 |
| |
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
aaaaaarghh paiktis lose that sig willyou? I mean its one thing to support slobodan, kind of ok, but
http://www.emperors-clothes.com 
makes you so look so funny 
ok, I wont threadjack, but we ll need to have a serious thread dedicated entirely to that site.
In other news, I saw milosevic today, I must say I think NATO intervention was illegal in my opinion, but deserved. I mean the judges are so happy he finnaly speaks they let him say anything. He gave in, he should have refused to fight on their ground. He should have refused to speak and become a martyr or something 
and Comrade Tribune (is it this thread?), you have been seriousely brainwashed, but all may not yet be lost  gotta go now, see you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
Overall... why this leftie love affair with Slobo ? |
Why the 'leftie' (Blair/Schroeder) love affair with NATO air terrorism?
Permit me to let the New Statesman (great paper) answer:
"The trouble with Slobo is not that he is an "ethnic cleanser" (three years after the original indictment, we have yet to see the evidence linking Milosevic to atrocities in Bosnia), but that he is stubbornly and cussedly an "old", unreconstructed socialist. This is why the new designer "left" parties of Europe have pursued him so mercilessly to The Hague. Slobo is exactly the kind of old-style eastern European leader many of them would have defended in their student days. Ironically, it is still acceptable in politically correct circles to praise Tito's Yugoslavia, which was truly a one-party state; but Milosevic's Yugoslavia, where more than 20 political parties could freely operate, is deemed completely beyond the pale.
Had Milosevic sold off his country's assets to the multinationals and queued up deferentially to join the European Union and Nato, and become a western "yes-man", he would have had carte blanche to wage his own "war against terrorism". Anyone who doubts this need only refer to the 1999 US-EU Balkan Stability Pact, which called for all countries of the region to be offered Nato and EU membership to "anchor them firmly in Euro-Atlantic structures", as well as demanding "widespread privatisation" and an end to any restrictions on the operations of multinationals.
The treatment handed out to Milosevic shows that the biggest enemies of socialist causes are not those with principles on the right, but those without them on the left."
http://www.consider.net/forum_new.p...RN=200202110019
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Comrade, Comrade 
Milosevic was NOT a socialist.
Milosevic was a power hungry dictator, if he neaded to, he would have establihed an anarchy or a monarcy to remain in power. However, it wasnt necessary, all he had to do was a coalition here and there, and putting key people in key places in media on a daily basis. (he took much care of media, Serbian radiotelevision was the propaganda champion of the Balkans, followed closely by Croatian HRT)
Anyway, a socialist!? True to the ideals? 
Say, if you were a dictator, would you want a free market capitalism system under you, or a state owned system you can control from the centre of power? Milosevic inherited socialism from Yugoslavia and just kept it as it suited him.
And, ahem, he wouldnt sell to the transnational companies? He would gladly sell anything, dictators love hard currency to pay their police and keep people in order.
For example, he sold Serbian Telecom to Italian Telecom (evil capitalist company) for many dollars. Why, if he was a socialist? Telecoms are one of the most profitable companies in any state, why not keep and let workers enjoy fruits of their labor? Because, as I said, he had more important things on mind then socialism, how to stay in power for example.
I even read a transcript where he talks with his brother (a buissinesman) about the sell. They speak of how "the French are whimps, they had it open but did nothing". You see they offered Telekom to the French first, but they werent too happy about it, so Italians got the deal.
This is one of the myths, that he was a socialist. There are so many myths about the man, that undoubtely people are going to be wearing his shirts in 50 years, like Che Guevaras. Fighter for freedom, hanged by the capitalists. His last words were about his people.
I wont scrap _my_ Che shirt anytime soon
And Comrade, your sources of info are at least... problematic. You shouldnt say things they say for granted.
I just had to comment the site you quoted in one of these threads. This is from http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html
quote:
Between 1960 and 1980 it had one of the most vigorous growth rates: a decent standard of living, free medical care and education, a guaranteed right to a job, one-month vacation with pay, a literacy rate of over 90 percent, and a life expectancy of 72 years. Yugoslavia also offered its multi-ethnic citizenry affordable public transportation, housing, and utilities, with a not-for-profit economy that was mostly publicly owned. This was not the kind of country global capitalism would normally tolerate. Still, socialistic Yugoslavia was allowed to exist for 45 years because it was seen as a nonaligned buffer to the Warsaw Pact nations. |
credits, credits... people in Yugoslavia did not earn enough to support the relatively high standard of living they had so the state had to take loans.
Take reports of Yugoslavias economic sucess with caution.. yes there was some, but they were far from spectacular. My opinion is that if postwar Yugoslavia was a confederation in a capitalist system after the II. World War, it would have been a prosperous member of the EU now.
