1. Bragon,
    Your view is superficial. After 1989 at all the transitional economies of Eastern Europe elements of capitalism occurred. Lack of legal framework permitted the occurance of events like Dafina bank in Yugoslavia, Russia and other countries. But governments like that of Milosevic tried to promote social changes with the least social consequences and social pain. The Milosevic government promoted a model that could be better described as “state capitalism”. Market forces operated, but the state control at the economy remained. Domestic production was also protected. If Milosevic government were procapitalist and new liberal, mass redundancies would have occurred and the percentage of unemployment would have been much higher. Of course, the cost of keeping many loss making enterprises alive and avoiding recession through injection of liquidity at the economy was high inflation. If you bothered to look a bit at the views of economists like Oscar Kovac, Kosta Mihailovic you would understand the differences. The policies advocated by the post Milosevic governments and especially the current one (DS + new SPS) is complete privatization (especially at the financial sector), selling almost all the infrastructure to foreign capital, abolishment of subsidies to goods like electricity, open of the economy to world market (abolishment of customs and tariffs, unilateral implementation of SAA). These policies mean that Serbia is more vulnerable to imported financial crisis (as now), the state has less tools of exercising economic policy, reducing inequalities, the domestic production in manufacture, agriculture will vanish. You will soon find out how unstable system is capitalism, how stressful is for the most employees in periods of recessions (although I have to admit that in self management many workers exploited the security and acted irresponsibly).
    Cleptocracy is not a type of regime. Scandals and corruption exist everywhere, even in USA (although the sanctions, the nepotism, the immature democracy and the authoritarianism helped corruption to expand).
    Despite all his mistakes (to be as brief as possible: a) Milosevic did not create the problem of Kosovo, but his policies alienated the proYugoslav Albanian elite and turned all the population in favor of independence and increased the gap between Serb and Albanian residents), b) All the leaders but Gliforov (and foreign powers that assisted the secessionist republics) of Ex Yugoslavia bear responsibility for the break up of the country. Milosevic was right to ask for alteration of the constitution of 1974. It was dysfunctional and had turned Yugolsavia to a de facto confederation. However, his uncompromising attitude and the mass nationalist rallies increased the tentions and in return boosted the influence of the secessionists in Croatia, Slovenia. It is naïve to believe that there could be a fair negotiation with the Tudzman government which aimed at assimilating or expelling the Serbs. Besides, the unilateral secessions of Slovenia, Croatia were illegal under the 1974 constitution.
    Do you think Milosevic should have signed the Rambouillet pact in 1999? Under it, NATO troops had the right to move freely at all the territory of FRY. A government with national dignity would not have signed it (If Milosevic had signed the pact and sold the country to foreign capital, then despite the human rights violations in Kosovo, Serbia would not have been bombed). But national dignity is something unknown to successor governments: submission to terms dictated by the biased Hague tribunal, refusal to ask NATO for war compensations etc…
    In Eastern Europe 3 governments tried to follow independent policy: Lukasenco (Bellorussia), Milosevic (Serbia), Mesiar (Slovakia). Non government organizations (like Optor) financed from abroad, exploited the economic hardships of the population, the mistakes of these governments and succeded to bring down 2 of them. And last: the current government of Serbia you seem to support, has a lot in common with that of Boris Yeltsin in post-communist Russia. Liberal and submissive to the West it led to the impoverishment of the vast majority of the population and the emergence of oligarchs. At the international relations, it was so submissive that no country dared to rely on it. It lost influence and eventually, as the NATO aggression against FRY indicated, noone bothered even to consult it. Eventually Putin applied a policy of state intervention and more independence. Is Russia better now or then?
    (sceptic, 13 November 2008 23:22)
  2. Seems to me like the real sell-outs were the ones who sat in London and Chicago and Toronto, enjoying a comfortable lifestyle courtesy of Serbia's enemies while the rest of us were being robbed blind by Milosevic then bombed by NATO.
    (Milos Obilic, 11 November 2008 17:06)

