Protests in Buenos Aires to mark anniversary of war

How about the world, now in its 21st century, just put an end to colonization? There is something wrong with invading land, and by force claiming it as yours in the name of some crown. Take a look at a world map, and please can someone tell me what the hell Britain is doing off the coast of southern Argentina? Come on, Brits, give the land back, the days of conquer and rule are over. Well, maybe not, the USA still does it.

Argentina's claim is one of the most rediculous border disputs world wide, since it didn't belong a second to the Argentinos. Furthermore, nobody on that Island wants to be part of that country. They are pure British citizen. Get over it, Argentina.
(Berk., 3 April 2012 11:27)
Although the British lost control of the Island to Spain. The British need to get out of there. The whole war was a political ploy by Thatcher to cover up other issues within the UK. Malvinas son Argentinas!

Better yet, ask the Croats of the Slavonijas what right the Serbs had to those territories in 1991. Or is 21 years ago ancient history for you?
(Nenad, 3 April 2012 12:36)

Hey genius, ever heard of Jasenovac? After Jasenovac the Croats don't deserve any land at all, however they went completely unpunished and in fact were rewarded for their genocide by getting more territory from Tito. The Serbs, in their naivety, allowed this to happen all in the name of 'brotherhood and unity'. The war started again in 1991, and it was instigated by the Croats, not the Serbs. And they were, yet again, rewarded, this time by the 'civilized West', after another genocide inflicted on the Serbs, the US sponsored Operation Storm.
So quit your brainless revisionist history. Anyone who accuses the Serbs of Croatia, the biggest victims of genocide, of colonization is completely ignorant, and a complete buffoon.
As for the Islas Malvinas, they will eventually be Argentinian, and the Argentines certainly have my support. Argentina knows well the evils of western imperialism, and is staunchly against the recognition of Kosovo. As for the UK, they have become pathetic lapdogs to both Germany and the US, and have once again stabbed Serbia in the back. They don't deserve any support, and what goes around comes around.
Cheers!!

"Most people in the Falklands and in fact a very significant majority of them (over 90%) wish to remain a part of Britain. This is fact, backed by ALL impartial opinion polls. So basically, get over it Argentina
(Nikolle, 3 April 2012 13:48)"

I see ....... so to you the Brits were only protecting human rights and freedom of choice when they used the opinion polls of the Falklanders? How noble and democratic, right? ...... then tell me, why did these Brits not care a hoot about the human rights of the indigenous inhabitants of Diego Garcia (Chagos Islanders) to exercise their freedom to choose? And instead systematically evicted the inhabitants to depopulate Diego Garcia so that it could be turned into a military base for the Yankees? Or do you consider the Chagos subhumans not worthy of consideration compared with your exalted Falklanders? Methinks the Brits are just utter hypocrites!

Ecoman, you think the Brits and Americans are the only ones guilty of conquest today? Ask the Tibetans and Uighurs how they feel about the Han Chinese. Better yet, ask the Croats of the Slavonijas what right the Serbs had to those territories in 1991. Or is 21 years ago ancient history for you?
(Nenad, 3 April 2012 12:36)
--
Nenad, Slavonija and Croatia were part of Yugoslavia and it was the job of the Yugoslav army to protect the country's sovereignty back in 1991. What exactly is your point?

While you're at it, please explain what business the US/NATO have in Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Georgia to name a few?

This is a ridiculous argument going on here. One only needs to look geographically at this situation, take a look at where the British Isles are, they are located in Western Europe and just east of the Atlantic Ocean well above the equator and the tropic of cancer. The Falkland Islands are located off the coast of Argentina, South America, well below the equator and tropic of capricorn, there is absolutely no justification in that being British territory historically.

@Nenad, that really is a BS argument. How on earth can you compare Serbs in Krajina or today Croatia, Serbs were there for an awfully long time and the fact that it borders mainland Serbia makes it perfectly viable that those lands belong to Serbs. Really a poor comparison there.

Nenad, I don't think the Serbs ever colonized any part od Croatia or Slovenia. The Balkan wars of the 90's was about the break up of the former Yugoslavia - some were for it and some against it. But the USA, even today, is occupying land all over the world, in the name of democracy, of course - whether the the occupied nations ask for it or not from America. I repeat, take a look at a world map please, and tell me what the hell Britain is doing so far south in the Western hemisphere? Are they protecting Great Britain in the Falklands, or are they protecting possible oil exploration rights off of the Argentine coastline? Nenad, it's colonization in the 21st century, whichever way you look at it. As for China, they probably should give Tibet back to the Tibetans. It should be taken up in the UN.

Almost every nation or state in the world, and not just empires, came into being through conquest, whether economic or military - often both.

I agree that the British should give up any remaining dependencies wherever they are, but only if the people living in those places wish it. This also applies to the various parts of the UK itself such as England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, The Isle of Man, The Channel islands, as well as the north-eastern part of the Irish nation that remains in the UK.

Failing that, the UK, if it survives, could use the French model and make these overseas dependencies fully part of the UK with exactly the same rights to representation, et al, as all British citizens.

The 3000 or so people of the Falklands/Malvinas are not Spanish speaking Argentines but English speaking people of largely British descent.

Has anyone considered that perhaps they should have a say in this dispute?

Q (Nenad): show me clear proof of where the leaders in Washington, London and Berlin colluded circa 1989-1991 to pull Yugoslavia apart

A:

A year before the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on Nov. 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. This bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would lead to a bloody civil war.

A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previous warning cut off all aid, trade, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within six months. It also ordered separate elections in each of the six republics that make up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. The legislation further required U.S. personnel in all international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut-off policy for all credits and loans.

There was one final provision. Only forces that the U.S. State Department defined as "democratic forces" would receive funding. This meant an influx of funds to small right-wing nationalist parties in a financially strangled region suddenly thrown into crisis by the overall funding cut-off.

The impact was, as expected, devastating.

This law threw the Yugoslav federal government into crisis. It was unable to pay the enormous interest on its foreign debt or even to arrange the purchase of raw materials for industry. Credit collapsed and recriminations broke out on all sides.

"Britain colonized the islands located off the Argentinian coast, in southern Atlantic, in the 19th century."

Though the term is not incorrent, Colonizing implies that they were expelling the inhabitants there, just like the ancestors of Argentina did to the their native people. But Falkland Island was firstly settled by British. It has always been a British settlement. Only penguins arrived there before them. Today, 99% are British.

Argentina's claim is one of the most rediculous border disputs world wide, since it didn't belong a second to the Argentinos. Furthermore, nobody on that Island wants to be part of that country. They are pure British citizen. Get over it, Argentina.

Most people in the Falklands and in fact a very significant majority of them (over 90%) wish to remain a part of Britain. This is fact, backed by ALL impartial opinion polls. So basically, get over it Argentina

I think that the people of Argentina have a bigger voice in this issue, than the commentators on this site. On B92, people are always divided in the pro or anti west crowd. The ones that support an Albanian Kosovo, and the ones that don't. So, all issues fall within that divide. The Falklands are off the coast of Argentina, not off the coast of Great Britain, so I tend to fall into the anti west crowd.

