Elusive Justice in the Balkans

"If you are by chance hearing loud laughter," says Czech daily Mlada Fronta Dnes, "it is Slobodan Milosevic laughing loudly on his way to hell, having escaped and shown us that we do not know how to try war criminals."

While Serbia struggles to decide where the former Yugoslav leader should be buried, the European online media is questioning the international tribunal that prosecuted him for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Serbian militias in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s.

Milosevic, who was found dead in his jail cell on Saturday, had been on trial since 2002.

His death has stirred pride, shame and anger in his native country, reports Deutsche Welle, the German broadcast network. The Serbian government is planning for a state funeral later this week, but with Milosevic's widow wanted for questioning in connection with a political assassination, the family may choose to bury him in Russia, the only other country where his nationalistic politics found a sympathetic audience.

While Russian commentator Pytor Romanov was almost alone in suggesting that Milosevic's death also killed the U.N. tribunal responsible for prosecuting war crimes for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague, many commentators agree that Milosevic's inconclusive four-year trial exposed serious shortcomings in the tribunal's workings.

"The death of Slobodan Milosevic has dealt a huge blow to the tribunal for former Yugoslavia in The Hague," said Radio Netherlands. "Mr. Milosevic was by far the most important figure captured and tried by the tribunal and his case set a precedent in international law. But by allowing the former president to defend himself, the tribunal was turned into something of a farce, with proceedings often descending into angry exchanges between judge and defendant or Mr. Milosevic giving the court a lesson in the history of Yugoslavia - as seen through the eyes of an ultra-Serb nationalist who believed entirely in his own innocence."


Martin Rowson/The Guardian (With Permission)

"The UN Tribunal in the Hague is responsible for the fact that no verdict was reached before his death," said the leftist German daily Die Tageszeitung, according to a Spiegel Online media survey. Milosevic "succeeded in turning the trial into a stage from which he could spread his own propaganda. After the chaotic selection of witnesses, it became difficult to identify any prosecutorial strategy in the trial."

But the Financial Times Deutschland defends the trial's merits: "When history classes look back at the Milosevic trial in 10 or 20 years, the primary focus won't be that the trial was interrupted. It will be that it even took place, before the eyes of the world. That is what's most important."

In Paris, Le Monde (in French) defended the tribunal saying if international justice "is to deserve its name," it must "offer the accused all guarantees" of a fair trial, even if those guarantees gave Milosevic opportunities to delay justice.

Martin Bell of The Times of London says the tribunal delivered "justice -- of a sort."

Bell, who covered the Balkan wars of the 1990s for the BBC, said Milosevic might well have been acquitted of genocide charges. "But there were many other charges against the late Serbian leader that could have been proven if the indictments had not been so widely drawn."

He noted that two allies of Milosevic, also indicted for war crimes, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, are still at large.

"There have been many times when Nato and its successor forces shrank from the risky task of capturing them. But these two must now be arrested. And, having been arrested, they must face the charges against them in a trial that is not a courtroom farce like Milosevic's, but a fair, serious and time-limited legal process."

By Jefferson Morley |  March 14, 2006; 10:16 AM ET  | Category:  Europe
Previous: Dubai Fallout Deepens U.S.-Arab Rifts | Next: Grievances Fuel Insurgency, Says Nigeria Media

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I hope those people who writes stuff like the one in Mlada Fronta Dnes will be the ones that will burn in hell when their country goes through what we've been through.
Slobodan was one of a few heroes who had strainght and curage to opose American conquest of the world

Posted by: Ivan | March 14, 2006 11:05 AM

Democracies simply have no basis upon which to prosecute men like Milosevic, Mladic, Karadzic, Hussein or even Zacarias Moussaoui. Their crimes are so difficult to get our minds around that we end up overcompensating to protect their rights to balance out the overwhelming cry for justice from their victims. There can never be justice for these people, because our humanity cannot devise a punishment that fits the crime and answers the cries for justice from the thousands upon thousands they have destroyed.