    Mr. Obilic, you are obviously misinformed and absolutely wrong about Serbians abroad. Just because we don’t currently live in our homeland, does not mean we somehow don’t care and can’t influence what goes on in Serbia or our countries where we currently live. In bad times it’s not only that you can help your people or country by grabbing a gun and go on the killing spree. Much bigger job is done by people like me and many Serbians living abroad, then you give us credit for. Without our financial and political influence in our respective countries where we currently live things would have been much worst for our brothers and sisters in our homeland. Chicago Serbians where I am from have been fitting for Serbia’s and our peoples freedoms for decades . So, for you to suggest that we are “real sell-outs” and somehow responsible for political downfalls in Serbia, you are inaccurate, misinformed and insult to our intelligence. You should be shame of yourself and the name you are using.
    As for “OTPOR” to me they are simply traitors and enemy collaborators.
    (usaSERB, 13 November 2008 21:55)
  3. Bganon, you should be aware that mass privatization started after milosevic, not before. Under milosevic there was minimal privatization. Get those facts straight. You can see interviews and statements that otpor leaders have said. They said this about their funding that they received, not me. Bganon, you totally ignore the fact that Serbia was the only country which still had worker ownership in the former Yugoslavia at the end of Milosevic's rule. This was a vital component of Tito's model. Along with most of the economy being in public hands, I don't get what you are trying to say.

    There are good and bad things about every regime. I however have enough brains to not be one sided and say this one was all good and this other one was all bad. You can look into the writings of the famous Michael Parenti, for he has written much about the success of Milosevic. Having the least number of homeless people on the streets of Europe's capital cities is just one achievement.

    As for banking, it was the government owned bank that printed money and stopped hyperinflation which was there because of the war and external pressures.

    It is a question about how the current regime would have reacted. In my opinion they would have done what milsoevic did - nothing. He did nothing when it came to send troops into serbia. If people volunteered for these militia's and left the country to be in them, then that's not in the government's controls.

    Please be less biased. I tell you ,every regime and leader has good and bad things.
    (Lazar, 13 November 2008 05:44)
  4. ZK, you are completely right about Rambouillet. Milosevic was put in an impossible situation when they said either sign or we bomb.

    They had every intenetion of bombing. They needed a trigger for this. No leader would sign such an agreement and they knew it.

    Actually, General MacKenzie and James Bissett have both expressed their disapproval of the west for this at the forum which took place in Montreal back in May of this year.

    They don't blame Milosevic for everything that went wrong like the US does. They even say that Milosevic was blamed unfairly and plans were already under way to break up Yugoslavia and give certain groups their piece of it.
    Bganon should probably listen to these two gentlemen and then decide if Milosevic was so bad after all.

    If General MacKenzie and Ambassador Bissett don't condemn Milosevic but rather try to come to his defence it must mean that US propagana has done it's job only on the people who don't know what happened. Nobody can accuse these two men of not knowing the facts.
    (Peggy, 13 November 2008 03:26)
  5. When is Otpor going to apologize for burning the Parliament building, burning ballots, and physically attacking people? This is what qualifies for a "democratic" movement these days? If the CIA funded Otpor and DOS had their way, Kosovo would have been gone long ago, NATO would completely occupy Serbia, the EU would have the "Bonn authority" to oust politicians whenever they felt like, etc.
    (Brian, 13 November 2008 00:30)
  6. I was referring to the Rambouillet accords, that would have had all of Serbia occupied. The choice was either submission or forced occupation so neither was desirable.

    Anyway, I can see that you are blinded. You should look at some of the costly mistakes the UK (or any other) government has made before referring to the Airbus purchase. Admittedly, I don't know the details but it does demonstrate your desire to blame Milosevic for everything.

    When Serbians were united in one country one day and then forced apart the next, whoever was in power at that time would be in a difficult position - especially when the world powers were determined to destroy any peaceful negotiations.

    I'll leave it there so we can agree to disagree.
    (ZK, 12 November 2008 21:49)
  7. ZK sometimes you really surprise me with your comments. Milosevic invited occupiers into Serbia in the first place with the signing of Kumanovo. You can hardly say 'well at least they don't occupy all of Serbia' with a straight face, surely?