But discussing different forms of self-governing socialism in ex Yugoslavia is material for a whole thread in itself. For example, the Yugoslavian concept of workers making decisions in factories has made a comeback in capitalism as workers do that more and more - employers learned that giving workers some deciding power improves efficiency.
quote:
Another goal of U.S. policy has been media monopoly and ideological control. In 1997, in what remained of Serbian Bosnia, the last radio station critical of NATO policy was forcibly shut down by NATO "peacekeepers." The story in the New York Times took elaborate pains to explain why silencing the only existing dissident Serbian station was necessary for advancing democratic pluralism. The Times used the term "hardline" eleven times to describe Bosnian Serb leaders who opposed the shutdown and who failed to see it as "a step toward bringing about responsible news coverage in Bosnia." |
There was not so long ago a trial for Ruanda crimes, and a newsreporter in Ruanda radio station was tried as guilty. Why? Because that radio was the most important centre of hatred spreading in Ruanda (Americans thought of bombing it but havent)
Power of the media is ENORMOUS (cant bold it enough), and in war it is further amplified. There is such thing as inciting hatred, and in most countries in the world it is a _crime_ to do so. you get fined or go to jail if you spread racial or other hatred. This was case in Ruanda, where power of the media was used for genocide.
Media in ex Yugoslavia were also pretty harsh during the war. I hope some get trial on all sides for that, but analysis of war media is also a topic for itself.
In bosnia situation is still tense. Many warmongering politicians are still in power structures, democracy is far from being full, the last thing people there need is warlike media. I havent heard that particular station, but dont assume freedom of the media is a good thing always, it can get to extreme too, and in fragmented state like Bosnia, NATO is the only real authority who can do something about it.
quote:
Yugoslavia's sin was not that it had a media monopoly but that the publicly owned portion of its media deviated from the western media monopoly that blankets most of the world, including Yugoslavia itself. |
No. TV was Milosevic propaganda machine, and in war, that is a legitimate target. I hear Serbs are putting on trial the guy who was in charge of the station because he did not protect his workers adequately. We ll see what the court has to say, should they have known they were going to be bombed.
quote:
Tudjman's government adopted the fascist Ustasha checkered flag and anthem. |
Nonsense. Tudjman government adopted Croatian flag and anthem. Do you really think Croatian history is only between 1941 and 1945?
quote:
Tudjman presided over the forced evacuation of over half a million Serbs from Croatia between 1991 and 1995, replete with rapes and summary executions. |
I was a kid (10) then, 1991. My best friend and neighbour was Serbian, flat next to mine, in Zagreb. We were playing whole day long, at my place, his place (more often, he had shitload of great toys) or out in the park. What the hell did I care he was Serbian? Noone forced them out by force, although some people might have been harsh to them. Someone glued a paper to their doors "serbs out!", ofcourse, author hid behind anonimity.
It was a reaction to native Serbs baricading 1/3 of Croatia, JNA (totaly Serbian by then) shelling cities and killing people all the time. We had to go to shelter in Zagreb because of the planes, although it wasnt on the front line.
Anyway, for a Serb in Croatia, that was really a tough period to endure. I imagine it was a really tough to be a part of a nation which cut main roads, effectively cutting Croatia in half, enraging people. Some Serbs were killed (there are trials for the killers going on), some were forced out, and some left of their own. Some stayed too. Between 1991-1995, oficial numbers say 9000 Serbs served in Croatian army.
My neighbours left, we said goodbyes and all, although I havent realised they were going for good. Mother of my friend was crying all the time.
quote:
This included the 200,000 from Krajina in 1995, whose expulsion was facilitated by attacks from NATO war planes and missiles. |
No, those are two different events, not a continuous action. Also, there were no NATO planes and missiles, only some NATO training and intelligence to Croatian forces.
quote:
Bosnia is now under IMF and NATO regency. It is not permitted to develop its own internal resources, nor allowed to extend credit or self-finance through an independent monetary system. |
Sadly, there is no Bosnia. Serbs in 'Republika Srpska' part dont want to have nothing with it.
quote:
In early 1999, the democratically elected president of Republika Srpska, the Serb ministate in Bosnia, who had defeated NATO's chosen candidate, was removed by NATO troops because he proved less than fully cooperative with NATO's "high representative" in Bosnia. The latter retains authority to impose his own solutions and remove elected officials who prove in any way obstructive. |
Yes, they did that to a number of leading Croat politicians in Bosnia too. They dont want nationalists in power, even if democraticly chosen (they were). Bosnia is not ready for democracy, if it was, and Karadjic was a candidate, who do you think Bosnian Serbs would wote for? Him.
quote:
The popular image of this war in Bosnia is one of unrelenting Serb expansionism. Much of what the Croatians call 'the occupied territories' is land that has been held by Serbs for more that three centuries. The same is true of most Serb land in Bosnia. . . . In short the Serbs were not trying to conquer new territory, but merely to hold onto what was already theirs." |
There were large areas in Croatia where Serbs were majority for hundreds of years, however they have not lived there alone, and there were others who lived there for centuries too. In the entire area they occupied in Croatia they might have had some 50% or a slight majority.