Posted by: Charles Ingram | March 14, 2006 11:23 AM

I'm frightened with the fact that many in the nowadays Serbia still think that the Milosevic was the hero. He was only a top of the iceberg of the official Serbian policy, and most of the Serbian establishment send him to the Hague, not because he was a war criminal, but because he lost the war.
I hope western world will insist on capturing and trialling Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, to at least give some satisfaction to the families of more then 100000 of their victims.

Posted by: Mladen | March 14, 2006 11:59 AM

When we start undermining rights in the name of "justice", then the people who oppose America have won. The American Revolution was fought by people that were denied rights given to English citizens because they were colonists, and not deemed equal to English citizens. The measure of our commitment to our ideals is how we uphold them in times of crisis, when it's difficult, when so many have been hurt, not when it's easy and we're at peace.

Posted by: Davis | March 14, 2006 12:54 PM

Whoever oposes American Imperialism is a hero !

Posted by: Everybody | March 14, 2006 01:54 PM

this article is nonsense. total biased anti-Serb propaganda, yet you accuse Milosevic of spreading his "propaganda". Well, please then share with the world (instead of simple rhetoric) what was Milosevic's propaganda??? Waht did he lie about in the trial? I bet none of you have even read anything from the transcripts.

Posted by: zach | March 14, 2006 03:08 PM

Hold on a second, the war in Croatia resulted in 10k dead (both Serbs and Croats) and 300,000 Serbs kicked out who never came back. In Bosnia 100,000 people died in a CIVIL WAR (in which all 3 sides had support from other nations), out of those 100,000 that died 32,000 were Serbs (17,000 civilians). The war in Kosovo had and end result of a few thousand dead on both sides, Serb and Albanian (not even close to the 500,000 or 100,000 that the NY Times and Washington Post claimed) 250,000 Serbs were kicked out and will never go back because they would be killed by Albanians. The bombing of Serbia by NATO left thousands dead, destroyed bridges, factories, ecological ruin, etc, etc.. Now Milosevic is the "evil" one? I think not. He is a hero who stood up against American Imperialism. So incredible to see Americans and Brits speaking out against the "evil" Milosevic while they have been committing genocide around the world (and continue to do so as in Iraq) for hundreds of years!!! Hahaha, we all know who will really be "going to hell" as the article states.

Posted by: pepe | March 14, 2006 03:19 PM

"He is a hero who stood up against American Imperialism."

How did he suddenly become a hero who stood up to American Imperialism all of a sudden?

Posted by: Duck | March 14, 2006 04:46 PM

"The Serbian government is planning for a state funeral later this week" is totally WRONG (as anti-Serb propaganda is). The truth is that from the very first moment news arrived that Milosevic died the Serbian government RULED OUT a state funeral for him.

Posted by: Ritchie | March 14, 2006 05:50 PM

"He is a hero who stood up against American Imperialism." Right, because everyone knows how much America wanted a Balkan colony in the 1990s. But you get equal marks for silliness and offensiveness, if that's what you were shooting for.

Posted by: CE | March 14, 2006 06:08 PM

Again, please at least read the transcripts of the trial before you speak. If you knew anything about the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia you would know that the USA did everything they could to de-stabilize the Serbs. From bombing them (and kicking out more than 1 Million) from Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia to building "camp Bondsteel" in Kosovo and occupying the Serbian province. Yes, he stood up to US imperialism, what else do you call it when a super power bombs you out of your province and sets up a military base there??? It's not that hard to figure out.

Posted by: pepe | March 14, 2006 06:30 PM

"The Serbian government is planning for a state funeral later this week" is 110% FALSE. From the first day the Serb leaders ruled this out. If anything the lies in this article are offensive.

Posted by: Carlos | March 14, 2006 06:34 PM

"Yes, he stood up to US imperialism, what else do you call it when a super power bombs you out of your province and sets up a military base there??? It's not that hard to figure out."

Sure but wouldn't that mean he stood up to a UN or world mission? I'm wondering where the US hegomoney is comming from because everyone knows how much the UN does what the US tells it to.