I think that the people of Argentina have a bigger voice in this issue, than the commentators on this site. On B92, people are always divided in the pro or anti west crowd. The ones that support an Albanian Kosovo, and the ones that don't. So, all issues fall within that divide. The Falklands are off the coast of Argentina, not off the coast of Great Britain, so I tend to fall into the anti west crowd.
(ecoman, 3 April 2012 14:03)

The biggest voice have the people who live on that island. That are the British and those families who have been living there ever since 1830, continously. Most of them are even descendants of the first settlers. They founded the settlements there. They developed that island. British settlers were on that island even before Argentina was founded. All people who live there, speak English, feel British and didn't take from anybody that (very harsh) soil.

Try to find any piece of land worldwide where the land belongs so obviously to the people who live there. Last, you "argument" that the Falkland Islands' position is nearer to Argentina than to UK has no legal weight at all. You will find many islands worldwide which belong to countries farer than the next mainland.

The only thing which is thinkable is to ask for a referendum, if the people of Falklands want to be independent or not. But I don't see any sane reason to give this island to Argentina. The Argentinos even aggressively shed blood to take this islands. The only interest of Argentina are the resources of that islands and not the people living on it whose primary interest to live in peace.

'OK, what do the Muslims get for Srebrenica, and for all the towns on the Drina? What do the Croats get for Vukovar?'

Nenad, muslims already have the Federacija with their wonderfull 'ally', the Croats. That is more than they deserve. For Srebrenica they get zip, zilch, since the whole cause of Srebrenica was Naser Oric and his beheading and murder of Serbian civilians all around Srebrenica. He is walking freely, thanks to that anti-Serb NATO run kangaroo court, which runs show trials and is a total sham.

In case you haven't heard, Tudjman was collecting money from diaspora Ustashe long before 1991 and planning for war and the complete wiping out of the Serbian population. In fact, there is even video evidence of this on a documentary I saw, where some Croat wanker is bragging about how much arms they have stashed to an undercover Yugoslav agent. If you grew up in the US like you claim, you would know that there is Ustashe everywhere and they have planned that war for years. But then again, you don't seem to have a clue about anything.

I realize that the BBC, CNN, NYT etc are far from perfect, but I put pretty much no stock in the Milosevic-controlled outlets of the day. In fact, I don't really trust Serbian outlets of the present day, either.
(Nenad, 3 April 2012 18:13)
--
Tell me what makes you think that either Dragan or I or most people here for that matter had access to Milosevic controlled media? We were all watching and reading the same western propaganda, however, some were searching for the brave western journalists who were reporting the other side of the story. Some saw the discrepancies that made the lies obvious.

You only have to read what people in the field, like General Lewis MacKenzie and James Bissett had to say. Why did Germany and the Vatican recognise Croatia prematurely? Don't you remember the headlines at the time? Premature recognition repeated many times. Clinton's election campaign was all about intervening on the side of the Muslims and he pretty much won the elections over it. I mean, were you blind at the time? Even the US influenced the breaking of peace deals between the Serbians, Muslims and Croatians.

Since you admit to being a CNN, FOX and BBC junkie, you most certainly are brainwashed. It's a shame you never took the time to learn about the truth or to understand the other side. In the truth lies the deception and in the deception lies the truth. Check -> http://www.wacowebdesign.be/images/stories/yin-yang.jpg

Think about it.

The Argentinean claim is not strong enough to stand up in international court. That is why they will not try it.

It is a tenuous claim - remade periodically by failing Argentinean politicians.

Argentinean military adventurism 30 years ago cost the lives of too many people. Argentina will not attempt to repeat that experience - and if it does, the result will be the same.

Argentina is actually well separated from the Falklands - several hundred kilometres. Both Britain and Argentina are remote. The only difference is that the Brits defend the Falkland islanders and the Argentineans don't.

Originally the islands were uninhabited, and they were abandoned periodically by those who attempted to settle there. The current occupants represent generations of settlement and as such are being ignored by the Argentineans. There are a proportion of Argentineans who are trying to point out this little fact but they are treated as traitors by the propagandists.

I find it very amusing that they accuse us of 'colonisation', when Buenos Aires wants to directly rule these democratic self governing islands.
(Ian, UK, 3 April 2012 20:04)

Give us a break you hypocrite!

Ecoman, you think the Brits and Americans are the only ones guilty of conquest today? Ask the Tibetans and Uighurs how they feel about the Han Chinese. Better yet, ask the Croats of the Slavonijas what right the Serbs had to those territories in 1991. Or is 21 years ago ancient history for you?

the fact of resettling colonists in the territory under colonial power does not make them justifiable owners - right - that what KiM Albanians parrot all the time. In fact, it is vice versa in Kosovo - Albanians are colonst and intruders thanx to their brethren Turks, likewise Brits are intruders in Malvinas. Easy and legitimate solution - intruders and their offsprings move back home where they can vote for whatever they want. Remember Pied-noir in Algeria - finally they found their way back home and not a leftists even whines!

Dragan, I don't know where you ever got the idea that I consider Tudjman any less worthy of blame than Milosevic.
(Nenad, 3 April 2012 21:29)

Are you kidding me? I get that idea because you blame everything, and I mean everything, on Serbs. You are a typical proponent of selective justice.

Here is an issue as I see it.
On one side argument is that Falkland Islands (or Malvinas if you prefer) are in everything part of South America, geographically, geologically, etc. etc.
Islands should then belong to nearby mainland (Argentina 430 km) and population should be given all minority rights (use of English language, etc.) rather then UK 12,700 kilometers away.

In the other view, it's the will of population that matters. 3,000 inhabitants of the Islands are British and they should decide by their own free will.

Very peculiar thing , Brits who think that 3,000 Brits should decide their own fate, also think that 2,200,000 Serbs (according to 1991 census) who live west of Serbia should not get to decide anything, and should simply become minority in Croatia or Bosnia, respectively.
Even without standard minority rights!!!
Example - Croatia banned Serbian language and script, against OSCE minority right rules.

Excuse was that internal, administrative borders (not protected by any international laws, by the way), were in the meantime declared international borders, and can't be violated or changed.
Then same Brits recognized Kosovo in violation of one of those principles that they themselves established in former Yugoslavia....
It turned out that integrity of the republics can be violated after all...

And now they are saying that Serbia should simply give up the remaining Serb citizens in northern Kosovo ( 80,000 ). Never you mind that UK won't give up 3,000 of their own half world around, Serbia should. Why? Because integrity of Kosovo now can't be violated.

Laughable, and perfect example why one shouldn't pay any attention to statements coming from any Western politicians. It's just too much...
As far as I'm concerned they can stop talking and simply rattle the sabers.
Everyone have seen already through their words.
Bullies who take other kid's lunch money at the school don't need to explain what gives them this right. Might makes it right.

As for Falkland's...I think that people matter and they should get to decide.

Want a bunch of sour bitter pussies!

They're just jealous because their far right wing military dictatorship's invasion was repelled aka a failure.

I find it very amusing that they accuse us of 'colonisation', when Buenos Aires wants to directly rule these democratic self governing islands.

it would seem that according to the us state department as of 1990 yuoslavia had 6 internal states (slovenia, croatia, serbia, bosnia, montenegro and macedonia - totals 6).
thanks faq

Lol U.K eat Argentina alive! Falkland belongs to UK because the people in Falkand says so.