    Milosevic was very popular to begin with, but not as time went on. He kept having to form coalitions to maintain power - with the utterly discreditted JUL, SRS and with that dodgy Mihajlovic character who turncoated and joined DOS, because of all the intelligence he had on everybody. You can check those facts and statistics. Its a myth that Milosevic was popular. He was deeply unpopular with nationalists and reformists.

    In fact the west saved his bacon at Dayton. Yes his collaboration with the west undermined the Serbian democratic opposition.

    Thats a fact that proponents of 'Serbian pride' and supporters of Milosevic forget all to easily. I dare say its not comfortable for internationals who knew what Milosevic was but played ball, ensuring that Serbia kept Milosevic.

    Then we had the attempt at stolen elections in 1997 to also evidence the extent of his popularity. We also had the longest and largest protest in Balkan history to remember him by.

    OK lets not go down this road of measuring his record, it makes this lot look too good, but let us not in any way forget the facts.

    The fact was that Milosevic was a disaster and funded from abroad or no, people felt they had no choice but to support OTPOR. I was one of them and make no apologies. I would not ask you to agree with me, but you have to understand a little better why OTPOR became so popular, how many people felt about the rule of Milosevic.
    (bganon, 12 November 2008 19:01)
  8. bganon, well, ok whether it was NATO or the US government that funded Otpor, it doesn't make a big difference. Both were very hostile to Serbia at the time.

    As for your hypothetical situations, I really don't see the point. Milosevic was very popular and supported quite strongly for a long time. It was only towards the end that things changed and all of a sudden everyone forgot how strongly they supported him.

    Milosevic at least prevented NATO from occupying all of Serbia, which was their intention.
    (ZK, 12 November 2008 18:02)
  9. ZK I have a simple reply it wasn't me who was comparing today's situation with 1998, it was Lazar. I was just answering! As for OTPOR in other countries, well their methods of citizen action because the model to use and their success was in Serbia. It was after the Serbian experience that OTPOR was used as a business or a brand if you prefer.

    Can you provide me a link that shows that NATO funded OTPOR? Please ZK, make an effort to get the facts right and don't make things up as you go along. The US government funded OTPOR, not NATO. Facts are important.

    Lazar as I stated the national telephone Telekom was sold to the Italians / Greeks. That is not social ownership, that is capitalism. Banks were privatised / deregulated, that is capitalism. The type of economy you are talking about was presided over by Josip Broz. Slobodan Milosevic was a banker who made up the economic rules as he went along, depending on what would keep him in power. There are many instances of wrongdoing in the 1990's JAT is only one example. You might note that the glorious first metro station in Serbia was a slush fund for laundering money and that project was many years overdue and that the metro was never completed. Another example was the arena which was only completed by post 2000 government due to mismanagement and financial impropriety of the state building firms employed.

    Would the current government behave differently in the situation of war? Hell yes. To begin with they would not have let war start in the first place and certainly they would not have allowed the formation of illegal militias in Serbia. We can evidence this with the fact that ruling DS was one of the few parties that didn't have a militia. SRS had theirs, SPO had theirs and SPS used JSO and state military. I not only believe that the situation would not have happened, I am convinced it would not have. I am convinced that DS would have sat down and negotiated a deal with other former Yugoslavs, although there would have been some fighting. Above all we would not have been utterly defeated militarily and diplomatically as we were.

    What I don't understand is how you can even believe that the Milosevic regime had any success at all. Which success? What gives you the idea that they were so good, when all the evidence shows the opposite?
    (bganon, 12 November 2008 17:31)
  10. Milos, I am not sure what 5 mark wages you are talking about. The lowest it ever got was 20 marks a month, back in december 1993, when our economy was at its worst.

    Bganon, you forget one major thing. We were under sanctions because the world powers did not want us to be under such system. Furthermore, we were under worker management, not state management. I would like to see more info on the airbus information, but as to my knowledge, airbus is far cheaper than boeing.

    We see the different economic model succeeding in Belarus and in Latin America. It's not like it is impossible. The problem is that we were under extreme pressure to be in line with the standards what most of Eastern Europe had been forced to take. Well, if this is democracy or sovereignty... it certainly is not.