What happened to others? Well, during the Serbian occupation, the worse crimes in the entire period of war in Croatia occured. Hundreds of thousands of people were rounded up and expelled, hundreds killed. Things Serbs did on the occupied territory surpased everything Croats did in the free part. After a while, Serbs had a 100% majority in an area they never had, and apart from being unarmed and burdened with refugees, Croatia was cut in half too (almost cut in three parts, but managed to stop that)
quote:
Recently, three Croatian generals were indicted by the Hague War Crimes Tribunal for the bombardment and deaths of Serbs in Krajina and elsewhere. Where were U.S. leaders and U.S. television crews when these war crimes were being committed? |
One of them is trialed in Haag because of too much bombardment in operation Storm (Ademi), one is hiding (Gotovina), and one is trialed in Croatia because of killing native Serb civilians in a city near the front line (Norac)
If they are guilty, I hope they all be hanged (there is no capital punishment in Croatia, so life in prison would suffice). But it is a serious problem to say just how much bombardment is enough in large scale military offensive. I think that one will be released (Ademi), for Norac, I think he will be found quilty and Gotovina, who knows.
Where was US television when it happened? In Ademi case, they could not film it because it was a short military operation, in Gospiæ case, people 'dissapeared' from the city to be shot in some forest and never seen again. How do you film that?
And in Gotovina case, I think he is on trial for behaviour after the operation Storm, based on commanding responsability. These things are well documented and filmed.
The reason serbs are 'demonized' is because they constantly, in the 4 year period of war in Croatia and Bosnia, used their superior weaponry to bomb civilians in the cities. Also, they refused every possible peace agreement, including Z4 total autonomy plan which no normal country would sign, however Croatia did. Croatia really was looking for a peaceful solution, while the rebels were happy as it was.
quote:
Where were the TV cameras when hundreds of Serbs were slaughtered by Muslims near Srebrenica? The official line, faithfully parroted in the U.S. media, is that the Serbs committed all the atrocities at Srebrenica. |
Reports speak of 8000 dead in srebrenica. Karadjic and Mladic should hang for that, and so should one man in the entire world who could have stopped it with a phone call - Milosevic.
If there were mass killings of Serbs in Srebrenica (which I doubt), someone should answer for that too. One crime is not excuse for the other.
quote:
This same story did note that the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal sentenced a Bosnian Croat military commander to ten years in prison for failing to stop his troops from raping Muslim women in 1993 -- an atrocity we heard little about when it was happening. |
You heard little because it happened little. Why?
Because when number of Serbs left (expelled or free will) Croatian cities in 1991 they left individualy. There were no long queues of people leaving you could systematicly torture. People were not rounded up by the hundreds, women separated from men and led to concentration camps. And in 1995 they left without physical contact with Croatian forces.
I dont know about Bosnia, but I am glad that guy was trialed.
quote:
At first, the Western press, viewing the ex-banker as a bourgeois Serbian nationalist who might hasten the break-up of the federation, hailed him as a "charismatic personality." Only later, when they saw him as an obstacle rather than a tool, did they begin to depict him as the demon who "started all four wars." |
Unlike most of the article this is true. West thought of Milosevic as the reasonable person they can negotiate with for the most of the time. It will be a hell of a show when he calls them as witnesses on trial.
quote:
There are more opposition parties in the Yugoslav parliament than in any other European parliament. Yet the government is repeatedly labeled a dictatorship. Milosevic was elected as president of Yugoslavia in a contest that foreign observers said had relatively few violations. As of the end of 1999, he presided over a coalition government that included four parties. Opposition groups openly criticized and demonstrated against his government. Yet he was called a dictator. |
He was a dictator and his word was the law. Elections were heavily influenced by media and Milosevic had the media. I dont know about ballot fraud and was there any. Was Hitler dictator? He was elected too.
quote:
A report released in London in August 1999 by the Economist Intelligence Unit concluded that the enormous damage NATO's aerial war inflicted on Yugoslavia's infrastructure will cause the economy to shrink dramatically in the next few years.37 Gross domestic product will drop by 40 percent this year and remain at levels far below those of a decade ago. Yugoslavia, the report predicted, will become the poorest country in Europe. Mission accomplished. |
And prior to 1999? Serbia was a flourishing paradise? They could have waited for people of Serbia to overthrow the maniac themselves, which would have happened eventually, but they speeded it with bombings instead. It wasnt legal, but if was necessary.
quote:
With their electric power stations ruined and factories destroyed by NATO bombing, isolated, sanctioned and treated as pariahs by the West, Serbs have the choice between freezing honorably in a homeland plunged into destitution, or following the 'friendly advice' of the same people who have methodically destroyed their country. |
Those same people forgave Serbia 66% of its foreign debt (Croatia got nothing), and are going to invest millions of dollars in it. Weak Serbia is in nobodies interest. Serbs will recover, no doubt about it.