Hey genius, ever heard of Jasenovac?
(Dragan, 3 April 2012 13:41)

So by your logic, in addition to Krajina, Serbs were owed Eastern and Western Slavonija as compensation for Jasenovac? OK, what do the Muslims get for Srebrenica, and for all the towns on the Drina? What do the Croats get for Vukovar?

Nenad, Slavonija and Croatia were part of Yugoslavia and it was the job of the Yugoslav army to protect the country's sovereignty back in 1991. What exactly is your point?

While you're at it, please explain what business the US/NATO have in Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Georgia to name a few?
(Zoran, 3 April 2012 13:46)

Zoran, as you should know by now, I don't share your view on the role of the JNA when Yugoslavia came apart. Like most people living outside of Serbia, RS and CG, I believe that the JNA was entirely at the disposal of Milosevic, who was not really at all for preserving Yugoslavia, but for carving out of it a Greater Serbia. You and I can debate that until the end of time but my beliefs on that subject won't change. Guys like you and Dragan can accuse me of being "brainwashed" and "delusional" all you want, but as I've said many times before, I'd take the version of events put out by the international media over that of the Serbian media any day. I realize that the BBC, CNN, NYT etc are far from perfect, but I put pretty much no stock in the Milosevic-controlled outlets of the day. In fact, I don't really trust Serbian outlets of the present day, either.

And call the Hague what you will, but my dint of its sheer existence, we have evidence showing up in court that points to major culpability on the part of Milosevic, Karadzic, et al. I've asked you before and I'll ask again: show me clear proof of where the leaders in Washington, London and Berlin colluded circa 1989-1991 to pull Yugoslavia apart. I can tell you about Milosevic overthrowing Stambolic, then the governments of Vojvodina, CG and KiM. I can tell you that he sent guys like Stanisic to Knin as early as 1989 to establish political and military links in preparation for war there. But why don't you tell me who from Washington, for example, managed to get Milosevic to do all this, and how? Do we have to wait for the Wikileaks? Is that it? Or do we have to wait another 30 years for the documents to be declassified per the Freedom of Information Act or whatever? When do we get to see hard evidence of your version of the history? Or perhaps there's some internationally respected website to which you could direct my attention, as opposed to some silly site started up by a parnoid schizophrenic sitting in his underwear all day?

As to your question about US endeavors in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc -- I'm no defender of these, and never have been. I've called many times for the indictment of Bush administration officials, for example. Just because I'm American doesn't mean I support every aspect of US foreign policy. Believe me, I don't.

@Nenad, that really is a BS argument. How on earth can you compare Serbs in Krajina or today Croatia, Serbs were there for an awfully long time and the fact that it borders mainland Serbia makes it perfectly viable that those lands belong to Serbs. Really a poor comparison there.
(SCP UK, 3 April 2012 13:49)

With all due respect, google a map of Croatia. Knin is nowhere near Vukovar, Osijek, etc. I didn't say KRAJINA, I said SLAVONIJAS. The Slavonijas were used to created a territorial link from Knin to Belgrade, just like the Posavina corridor was used to connect Banja Luka with Sarajevo/Pale in RS. Ah, but you're young, so I must forgive you.

It's funny how this issue tends to be popular amongst Serbian nationalists, them sublimating their anger at the UK.

Here it is in a nutshell:

UK: We were there uninterrupted for 150 years and everyone who lives there wants to be part of the UK

Argentina: A Spanish king once put his finger on a map and said "that's mine". We're the rightful inheritors of that claim and the islands are close to us, so therefor they're ours.


Which is the colonialistic position?

Zoran, why only listen to MacKenzie? Why not Rose?
(Nenad, 4 April 2012 00:01)
--
Partners in crime my friend. Check -> http://www.realnews247.com/clark_and_thaci.jpg

In the deception lies the truth and in the truth lies the deception. I don't think you understood?

Serbs were heavily demonised during the 90s and it is continuing to this day. It is only natural that we defend ourselves and to educate people of our truth. Tell me, why were Serbs denied an independent RSK and RS but Albanians granted an "independent Kosova" that Albanians see as a step towards a greater Albania.

The British have caused so much damage to the world but when one complains about the destruction the British have caused, they become indignant and blame the victim. Look at how they treat their own. I spoke to a Scott recently about Andy Murray, a SCOTTISH tennis player. We were laughing about how the British are treating him as if he were one of their own because Murray is good. Yet, in other circumstances, they won't even give the time of day to the Scottish. Here's a good example from the war over the Malvinas. The British left a troop carrier in one of the bays overnight instead of unloading the Scottish troops. The troop carrier had no defense. The Argentine air force sent in a plane and took out the carrier, seriously injuring many Scottish troops. Do you think the British would have done this to their own? Thank God we Americans beat the S..t out of the British in the revolutionary war. We'd do it again
(Daniel, 4 April 2012 12:47

Every aspect of your comment is utter 'tosh'!
Where to start?
As you have appeared to identify yourself lets start across the pond.
The 'policing action' of the 1770's in the North American colonies was just that, a 'policing action'. Compounded by the fact that GB was also fending off interests from the french and the dutch, who wished to take advantage of the situation, in a REAL WAR. Full resources were never applied, opposition in the GB parliament to the conflict contributed there.
In the great scheme of things, relinquishing the colonies is no bad thing when you look at the state of that nation now :-))

Your comment regarding the attack on the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristam resulted in the near decimation of the Welsh Guards not the Scots Guards. Suggesting that the 'English' (or as you say the 'British') would recklessly sacrifice troops in such a manner due to ethnicity shows your complete lack of knowledge and ignorance in such matters.

As for the 'Scots' complaining about 'english' intransigence, blame Mel Gibson and his warped version of 'Braveheart' which galvanised a generation around a 'bandit'!

Incidentally, there is probably twice as many 'Scots' living in England as there is in Scotland, emigration from Scotland due to greedy Scottish landowners prompted the scots to travel far and wide (including England), as also left a long standing population of Scottish descent.
Incidentally, I am of Anglo/Celt heritage and BRITISH

I find it very amusing that they accuse us of 'colonisation', when Buenos Aires wants to directly rule these democratic self governing islands.
(Ian, UK, 3 April 2012 20:04)

Reading through these posts I find it even more amusing that those who take this position as a point of rational reasoning somehow fail to accuse Pristina of "colonisation" which also wants to control an area of northern Kosovo run by democratic self-governing institutions. No no, I think it's far more simple considering the people on this site:

UK = supports Kosovo = I support UK
Argentina = doesn't support Kosovo = screw them and their ridiculous claims.

Thanks for the laugh guys. Amazing how objective you can be when you need to defend something you'd otherwise criticize were the players different :)

Why aren't Serbs supporting Maradona?

Zoran, why only listen to MacKenzie? Why not Rose? He was accused of being pro-Serb, after all, and had two extremely loyal officers of Serb descent working on his staff during his stint as UNPROFOR commander. Was it that Rose just had too many anti-Serb observations for your taste? Was it that he was too professional and never went "native"?

I mean, how much responsibility for the wars do you actually assign to the warlords themselves? You really think Milosevic and Tudjman were just unwitting pawns in some grand Western plot to wreck a country that owed it billions of dollars? That posed absolutely no military threat to anyone outside of its own inhabitants? Why do you think it was that people from Yugoslavia could move easily between East and West throughout the Cold War? YOU'RE asking ME to think about it?