    Ask yourselves if the current regime would be any different if they were under sanctions. Considered that most of our exports are processed imports... then you should be able to conclude that this regime would be fairing worse under sanctions and bombs than milosevic's regime.
    (LAzar, 12 November 2008 16:10)
  11. bganon, I don't know why you are comparing a period of sanctions and war to one of relative calm.

    If Otpor was an internal struggle that only received NATO funding because they had no choice, then tell me what they were doing in Georgia and Ukraine? It should be fairly obvious that their purpose was/is to serve Western interests and to install obedient puppets.
    (ZK, 12 November 2008 13:39)
  12. Al-x, there are two big issues with Otpor and DOS. Firstly they were trained and funded by those very anti-Serbian dictators who were demonising and dropping bombs on our people. If it was an internal struggle then I wouldn't be so critical but since they were aligned with what I consider Serbia's enemies then I have no respect for the actions back then. Also, DOS effectively removed its political rivals against the constitution. If Milosevic had committed crimes then he should have answered to them in Serbia, not in a NATO court designed to demonise Serbians further.

    Also, they went and interfered in the elections of other countries. Can you imagine the response of the US and UK if external parties interfered in their elections?

    roberto, I'm all for justice but you are an obvious selective justice supporter. You have no issue whatsoever criticising Serbia and do so freely and even to the extreme end but remain silent when NATO, Albanian, Bosnian Muslim or Croatian crimes are concerned.

    Everyone suffered and there will never be any reconciliation so long as selective justice supporters continue to influence the region. Serbians are a proud people will never stand for such nonsense.
    (ZK, 12 November 2008 12:11)
  13. Lazar that 'different econonmic model' you are talking about caused the freezing of pensions and many, many months backlog of unpaid pensions, the debts of which the post 2000 governments have mostly succeeded in settling.

    Or how about Milosevic's sale of Telekom to the Greeks / Italians.

    Or the privatisation and deregulation of Serbian banks?

    How about the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on ordering from ordering from Airbus, when the entire JAT fleet was Boeing and that nobody in JAT had any equipment for Airbus aircraft or training.

    For anybody that cares to take the time to examine the facts this rubbish about Milosevic's different economic model is pure propaganda.

    Social spending was lower in 1998 than it is today. People most certainly did not live better under war, bombs and sanctions. I don't know what gives you that idea. I could also easily show you statistics about inflation, economic growth and average wages to prove that people lived much worse in 1998 compared to today.

    My advice to you is to learn more about 90's Serbia. Put aside the 'patriotic' vs 'democratic' issue, at least while looking at the economic situation.

    On your other general point that you would have a different opinion of OTPOR had they been paid for from Serbia, well, nice in theory, but considering few in Serbia had any money and that those that were rich were close to Milosevic, not at all realistic.

    pavaresi you are only telling part of the story. Yes Albanians contributed a lot in financial terms. What you are not talking about is how some of this money was not voluntarily given, but forced. Percentage schemes that went on in Germany and Austria for example meant that some Albanian emigrees were forced to deduct percentage from their wages as 'patriotic' duty. If they did not, they could be threatened or lose their jobs if working for Albanian companies.
    (bganon, 12 November 2008 12:00)
  14. ZK, Lazar: at no point did I say I was a member of Otpor. In fact I wasn't. Some members of that organisation I agree with, whereas having complete contempt for others, such as the subsidised Serb-baiters that the ubiquitous Roberto hangs on to.

    However, I refuse to be told that the Milosevic kleptocracy, with its artificially created hyperinflation and DEM 5 monthly wages was a period of strength and prosperity. Particulary by gastarbeiters who only came here for their summer holidays (and didn't your dollars and deutschmarks go a long way back then?).
    (Milos Obilic, 12 November 2008 09:07)
  15. roberto, do not at all think that we are against our fellow serbs promoting certain points of views. This is what democracy is. However, to be funded from the side is just what democracy is not. Being funded from abroad to promote certain views is anti-democracy. Democracy has to be internal, and not be under influence of external forces. Therefore when you say that OTPOR is democratic, then no, you are wrong. They got special training from US officials for regime resistance. A Canadian broatcasting company had an episode on how it happened. They were in effect an organization that started out internal, but became a tool of the external enemies. Had they gone about their activities without influence and finance of the West, then I would have said good, but this alas is not the case.
    (Lazar, 12 November 2008 02:17)
  16. i am NOT anti-serb
    (roberto, 11 November 2008 23:02)

    Roberto, you are very lucky to be so decided. As for myself, I am not even sure, what "Serb" as ethnic background, save a country does in 21st Century mean.