Its matter of time until Volkswagen buys Crvena Zastava, although, with a bit of luck it could have been the other way around 
Things are not black and white in the Balkans, so they are not with Milosevic either. Some things about him are true, some false, but sites you quote Comrade, where do you find them  They are pure propaganda.
If they present you the facts an allow you to form opinion from there, then they are good media, if they force an opinion on you, then they are bad. However, the issue of suggesting an opinion by manipulating different facts and not really telling a single lie is called unfortunately the art of jurnalism and is difficult to spot. No single media is fair.
I havent commented Kosovo parts of the text, this is long as it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
human rights cannot be enforced by those who break it and create the violations in the first place.
It's like a murderer being the judge. Doesn't work.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VetLegion Between 1960 and 1980 it had one of the most vigorous growth rates: a decent standard of living, free medical care and education, a guaranteed right to a job, one-month vacation with pay, a literacy rate of over 90 percent, and a life expectancy of 72 years. Yugoslavia also offered its multi-ethnic citizenry affordable public transportation, housing, and utilities, with a not-for-profit economy that was mostly publicly owned. This was not the kind of country global capitalism would normally tolerate. Still, socialistic Yugoslavia was allowed to exist for 45 years because it was seen as a nonaligned buffer to the Warsaw Pact nations.
***
This is the important part. To which you have no other answer but:
'credits, credits... people in Yugoslavia did not earn enough to support the relatively high standard of living they had so the state had to take loans.' |
People in USA do not earn enough to support the outrageous military spending of the Bush administration so the state has to take loans.
If they must take loans, I´d rather have them take loans for a high living standard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
quote:
human rights cannot be enforced by those who break it and create the violations in the first place.
It's like a murderer being the judge. Doesn't work. |
It is not very moral, but no other option now. What, to let him go?
quote:
People in USA do not earn enough to support the outrageous military spending of the Bush administration so the state has to take loans.
If they must take loans, I´d rather have them take loans for a high living standard. |
You cant take loans indefinitely. If self-governing socialism of the yugoslavian type was so good, we would have kept it. It didnt work.
quote:
When are we going to see the American media prosecuted for transmitting Bush´s hate speech against Iran, Iraq and North Korea? |
I dont like Americans being "above law" either.
But, there is no other way. It is either like this, America has special status, or America goes isolationist, which is worse. Imagine the world without the Big Policeman. I can think of at least five crisis areas kept at peace by them, Bosnia, China/Taiwan, Turkey/Greece, Serbia/Kosovo and Macedonia. Perhaps add Kuwait there.
If Americans suddenly declared that they will not intervene in any world conflict no more, because they have to stand trial after each intervention, what would world look like in a month?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
oh I don;t know vetlegion.
you get to be judge and jury. murderer and judge. and you don;t do it for humanitarian reasons but for your interests. that makes you a tyran to be confined/crushed.
if US didn;t exist the first to go would be all the eastern european countries. (Big Mother Russia). The balkans (croatia included) would return to orthodox/communist control through Russia again.
As to Greece/Turkey there wouldn;t be a cold war imposed on them nor would anyone play them against eachother.
You'd be surprised to know how many mature politicians exist both in Turkey and Greece (why do you think there was no war so many decades? - american ships are not 24/7 in the aegean actually they almost never are you know).
but maybe there would be war yes. some think it's inevitable without asia minor greek.
but if US stopped being polic eman
1.orthodox axis formed (Russia, Ukraine Serbia (and croatia with or without consent), Bulgaria, FYROM, Greece etc bye, bye to Asia for the US, western europe.
2. middle east gone. bye,bye oil
3.communism flared in many european countries - bye,bye cooperation - peace
4. terrorism reign supreme agiants the US - bye,bye internal security
etc etc etc
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Proof? |
plenty. i've already produced it. meanwhile no proof for what you are saying. (CNN "news" UN tribula don;t count do you have anything else?)
quote:
Europe was incompetent and was unwilling to do anything substantive until they were able to get the US to but its nose in where it had no material interest. |
It was the US which orchastrated. Europe didn;t want it. And there was interest: you can continue to dictate defense policies in Eu - not a small thing.
quote:
The Middle East crisis and the India/Pakistan conflict are the result of European actions. We are left to deal with your mess. |
I am from Greece. It is another Europe you must speak of.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2002 15:22
(not really 
) 
|
|