You keep adding Fox to my list of Western media samples -- I do not follow Fox. I deliberately exclude that organization from my list each time we debate this matter because I recognize that it has zero credibility outside local news coverage. And I am not a "junkie" of any source, and happen to get very little of my information on this subject from the news media. I couldn't get much information if I wanted to, because no one in this part of the world cares much about the topic. I'd gladly bet you a $1,000 that you couldn't find 2 people on the streets of NYC who had heard of Vojislav Seselj.

1990s Western media coverage, flawed as it was (and it WAS deeply flawed, because no one in the West knew anything about Yugoslavia), at least managed to get a few basic things right. The only reason why I ever even bring these outlets into my argument is that I find it utterly laughable that any remotely nationalist Serb has the audacity to accuse ME of being brainwashed by CNN or whatever. Yeah, because we all know that Serbs were subjected to nothing but fair and balanced news coverage during the wars.

faq,

You're quoting a US congressional appropriations act dated Nov 1990 -- well after nationalist (at least ostensibly nationalist) politicians across ex-Yu had begun provoking each other and preparing for war. You're honestly blaming a change in US lending policy (in late 1990, no less) for the belligerence of people like Milosevic and Tudjman? That's quite a stretch, but nice try. People from the Balkans have a nasty little habit of blaming everyone for their bloody wars but themselves.

Dragan, I don't know where you ever got the idea that I consider Tudjman any less worthy of blame than Milosevic.

Falkland Island was settled by Brits and was part of Britain before Argentina even existed as state. To make Falkland island Argentinean would mean to impose the rule of Argentina over the inhabitants of Falkand which they don’t want: same as Kosova’s rule over those 3 villages in north; or Serbia’s rule over Kosova and Presheva’s valley; undemocratic.

The British have caused so much damage to the world but when one complains about the destruction the British have caused, they become indignant and blame the victim. Look at how they treat their own. I spoke to a Scott recently about Andy Murray, a SCOTTISH tennis player. We were laughing about how the British are treating him as if he were one of their own because Murray is good. Yet, in other circumstances, they won't even give the time of day to the Scottish. Here's a good example from the war over the Malvinas. The British left a troop carrier in one of the bays overnight instead of unloading the Scottish troops. The troop carrier had no defense. The Argentine air force sent in a plane and took out the carrier, seriously injuring many Scottish troops. Do you think the British would have done this to their own? Thank God we Americans beat the S..t out of the British in the revolutionary war. We'd do it again

Zoran, how about this one (scroll to the bottom)?
(Nenad, 4 April 2012 15:39)
--
Sorry Nenad, but there is a big difference between my photo and yours. The one I linked to clearly displays gestures of partners (in crime I might add). Shaking hands or standing next to other people with hands crossed doesn't mean much I'm afraid.

Put a bit of history together with the photos and it all becomes clear. Who would claim that NATO or the US/UK/Germany were on Serbia's side?

As for the rise in nationalism, sure it started growing within the Serbian community around the mid 80s, however, it was always there in the Croatian community. The Ustasha were planning the breakup of Yugoslavia ever since WWII ended. When they had their opportunity, Germany was right there behind them.

I don't think the US or UK initially took sides and probably favoured Serbia, however, given the choice between Germany and Serbia (Yugoslavia), I would say it ended up being a question of economics rather than loyalty to WWII allies.

Nenad,
So it is appropriate to use one's position of power and influence to encourage nationalist behavior in another country in order to achieve your own goals?
Instead of acting 'responsibly' by using these positive attributes to discourage and squash nationalistic sentiment in another country it is not the fault of those in such positions when nationalistic actions are taken so long as the final outcome is the desired on regardless of any collateral damage?

That's is exactly what that act states to do.

Oh yes, it was the lending policy of the States that made Serbs bomb Vukovar, made the siege of Sarajevo and led to the terrible eviction of Krajina. Yes, I see the correlation now. Its the fault of those nasty evil doing Americans again. we all know the Yugoslav's really loved one another

Oh yes Zoran, that picture really proves everything!!! What watertight evidence are you going to supply next, Madeline Albright and Hashim at it?

Dragan, you're wrong. I've said many times over the years that guys like Tudjman and Izetbegovic had blood on their hands, too. For instance, I constantly bring up the Karadjordjevo meeting.

Zoran, how about this one (scroll to the bottom)?

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-14-04/discussion.cgi.35.html

Notice Rose crossing his arms? I don't think he regarded Clark as a consummate professional, and you can see why. Three and four-star generals shouldn't be hamming it up like that in front of the media, lest people get the wrong impression. By the way, Rose didn't think much of Mladic either.

faq, the resurgence of nationalism had begun back in the mid-80s at the very latest. Also, the transition to a multi-party system was well underway months before the US congress started attaching more strings to its loans.

In all fairness, I get my facts mixed up, too. I said yesterday that the Slavonijas provided a territorial link between Knin and Belgrade, but that was incorrect. RSK, RS and Serbia were connected through RS. So I needed to review the geography myself. Also, per the 1991 census, it does seem as though Serbs constituted a majority in Western Slavonija (60 percent), but not Eastern (less than a third). I'm not arguing one way or the other about the Krajina question, but based on population figures and geography, one could potentially lump Krajina and Western Slavonija together in some type of self-determination debate.

Zoran, that photo I posted was a complete media disaster for Clark. Did you notice whose hat is sitting atop his head? The Pale crew took much pride in the ruse.

I understand your point about the photo you posted but it's dangerous to read too much into these things. My point was that Clark apparently came up a bit short in the Media Savvy department -- perhaps the same reason he allowed himself to be depicted with the KLA leadership that way. Mike Jackson (the one in the middle of yours) looks like he probably should have retired by that point -- too old to care. So you see, one can see whatever one chooses in these things. Who really knows the context of your photo, and who would know the context of mine without knowledge of the back story?

I certainly agree that nationalism was no less powerful a force in Croatia and I honestly don't see any difference between Milosevic and Tudjman. I'm entirely convinced that they were both crooks who deserved to spend the rest of their miserable lives behind bars. You could make a pretty strong case for a lot of others, too: Izetbegovic, Haradinaj, Karadzic, Bulatovic, Djukanovic, Boban, Ganic, etc. All bad.

My fundamental disagreement with you has always been the degree to which you assign blame to forces outside of Yugoslavia. And you're by no means alone in this -- it's a rather popular theory amongst Serbs, Croats and Muslims. And believe me, I understand how it could be, but that in and of itself doesn't make the theory viable. I'm not claiming that NATO, the UN, the Vatican, etc are all innocent, it's just that one has to be careful not to focus too much on these institutions when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of really heinous people amongst the ranks of Serbs, Croats, Muslims, Albanians and Macedonians. Maybe even some Slovenes, too.

Start first with the guys who ruled the republics and who moved their armies against one another and figure out why the chose war and how they allowed so many war crimes to occur. Once you've determined which ones are guilty, then look at possible external influences and go after those parties, if necessary. And don't expect to be able to try Balkan politicians, army officers and paramilitaries in Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo and Pristina. You want them tried fairly in a neutral setting completely free of bias and unlawful influence? Fine. Ask the Russians and Chinese to establish a court in Jakarta or Mumbai and make sure that the judges and prosecutors all come from countries like Bhutan, Eritrea, Bolivia, and Uzbekistan.

