. You can't shift the burden of proof like that, especially as a justification for military action! That is as old-school Soviet as anything they could have possibly have done.....except killing Milosivec in prison to bury the truth with one of the world's last true heroes. God will vindicate.

Far more than that would die if we closed the border the only way it can be closed: Landmines, machineguns, and artillery. Of course, 30 less innocent American natives would die a day, but the headline for the bloodthirsty, disgusting world-press would attack us the same way they did the Serbian people.
I will not be a hypocrite: If we deserve our sovereignty, then so does the ancient nation of Serbia. Then again, we have enough similarities that we are natural allies. Texans died on the frontier at the hands of imperious Mexican governments and the more ruthless tribes of Indians for years, to reap contempt from the cowardly and scorn from the modern liars who write the official histories and whip up hatred against all true Americans. Similarly, Serbia has stood as the shield of Europe for centuries, while they were free to enjoy their comfort and wealth and to condemn the contemptible little nation for doing what they had forgotten to. The radical republics of Europe deserve exactly what they get when they have a homegrown intifada. Serbia does not: It has not forgotten that the blood of its people have sanctified their borders.

The hyperbolic dismissal of Russia as a force for bad is something I won't take seriously. What historical or political insight could make such arrogance and recklessness? They are a major power in the world - unless we want to repeat the history of Europe and ensure the destruction of our country through endless war, we should back off and counter-attack only when they are clearly an enemy that seeks to attack us.
The 80's were the last hurrah for the worldwide communist offensive. People saying that the end of the support for the wars in Laos, Angola, Central America, Afghanistan, and elsewhere is only a smokescreen are willing to believe in deception on a much larger scale than I believe is feasible. Perhaps it is possible, but I don't think that is the case.
Russia now is a country at the crossroads who we do not necessarily have to fight in the future. It is the same as Japan in the 1920s. If we have a war with Russia (or anybody), I'll be the first one to say goodbye to my family and do my duty - I am not afraid of that, as duty is honorable. That doesn't mean that I am mad or bloodthirsty.

The warmongers - both the neocons and the Democrats, there is no great difference - are the ones who would never serve. They didn't fight when they had the chance. Tom Clancy will be the first to tell you how easy it is to knock out a T-90, but he can't tell you much about his generation's war because he was in Seminary School with a deferment to get out of Vietnam. VD Hanson is the loudest and most bloodthirsty of all, but he never fought when he had the chance. Well, I'll just say that he is mad, but his voice reflects the thoughts of the Project for the New American Century and other pro-imperialistic, pro-zionist groups. My own family has served in every big war that we have fought - the recklesses themselves haven't fought in any. Do you not smell a dead rat here?


In all honesty and in the most sober review of the events: Do you honestly believe that it is a good idea to stick a thumb in Russia's eye when it is avoidable? Do you even acknowledge that the impeached President, Clinton, subverted our Constitution to have his war (regardless of reason)?