    Whatever does it mean, please consider to use the "shift" key on your keyboard politically correct way if it is about countries, regions, cities, ethnic/religious background.

    Sorry to remind, this has some deep roots here in the region because of some reading material obligatory in every local school/shkolla/школа.

    [link]

    I know, this is not well-known overseas and obviously from the context, you are doing it unintentionally. Still, please...
    (Ataman, 12 November 2008 00:14)
  17. thank you, zk, for that ringing endorsement. actually i am NOT anti-serb, i am anti-nationalist, anti-extremist, anti-hater. if those shoes fit, wear em.

    as for the homophobic mini-pogrom in sarajevo, for once i did NOT specifically blame the serb extremists. i put the blame squarely where it belongs: on religious and political extremists in bosnia, incl yr beloved republika srpska, and an intl. community (so-called) that hasn't the guts to do what they must: throw out dodik and company and help build up a strong and democratic state in bosnia which supports and guarantees the rights of ALL citizens, not a theocracy or nationalist entity, thank you very much. and that is what my article for "dani" said, unapologetically, and i took a lot of flack for it, from all sides.

    as i said, supporting human rights is not the quickest way to win a popularity contest. esp.ly in serbia, you will be accused of being a coward, western agent, muslim sympathizer, ugly - whatever. it takes a lot of strength, moral courage, to remain above that fray. but you have some incredible role models there, in the likes of sonia biserko, natasa kandic, and many more, some of whom i do not personally know. i hope that young people will not choose the haters and xenophobes, but go with the great human rights crusaders, of serbia and of the world.

    never give in, never give up! never buckle to intimidation.

    Ot-por!

    thank you.

    robert-0 happyfrisco
    (roberto, 11 November 2008 23:02)
  18. ZK-
    We were there, on the streets of Belgrade, and Otpor had a vision of the future.

    OK, it was short-lived, but it was the a vision and it worked.

    I'm really confused by 'patriots' like you who continue to cast insults on the people who really changed the course of history.

    What is it that you want?

    Are you really relevant anymore outside of internet forums that, graciously, publish your beliefs, whatever they are?

    Spell it out ZK and then let the people of Serbia decide.

    Thanks,
    Al-x
    (Al-x, 11 November 2008 22:23)
  19. Thank you roberto for sharing. As you are a great supporter of the Albanians and even call our Southern province "Kosova", a great supporter of the Bosnian Muslims and would even blame Serbians for homophobic protests in Sarajevo, with your comments consistently anti-Serbian and in my opinion extreme in many ways, I am glad you admitted to being an Otpor member and supporter. You really are a deserved member and fit in quite nicely.
    (ZK, 11 November 2008 21:17)
  20. I would like to add my own 2 cents to this discussion. i was also a member or otpor, as i have written before, in Frisco, and believe me, i do not care what some nationalists think about that, about me, about my city. anyway, it was some time in 1999 or early 2000, and i had attempted any number of times to reach the "official" otpor people by email, and finally someone, probably fed up with my incessant messages, sent me the email addr. of the one other, as far as we knew, (serbian) member of otpor here in frisco, perhaps the only one on our west coast. finally we met -- he had actually attended the high school that i was working at, at the time. how do i join up?! i inquired, with great enthusiasm and much passion. "you want to be part of otpor, do you? okay, poof, now you are."

    well it wasn't exactly like that, but more or less as it happened.

    then we, mostly me, started contacting various press outlets here, trying to get them to publicize otpor and the anti-milosevic, pro-democratic movement inside serbia. no one here seemed particularly interested. from the bay guardian, who were just printing articles about our use of "degaded uranium," i spoke to the editor. "i'm from otpor, have you heard of it? pro-democracy movement inside serbia..." silence. "would you like to interview us?" "well, if there's a reporter interested, we'll get back to you." never did, of course.