"Britain colonized the islands located off the Argentinian coast, in southern Atlantic, in the 19th century."

Though the term is not incorrent, Colonizing implies that they were expelling the inhabitants there, just like the ancestors of Argentina did to the their native people. But Falkland Island was firstly settled by British. It has always been a British settlement. Only penguins arrived there before them. Today, 99% are British.

Argentina's claim is one of the most rediculous border disputs world wide, since it didn't belong a second to the Argentinos. Furthermore, nobody on that Island wants to be part of that country. They are pure British citizen. Get over it, Argentina.

Ecoman, you think the Brits and Americans are the only ones guilty of conquest today? Ask the Tibetans and Uighurs how they feel about the Han Chinese. Better yet, ask the Croats of the Slavonijas what right the Serbs had to those territories in 1991. Or is 21 years ago ancient history for you?

Most people in the Falklands and in fact a very significant majority of them (over 90%) wish to remain a part of Britain. This is fact, backed by ALL impartial opinion polls. So basically, get over it Argentina

Want a bunch of sour bitter pussies!

They're just jealous because their far right wing military dictatorship's invasion was repelled aka a failure.

I find it very amusing that they accuse us of 'colonisation', when Buenos Aires wants to directly rule these democratic self governing islands.

Argentina's claim is one of the most rediculous border disputs world wide, since it didn't belong a second to the Argentinos. Furthermore, nobody on that Island wants to be part of that country. They are pure British citizen. Get over it, Argentina.
(Berk., 3 April 2012 11:27)
Although the British lost control of the Island to Spain. The British need to get out of there. The whole war was a political ploy by Thatcher to cover up other issues within the UK. Malvinas son Argentinas!

Nenad, I don't think the Serbs ever colonized any part od Croatia or Slovenia. The Balkan wars of the 90's was about the break up of the former Yugoslavia - some were for it and some against it. But the USA, even today, is occupying land all over the world, in the name of democracy, of course - whether the the occupied nations ask for it or not from America. I repeat, take a look at a world map please, and tell me what the hell Britain is doing so far south in the Western hemisphere? Are they protecting Great Britain in the Falklands, or are they protecting possible oil exploration rights off of the Argentine coastline? Nenad, it's colonization in the 21st century, whichever way you look at it. As for China, they probably should give Tibet back to the Tibetans. It should be taken up in the UN.

Hey genius, ever heard of Jasenovac?
(Dragan, 3 April 2012 13:41)

So by your logic, in addition to Krajina, Serbs were owed Eastern and Western Slavonija as compensation for Jasenovac? OK, what do the Muslims get for Srebrenica, and for all the towns on the Drina? What do the Croats get for Vukovar?

Nenad, Slavonija and Croatia were part of Yugoslavia and it was the job of the Yugoslav army to protect the country's sovereignty back in 1991. What exactly is your point?

While you're at it, please explain what business the US/NATO have in Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Georgia to name a few?
(Zoran, 3 April 2012 13:46)

Zoran, as you should know by now, I don't share your view on the role of the JNA when Yugoslavia came apart. Like most people living outside of Serbia, RS and CG, I believe that the JNA was entirely at the disposal of Milosevic, who was not really at all for preserving Yugoslavia, but for carving out of it a Greater Serbia. You and I can debate that until the end of time but my beliefs on that subject won't change. Guys like you and Dragan can accuse me of being "brainwashed" and "delusional" all you want, but as I've said many times before, I'd take the version of events put out by the international media over that of the Serbian media any day. I realize that the BBC, CNN, NYT etc are far from perfect, but I put pretty much no stock in the Milosevic-controlled outlets of the day. In fact, I don't really trust Serbian outlets of the present day, either.

And call the Hague what you will, but my dint of its sheer existence, we have evidence showing up in court that points to major culpability on the part of Milosevic, Karadzic, et al. I've asked you before and I'll ask again: show me clear proof of where the leaders in Washington, London and Berlin colluded circa 1989-1991 to pull Yugoslavia apart. I can tell you about Milosevic overthrowing Stambolic, then the governments of Vojvodina, CG and KiM. I can tell you that he sent guys like Stanisic to Knin as early as 1989 to establish political and military links in preparation for war there. But why don't you tell me who from Washington, for example, managed to get Milosevic to do all this, and how? Do we have to wait for the Wikileaks? Is that it? Or do we have to wait another 30 years for the documents to be declassified per the Freedom of Information Act or whatever? When do we get to see hard evidence of your version of the history? Or perhaps there's some internationally respected website to which you could direct my attention, as opposed to some silly site started up by a parnoid schizophrenic sitting in his underwear all day?

As to your question about US endeavors in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc -- I'm no defender of these, and never have been. I've called many times for the indictment of Bush administration officials, for example. Just because I'm American doesn't mean I support every aspect of US foreign policy. Believe me, I don't.

@Nenad, that really is a BS argument. How on earth can you compare Serbs in Krajina or today Croatia, Serbs were there for an awfully long time and the fact that it borders mainland Serbia makes it perfectly viable that those lands belong to Serbs. Really a poor comparison there.
(SCP UK, 3 April 2012 13:49)

With all due respect, google a map of Croatia. Knin is nowhere near Vukovar, Osijek, etc. I didn't say KRAJINA, I said SLAVONIJAS. The Slavonijas were used to created a territorial link from Knin to Belgrade, just like the Posavina corridor was used to connect Banja Luka with Sarajevo/Pale in RS. Ah, but you're young, so I must forgive you.

It's funny how this issue tends to be popular amongst Serbian nationalists, them sublimating their anger at the UK.

Here it is in a nutshell:

UK: We were there uninterrupted for 150 years and everyone who lives there wants to be part of the UK

Argentina: A Spanish king once put his finger on a map and said "that's mine". We're the rightful inheritors of that claim and the islands are close to us, so therefor they're ours.


Which is the colonialistic position?

How about the world, now in its 21st century, just put an end to colonization? There is something wrong with invading land, and by force claiming it as yours in the name of some crown. Take a look at a world map, and please can someone tell me what the hell Britain is doing off the coast of southern Argentina? Come on, Brits, give the land back, the days of conquer and rule are over. Well, maybe not, the USA still does it.

Better yet, ask the Croats of the Slavonijas what right the Serbs had to those territories in 1991. Or is 21 years ago ancient history for you?
(Nenad, 3 April 2012 12:36)

Hey genius, ever heard of Jasenovac? After Jasenovac the Croats don't deserve any land at all, however they went completely unpunished and in fact were rewarded for their genocide by getting more territory from Tito. The Serbs, in their naivety, allowed this to happen all in the name of 'brotherhood and unity'. The war started again in 1991, and it was instigated by the Croats, not the Serbs. And they were, yet again, rewarded, this time by the 'civilized West', after another genocide inflicted on the Serbs, the US sponsored Operation Storm.
So quit your brainless revisionist history. Anyone who accuses the Serbs of Croatia, the biggest victims of genocide, of colonization is completely ignorant, and a complete buffoon.
As for the Islas Malvinas, they will eventually be Argentinian, and the Argentines certainly have my support. Argentina knows well the evils of western imperialism, and is staunchly against the recognition of Kosovo. As for the UK, they have become pathetic lapdogs to both Germany and the US, and have once again stabbed Serbia in the back. They don't deserve any support, and what goes around comes around.
Cheers!!

Ecoman, you think the Brits and Americans are the only ones guilty of conquest today? Ask the Tibetans and Uighurs how they feel about the Han Chinese. Better yet, ask the Croats of the Slavonijas what right the Serbs had to those territories in 1991. Or is 21 years ago ancient history for you?
(Nenad, 3 April 2012 12:36)
--
Nenad, Slavonija and Croatia were part of Yugoslavia and it was the job of the Yugoslav army to protect the country's sovereignty back in 1991. What exactly is your point?

While you're at it, please explain what business the US/NATO have in Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Georgia to name a few?

I think that the people of Argentina have a bigger voice in this issue, than the commentators on this site. On B92, people are always divided in the pro or anti west crowd. The ones that support an Albanian Kosovo, and the ones that don't. So, all issues fall within that divide. The Falklands are off the coast of Argentina, not off the coast of Great Britain, so I tend to fall into the anti west crowd.
(ecoman, 3 April 2012 14:03)

The biggest voice have the people who live on that island. That are the British and those families who have been living there ever since 1830, continously. Most of them are even descendants of the first settlers. They founded the settlements there. They developed that island. British settlers were on that island even before Argentina was founded. All people who live there, speak English, feel British and didn't take from anybody that (very harsh) soil.

Try to find any piece of land worldwide where the land belongs so obviously to the people who live there. Last, you "argument" that the Falkland Islands' position is nearer to Argentina than to UK has no legal weight at all. You will find many islands worldwide which belong to countries farer than the next mainland.

The only thing which is thinkable is to ask for a referendum, if the people of Falklands want to be independent or not. But I don't see any sane reason to give this island to Argentina. The Argentinos even aggressively shed blood to take this islands. The only interest of Argentina are the resources of that islands and not the people living on it whose primary interest to live in peace.

faq,

You're quoting a US congressional appropriations act dated Nov 1990 -- well after nationalist (at least ostensibly nationalist) politicians across ex-Yu had begun provoking each other and preparing for war. You're honestly blaming a change in US lending policy (in late 1990, no less) for the belligerence of people like Milosevic and Tudjman? That's quite a stretch, but nice try. People from the Balkans have a nasty little habit of blaming everyone for their bloody wars but themselves.

Dragan, I don't know where you ever got the idea that I consider Tudjman any less worthy of blame than Milosevic.

This is a ridiculous argument going on here. One only needs to look geographically at this situation, take a look at where the British Isles are, they are located in Western Europe and just east of the Atlantic Ocean well above the equator and the tropic of cancer. The Falkland Islands are located off the coast of Argentina, South America, well below the equator and tropic of capricorn, there is absolutely no justification in that being British territory historically.

@Nenad, that really is a BS argument. How on earth can you compare Serbs in Krajina or today Croatia, Serbs were there for an awfully long time and the fact that it borders mainland Serbia makes it perfectly viable that those lands belong to Serbs. Really a poor comparison there.

I think that the people of Argentina have a bigger voice in this issue, than the commentators on this site. On B92, people are always divided in the pro or anti west crowd. The ones that support an Albanian Kosovo, and the ones that don't. So, all issues fall within that divide. The Falklands are off the coast of Argentina, not off the coast of Great Britain, so I tend to fall into the anti west crowd.

The Argentinean claim is not strong enough to stand up in international court. That is why they will not try it.

It is a tenuous claim - remade periodically by failing Argentinean politicians.

Argentinean military adventurism 30 years ago cost the lives of too many people. Argentina will not attempt to repeat that experience - and if it does, the result will be the same.

Argentina is actually well separated from the Falklands - several hundred kilometres. Both Britain and Argentina are remote. The only difference is that the Brits defend the Falkland islanders and the Argentineans don't.

Originally the islands were uninhabited, and they were abandoned periodically by those who attempted to settle there. The current occupants represent generations of settlement and as such are being ignored by the Argentineans. There are a proportion of Argentineans who are trying to point out this little fact but they are treated as traitors by the propagandists.

Almost every nation or state in the world, and not just empires, came into being through conquest, whether economic or military - often both.

I agree that the British should give up any remaining dependencies wherever they are, but only if the people living in those places wish it. This also applies to the various parts of the UK itself such as England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, The Isle of Man, The Channel islands, as well as the north-eastern part of the Irish nation that remains in the UK.

Failing that, the UK, if it survives, could use the French model and make these overseas dependencies fully part of the UK with exactly the same rights to representation, et al, as all British citizens.

The 3000 or so people of the Falklands/Malvinas are not Spanish speaking Argentines but English speaking people of largely British descent.

Has anyone considered that perhaps they should have a say in this dispute?

the fact of resettling colonists in the territory under colonial power does not make them justifiable owners - right - that what KiM Albanians parrot all the time. In fact, it is vice versa in Kosovo - Albanians are colonst and intruders thanx to their brethren Turks, likewise Brits are intruders in Malvinas. Easy and legitimate solution - intruders and their offsprings move back home where they can vote for whatever they want. Remember Pied-noir in Algeria - finally they found their way back home and not a leftists even whines!

Lol U.K eat Argentina alive! Falkland belongs to UK because the people in Falkand says so.

I find it very amusing that they accuse us of 'colonisation', when Buenos Aires wants to directly rule these democratic self governing islands.
(Ian, UK, 3 April 2012 20:04)

Give us a break you hypocrite!

"Most people in the Falklands and in fact a very significant majority of them (over 90%) wish to remain a part of Britain. This is fact, backed by ALL impartial opinion polls. So basically, get over it Argentina
(Nikolle, 3 April 2012 13:48)"

I see ....... so to you the Brits were only protecting human rights and freedom of choice when they used the opinion polls of the Falklanders? How noble and democratic, right? ...... then tell me, why did these Brits not care a hoot about the human rights of the indigenous inhabitants of Diego Garcia (Chagos Islanders) to exercise their freedom to choose? And instead systematically evicted the inhabitants to depopulate Diego Garcia so that it could be turned into a military base for the Yankees? Or do you consider the Chagos subhumans not worthy of consideration compared with your exalted Falklanders? Methinks the Brits are just utter hypocrites!

Zoran, why only listen to MacKenzie? Why not Rose? He was accused of being pro-Serb, after all, and had two extremely loyal officers of Serb descent working on his staff during his stint as UNPROFOR commander. Was it that Rose just had too many anti-Serb observations for your taste? Was it that he was too professional and never went "native"?

I mean, how much responsibility for the wars do you actually assign to the warlords themselves? You really think Milosevic and Tudjman were just unwitting pawns in some grand Western plot to wreck a country that owed it billions of dollars? That posed absolutely no military threat to anyone outside of its own inhabitants? Why do you think it was that people from Yugoslavia could move easily between East and West throughout the Cold War? YOU'RE asking ME to think about it?

You keep adding Fox to my list of Western media samples -- I do not follow Fox. I deliberately exclude that organization from my list each time we debate this matter because I recognize that it has zero credibility outside local news coverage. And I am not a "junkie" of any source, and happen to get very little of my information on this subject from the news media. I couldn't get much information if I wanted to, because no one in this part of the world cares much about the topic. I'd gladly bet you a $1,000 that you couldn't find 2 people on the streets of NYC who had heard of Vojislav Seselj.