    oddly enough, we were interviewed by a journalist from the sf chronicle, whose name i forget but who was a sort of gadfly concerning international affairs and intl gossip. he was totally taken with my serbian otpor colleague, while totally dismissing me as an american goody-goody, something like that. the irony, i thought, was that my politics were much more progressive and radical than that of my colleague -- i was willing to see slobo deposed by any means, the sooner the better. as it was, he and his followers caused as much misery as they possibly could, until the bitter end. but we all know how that show ended.

    and now we have to look at today's situation. i am no longer in touch with any (ex) otpor colleagues, altho i know of at least one who works with youth initiative and follows natasa kandic's lead, and i applaud him for that. i wish that i would hear more of their voices, and i wish they would be stronger in promoting democracy and pluralism in serbia, as well as normal dialogue and interactions with ethnic albanians and other non-serb peers. perhaps some of them are doing so, quietly, and i support them for that.

    to this day i am not sorry nor do i apologize for my otpor involvement, despite criticism from all sides. democracy building is often a hard and lonely task -- everyone who has worked in the field knows that and no one more than myself. right now we celebrate the victory of our Obama (!!) and we have many other great and progressive leaders (for myslef, nancy pelosi and gavin newsom are among them.) but at other times we are really banging our heads against the wall, as many of my colleagues are in serbia right now, and throughout the former YU and around the world. and to you guys and gals i offer all of my support and encouragement. take chances, stay strong, and don't let the haters throw you off course -- ever!!

    thank you.
    roberto happyfrisco
    (roberto, 11 November 2008 20:15)
  21. Seems to me like the real sell-outs were the ones who sat in London and Chicago and Toronto, enjoying a comfortable lifestyle courtesy of Serbia's enemies while the rest of us were being robbed blind by Milosevic then bombed by NATO.
    (Milos Obilic, 11 November 2008 17:06)
    --
    See Milos, I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. I was in neither of those places but if you prefer to insult the 5 million Serbian diaspora to justify your Otpor movement then go ahead. Those people sent millions in aid - financial, food, clothes, etc... to help our people in need while many also came to fight.

    If you would prefer to call them sell-outs while supporting those that received funding by NATO then you also have a right to an opinion. Looks like B92 didn't censor it so even better.
    (ZK, 11 November 2008 19:38)
  22. Milos, I should ask you to seriously question what you are thinking when you say that the Milosevic regime robbed the people. I feel that you look at the situation too one sided. It would be like saying that Lukashenko in Belarus is robbing the people. Is he really though? No. It was merely a different economic model that was not liked by certain world powers. When you just look at how much social spending these regimes did, and how much less there is today... then I think that you should really ask yourself when did people live better - in 1998 or today. I feel that it's no question that Serbia was more sovereign and stronger in 1998 than it is now. I feel that our people were living better then, and I feel that our current of developing on a system where we are so dependent upon others is very risky.
    (Lazar, 11 November 2008 18:55)
  23. "Seems to me like the real sell-outs were the ones who sat in London and Chicago and Toronto, enjoying a comfortable lifestyle courtesy of Serbia's enemies while the rest of us were being robbed blind by Milosevic then bombed by NATO."

    Say what you want of Albanians, but we raised $100 million for KLA (everyone from busboys to academics contributed) and thousands returned to fight.

    I have said it before that the 'Serb patriots' in the Kosovo issue are in the West, so when they say "Go to war again" or "say no to EU" they are far away and will not suffer any consequences. They will not get killed, bombed or suffer from corruption and unemployment.
    (pavaresi, 11 November 2008 17:50)
  24. I will say this and then you can draw your own conclusions. Otpor was funded by Madeline Albright, which in effect meant they were working for her. Anyone who thinks that Madeline Albright is a friend of Serbia needs to go see a shrink, period.
    I rest my case.
    (Dragan, 11 November 2008 17:10)
  25. Seems to me like the real sell-outs were the ones who sat in London and Chicago and Toronto, enjoying a comfortable lifestyle courtesy of Serbia's enemies while the rest of us were being robbed blind by Milosevic then bombed by NATO.
    (Milos Obilic, 11 November 2008 17:06)
  26. I should point out that it is fine for Lazar to call them traitors but for some reason it gets sensored when I make the same comment.