1990s Western media coverage, flawed as it was (and it WAS deeply flawed, because no one in the West knew anything about Yugoslavia), at least managed to get a few basic things right. The only reason why I ever even bring these outlets into my argument is that I find it utterly laughable that any remotely nationalist Serb has the audacity to accuse ME of being brainwashed by CNN or whatever. Yeah, because we all know that Serbs were subjected to nothing but fair and balanced news coverage during the wars.

I realize that the BBC, CNN, NYT etc are far from perfect, but I put pretty much no stock in the Milosevic-controlled outlets of the day. In fact, I don't really trust Serbian outlets of the present day, either.
(Nenad, 3 April 2012 18:13)
--
Tell me what makes you think that either Dragan or I or most people here for that matter had access to Milosevic controlled media? We were all watching and reading the same western propaganda, however, some were searching for the brave western journalists who were reporting the other side of the story. Some saw the discrepancies that made the lies obvious.

You only have to read what people in the field, like General Lewis MacKenzie and James Bissett had to say. Why did Germany and the Vatican recognise Croatia prematurely? Don't you remember the headlines at the time? Premature recognition repeated many times. Clinton's election campaign was all about intervening on the side of the Muslims and he pretty much won the elections over it. I mean, were you blind at the time? Even the US influenced the breaking of peace deals between the Serbians, Muslims and Croatians.

Since you admit to being a CNN, FOX and BBC junkie, you most certainly are brainwashed. It's a shame you never took the time to learn about the truth or to understand the other side. In the truth lies the deception and in the deception lies the truth. Check -> http://www.wacowebdesign.be/images/stories/yin-yang.jpg

Think about it.

Why aren't Serbs supporting Maradona?

Oh yes, it was the lending policy of the States that made Serbs bomb Vukovar, made the siege of Sarajevo and led to the terrible eviction of Krajina. Yes, I see the correlation now. Its the fault of those nasty evil doing Americans again. we all know the Yugoslav's really loved one another

The British have caused so much damage to the world but when one complains about the destruction the British have caused, they become indignant and blame the victim. Look at how they treat their own. I spoke to a Scott recently about Andy Murray, a SCOTTISH tennis player. We were laughing about how the British are treating him as if he were one of their own because Murray is good. Yet, in other circumstances, they won't even give the time of day to the Scottish. Here's a good example from the war over the Malvinas. The British left a troop carrier in one of the bays overnight instead of unloading the Scottish troops. The troop carrier had no defense. The Argentine air force sent in a plane and took out the carrier, seriously injuring many Scottish troops. Do you think the British would have done this to their own? Thank God we Americans beat the S..t out of the British in the revolutionary war. We'd do it again

Zoran, that photo I posted was a complete media disaster for Clark. Did you notice whose hat is sitting atop his head? The Pale crew took much pride in the ruse.

I understand your point about the photo you posted but it's dangerous to read too much into these things. My point was that Clark apparently came up a bit short in the Media Savvy department -- perhaps the same reason he allowed himself to be depicted with the KLA leadership that way. Mike Jackson (the one in the middle of yours) looks like he probably should have retired by that point -- too old to care. So you see, one can see whatever one chooses in these things. Who really knows the context of your photo, and who would know the context of mine without knowledge of the back story?

I certainly agree that nationalism was no less powerful a force in Croatia and I honestly don't see any difference between Milosevic and Tudjman. I'm entirely convinced that they were both crooks who deserved to spend the rest of their miserable lives behind bars. You could make a pretty strong case for a lot of others, too: Izetbegovic, Haradinaj, Karadzic, Bulatovic, Djukanovic, Boban, Ganic, etc. All bad.

My fundamental disagreement with you has always been the degree to which you assign blame to forces outside of Yugoslavia. And you're by no means alone in this -- it's a rather popular theory amongst Serbs, Croats and Muslims. And believe me, I understand how it could be, but that in and of itself doesn't make the theory viable. I'm not claiming that NATO, the UN, the Vatican, etc are all innocent, it's just that one has to be careful not to focus too much on these institutions when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of really heinous people amongst the ranks of Serbs, Croats, Muslims, Albanians and Macedonians. Maybe even some Slovenes, too.

Start first with the guys who ruled the republics and who moved their armies against one another and figure out why the chose war and how they allowed so many war crimes to occur. Once you've determined which ones are guilty, then look at possible external influences and go after those parties, if necessary. And don't expect to be able to try Balkan politicians, army officers and paramilitaries in Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo and Pristina. You want them tried fairly in a neutral setting completely free of bias and unlawful influence? Fine. Ask the Russians and Chinese to establish a court in Jakarta or Mumbai and make sure that the judges and prosecutors all come from countries like Bhutan, Eritrea, Bolivia, and Uzbekistan.

'OK, what do the Muslims get for Srebrenica, and for all the towns on the Drina? What do the Croats get for Vukovar?'

Nenad, muslims already have the Federacija with their wonderfull 'ally', the Croats. That is more than they deserve. For Srebrenica they get zip, zilch, since the whole cause of Srebrenica was Naser Oric and his beheading and murder of Serbian civilians all around Srebrenica. He is walking freely, thanks to that anti-Serb NATO run kangaroo court, which runs show trials and is a total sham.

In case you haven't heard, Tudjman was collecting money from diaspora Ustashe long before 1991 and planning for war and the complete wiping out of the Serbian population. In fact, there is even video evidence of this on a documentary I saw, where some Croat wanker is bragging about how much arms they have stashed to an undercover Yugoslav agent. If you grew up in the US like you claim, you would know that there is Ustashe everywhere and they have planned that war for years. But then again, you don't seem to have a clue about anything.

Falkland Island was settled by Brits and was part of Britain before Argentina even existed as state. To make Falkland island Argentinean would mean to impose the rule of Argentina over the inhabitants of Falkand which they don’t want: same as Kosova’s rule over those 3 villages in north; or Serbia’s rule over Kosova and Presheva’s valley; undemocratic.

Dragan, you're wrong. I've said many times over the years that guys like Tudjman and Izetbegovic had blood on their hands, too. For instance, I constantly bring up the Karadjordjevo meeting.

Zoran, how about this one (scroll to the bottom)?

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-14-04/discussion.cgi.35.html

Notice Rose crossing his arms? I don't think he regarded Clark as a consummate professional, and you can see why. Three and four-star generals shouldn't be hamming it up like that in front of the media, lest people get the wrong impression. By the way, Rose didn't think much of Mladic either.

faq, the resurgence of nationalism had begun back in the mid-80s at the very latest. Also, the transition to a multi-party system was well underway months before the US congress started attaching more strings to its loans.

In all fairness, I get my facts mixed up, too. I said yesterday that the Slavonijas provided a territorial link between Knin and Belgrade, but that was incorrect. RSK, RS and Serbia were connected through RS. So I needed to review the geography myself. Also, per the 1991 census, it does seem as though Serbs constituted a majority in Western Slavonija (60 percent), but not Eastern (less than a third). I'm not arguing one way or the other about the Krajina question, but based on population figures and geography, one could potentially lump Krajina and Western Slavonija together in some type of self-determination debate.

Q (Nenad): show me clear proof of where the leaders in Washington, London and Berlin colluded circa 1989-1991 to pull Yugoslavia apart

A:

A year before the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on Nov. 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. This bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would lead to a bloody civil war.

A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previous warning cut off all aid, trade, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within six months. It also ordered separate elections in each of the six republics that make up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. The legislation further required U.S. personnel in all international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut-off policy for all credits and loans.

There was one final provision. Only forces that the U.S. State Department defined as "democratic forces" would receive funding. This meant an influx of funds to small right-wing nationalist parties in a financially strangled region suddenly thrown into crisis by the overall funding cut-off.

The impact was, as expected, devastating.

This law threw the Yugoslav federal government into crisis. It was unable to pay the enormous interest on its foreign debt or even to arrange the purchase of raw materials for industry. Credit collapsed and recriminations broke out on all sides.

Dragan, I don't know where you ever got the idea that I consider Tudjman any less worthy of blame than Milosevic.
(Nenad, 3 April 2012 21:29)

Are you kidding me? I get that idea because you blame everything, and I mean everything, on Serbs. You are a typical proponent of selective justice.

Nenad,
So it is appropriate to use one's position of power and influence to encourage nationalist behavior in another country in order to achieve your own goals?
Instead of acting 'responsibly' by using these positive attributes to discourage and squash nationalistic sentiment in another country it is not the fault of those in such positions when nationalistic actions are taken so long as the final outcome is the desired on regardless of any collateral damage?

That's is exactly what that act states to do.

Zoran, why only listen to MacKenzie? Why not Rose?
(Nenad, 4 April 2012 00:01)
--
Partners in crime my friend. Check -> http://www.realnews247.com/clark_and_thaci.jpg

In the deception lies the truth and in the truth lies the deception. I don't think you understood?

Serbs were heavily demonised during the 90s and it is continuing to this day. It is only natural that we defend ourselves and to educate people of our truth. Tell me, why were Serbs denied an independent RSK and RS but Albanians granted an "independent Kosova" that Albanians see as a step towards a greater Albania.

Oh yes Zoran, that picture really proves everything!!! What watertight evidence are you going to supply next, Madeline Albright and Hashim at it?

The British have caused so much damage to the world but when one complains about the destruction the British have caused, they become indignant and blame the victim. Look at how they treat their own. I spoke to a Scott recently about Andy Murray, a SCOTTISH tennis player. We were laughing about how the British are treating him as if he were one of their own because Murray is good. Yet, in other circumstances, they won't even give the time of day to the Scottish. Here's a good example from the war over the Malvinas. The British left a troop carrier in one of the bays overnight instead of unloading the Scottish troops. The troop carrier had no defense. The Argentine air force sent in a plane and took out the carrier, seriously injuring many Scottish troops. Do you think the British would have done this to their own? Thank God we Americans beat the S..t out of the British in the revolutionary war. We'd do it again
(Daniel, 4 April 2012 12:47

Every aspect of your comment is utter 'tosh'!
Where to start?
As you have appeared to identify yourself lets start across the pond.
The 'policing action' of the 1770's in the North American colonies was just that, a 'policing action'. Compounded by the fact that GB was also fending off interests from the french and the dutch, who wished to take advantage of the situation, in a REAL WAR. Full resources were never applied, opposition in the GB parliament to the conflict contributed there.
In the great scheme of things, relinquishing the colonies is no bad thing when you look at the state of that nation now :-))

Your comment regarding the attack on the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristam resulted in the near decimation of the Welsh Guards not the Scots Guards. Suggesting that the 'English' (or as you say the 'British') would recklessly sacrifice troops in such a manner due to ethnicity shows your complete lack of knowledge and ignorance in such matters.

As for the 'Scots' complaining about 'english' intransigence, blame Mel Gibson and his warped version of 'Braveheart' which galvanised a generation around a 'bandit'!

Incidentally, there is probably twice as many 'Scots' living in England as there is in Scotland, emigration from Scotland due to greedy Scottish landowners prompted the scots to travel far and wide (including England), as also left a long standing population of Scottish descent.
Incidentally, I am of Anglo/Celt heritage and BRITISH

Zoran, how about this one (scroll to the bottom)?
(Nenad, 4 April 2012 15:39)
--
Sorry Nenad, but there is a big difference between my photo and yours. The one I linked to clearly displays gestures of partners (in crime I might add). Shaking hands or standing next to other people with hands crossed doesn't mean much I'm afraid.

Put a bit of history together with the photos and it all becomes clear. Who would claim that NATO or the US/UK/Germany were on Serbia's side?

As for the rise in nationalism, sure it started growing within the Serbian community around the mid 80s, however, it was always there in the Croatian community. The Ustasha were planning the breakup of Yugoslavia ever since WWII ended. When they had their opportunity, Germany was right there behind them.

I don't think the US or UK initially took sides and probably favoured Serbia, however, given the choice between Germany and Serbia (Yugoslavia), I would say it ended up being a question of economics rather than loyalty to WWII allies.

I find it very amusing that they accuse us of 'colonisation', when Buenos Aires wants to directly rule these democratic self governing islands.
(Ian, UK, 3 April 2012 20:04)

Reading through these posts I find it even more amusing that those who take this position as a point of rational reasoning somehow fail to accuse Pristina of "colonisation" which also wants to control an area of northern Kosovo run by democratic self-governing institutions. No no, I think it's far more simple considering the people on this site:

UK = supports Kosovo = I support UK
Argentina = doesn't support Kosovo = screw them and their ridiculous claims.

Thanks for the laugh guys. Amazing how objective you can be when you need to defend something you'd otherwise criticize were the players different :)

it would seem that according to the us state department as of 1990 yuoslavia had 6 internal states (slovenia, croatia, serbia, bosnia, montenegro and macedonia - totals 6).
thanks faq

Here is an issue as I see it.
On one side argument is that Falkland Islands (or Malvinas if you prefer) are in everything part of South America, geographically, geologically, etc. etc.
Islands should then belong to nearby mainland (Argentina 430 km) and population should be given all minority rights (use of English language, etc.) rather then UK 12,700 kilometers away.

In the other view, it's the will of population that matters. 3,000 inhabitants of the Islands are British and they should decide by their own free will.

Very peculiar thing , Brits who think that 3,000 Brits should decide their own fate, also think that 2,200,000 Serbs (according to 1991 census) who live west of Serbia should not get to decide anything, and should simply become minority in Croatia or Bosnia, respectively.
Even without standard minority rights!!!
Example - Croatia banned Serbian language and script, against OSCE minority right rules.

Excuse was that internal, administrative borders (not protected by any international laws, by the way), were in the meantime declared international borders, and can't be violated or changed.
Then same Brits recognized Kosovo in violation of one of those principles that they themselves established in former Yugoslavia....
It turned out that integrity of the republics can be violated after all...

And now they are saying that Serbia should simply give up the remaining Serb citizens in northern Kosovo ( 80,000 ). Never you mind that UK won't give up 3,000 of their own half world around, Serbia should. Why? Because integrity of Kosovo now can't be violated.

Laughable, and perfect example why one shouldn't pay any attention to statements coming from any Western politicians. It's just too much...
As far as I'm concerned they can stop talking and simply rattle the sabers.
Everyone have seen already through their words.
Bullies who take other kid's lunch money at the school don't need to explain what gives them this right. Might makes it right.

As for Falkland's...I think that people matter and they should get to decide.