    Milos, you can rest assured that even my opinion is not freely expressed on Serbian media outlets.
    (ZK, 11 November 2008 15:34)
  27. Had these DOS and OTPOR organizations been solely internal, without funding from abroad, then I would not have a problem with them. The thing is that the US funded them with tens of millions of dollars. So then how is this democratic? They started out as democratic, but become instruments of the US, instruments via which the West interfered in our internal affairs. In this sense they are very much traitors, because they were in the pay of those who bombed us. This is a much underlooked side to the story. I mean, in the US elections candidates and campaigns are barred from receiving foreign help. Yet this is okay for Serbia? I feel that it's not. Therefore I disapprove of OTPOR and DOS, as do many of my other countrymen. Just because they had a simple reason as to why we were in problems, and a simple way how to fix it, does not mean that they are right. We're in a big hole to this very day, and their promises have not been fulfilled. We should question all organizations in our country, and not accept anything blindly.
    (Lazar, 11 November 2008 15:06)
  28. So where were you in 1999, ZK? London? If so, you're not qualified to comment, for or against.
    (Milos Obilic, 11 November 2008 12:56)
    --
    Why does it matter where I was Milos? I am Serbian and still entitled to an opinion. All patriotic Serbians, whether in or out of Serbia felt the pain during those years so are we just supposed to be quiet? Are you saying that citizens from Serbia don't share my opinion? I ask because I'm sure many do and I will express my opinion as freely as I can and choose. So can't I now have an opinion about Iraq and Afghanistan because I don't live there?

    Based on the actions taken back then, if Otpor were supporting say the SRS they would be described as violent football hooligans. So tell me what happened after DOS entered into power? They started to removed their political opponents. They handed over Serbian war heros to the agressors and flushed Serbian pride down the toilet.

    Even if my opinion isn't popular, I still see Otpor as a bunch being sponsored by the dictators that continue to follow the same agenda of divide and conquer, which destroyed the harmony in the Balkans.

    Sorry, but that is not something I support. I can have my opinion but since I wasn't there and not entitled to vote, then it was up to those that lived there to make the choice, regardless of my opinion.
    (ZK, 11 November 2008 14:56)
  29. Of course, those of us with friends and relatives living in Serbia wanted to assist them in any attempts to oust the dictator Milosevic. That man brought great shame on the country and it’s wonderful people. Otpor showed the world that Serbia was made up of free minded citizens. Without Optor, the world wouldn’t have seen the mass movement for democratic freedom. Without Otpor, Serbia would have been crushed - and not by NATO, but by the tyranny, gangsterism, hyperinflation and all the other evils that made life so dreadful.
    (Greg Scotland, 11 November 2008 14:56)
  30. They are to be applauded for helping us get rid of Milosevic. Its a shame that the Serbian people didn't get rid of that autocrat earlier.

    Of course the biggest benefactor of OTPOR's actions was Vojislav Kostunica who was chosen to lead DOS. Without OTPOR and the rest of DOS, he would probably have remained on the political fringes.

    ZK I think that OTPOR's battle was in line with Serbian people fighting for freedom.
    (bganon, 11 November 2008 13:39)
  31. So where were you in 1999, ZK? London? If so, you're not qualified to comment, for or against.
    (Milos Obilic, 11 November 2008 12:56)
  32. In 2003, Otpor stood at the elections as a political organization, but failed to pass the census, before merging with the Democratic Party (DS) in 2004.
    --
    Well, at least we know which party all of those sell-outs have joined. Those nations that dropped "humanitarian" bombs on Serbia and killed thousands of innocent civilians also funded this movement.

    Serbia had two choices back in the 90s as it does now. Either protect our freedom or become subservient. It doesn't really matter who the leaders were back then but they would have been damned whichever decision they made.

    The biggest difference with Serbia and other small nations is that we have always proudly fought for our freedom. As far as I'm concerned, Otpor changed that and moved us into the direction of subservience.
    (ZK, 11 November 2008 11:58)