Posted by: Duck | March 14, 2006 08:01 PM

I am a typical American acquainted with Serbian society. The Serbs believed they were fighting Muslim attempts to take land that belonged to the Christian Serbian heritage. In fact, the Muslim community in Serbia was supported by the KLA TERRORIST GROUP WITH TIES TO AL QAEDA. We used these terrorists to spot our bombs (remember, this was before 9/11). Milosovic was no hero, but his opposition to the Muslim attempts at controlling Serb territory was justified in the eyes of most Serbians. A few PARAMILITARY outfits committed most of the atrocities. The Serbs as a whole are not the bloodthirsty Nazis they are portrayed to be. They are one of the few countries in their area that resisted the Nazis, and at a terrible price. Things are never as simple as the media portrays. There are usually two sides.

Posted by: Neutral | March 14, 2006 08:48 PM

The US went into Kosovo, the US bombed the Serbs. Period. The other nations play the same "stooge" or "global mission" role as the Macedonian or Polish or Bulgarian troops in Iraq. Nonsense.

Posted by: carlos | March 14, 2006 11:01 PM

Pepe, I don't think you're correctly using the word 'imperialism'. it means more than just fighting another nation, or setting up a base or two. think the British in India, or Spanish in America.

also, if the US was so gung ho to get the Serbs, why did it sit on its hand for so many yrs while the Serbs did as they pleased in Bosnia? why did the US honor the arms embargo?

Posted by: CE | March 15, 2006 12:33 PM

Clinton and his state secretary and defense secretary will have a good night to sleep now.

Posted by: dead man can't talk | March 15, 2006 12:39 PM

OK, then define it? If in your eyes destroying a nation (the old Yugoslavia) as the US and Germany did, bomb the Serbs and force them to give up a part of their country and then set up one of the biggest US army bases on that land is not "imperialism" then what is it? In your mind it isn't in Iraq either I guess. Give me examples of "classic" US imperialism them. Brits in India and Spanish in America is the same thing, today the US uses force when the economic imperialism isn't going accoriding to plans. When someone refuses to be a stooge of the IMF and World bank.

Your quote:
"if the US was so gung ho to get the Serbs, why did it sit on its hand for so many yrs while the Serbs did as they pleased in Bosnia"

This statement proves again your lack of knowledge of the Bosnian war (you need to read more than headlines). The US waited for the sides to get ugly with each other so they can "step-in" and save the "innocent" people surrounding the Serbs. The Serbs did not do "what they pleased in Bosnia", 100,000 people died, 32,000 Serbs IN A CIVIL WAR. The Serbs held on to territory they were the majority in and have been living in before the USA even existed and before the Indians were slaughtered. Muslims fought Muslims it as well as well as Croats fighting Muslims. This is not a game of cowboy and Indians, not black and white nor good or bad "evil doers" who you are going to "smoke out". Arms embargo? Croats were armed, East German planes, Hungarian heavy weapons etc. they had plenty of arms plus the US Nato planes bombing Serb positions in Croatia and Bosnia. The Muslims got a ton of support form the Muslim world (for a rare glimpse for Westerners, check this out, and this clip only shown when the US and UK are in danger from the same people they supported in Bosnia!?!?:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,91134-bosnia_p3705,00.html

Posted by: pepe | March 15, 2006 02:17 PM

From cfr.org and the Financial Times:

FT: Rough justice is a fitting end for Milosevic
Author: Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC


March 14, 2006

In the three days since Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav strongman, died in his cell in the fifth year of his trial as a war criminal, the news business, especially the cable news channels, has settled on a simple storyline. This is in keeping with modern journalism's market-driven obsession to turn every big news event into a narrative. Instead of just giving the reader the facts and their context, stories now need a plot, with an implicit point of view, whether justified or not. In this case, the story­line on Milosevic's death is simple—and simple-minded: Milosevic evaded (or denied, or even "cheated") justice. And just how did he do this? The journalistic answer, of course, is: by dying.

What utter nonsense. After all, the man died in his cell, knowing he would never see freedom again—a fitting end for someone who started four wars (all of which he lost), causing 300,000 deaths, leaving more than 2m people homeless and wrecking the Balkans.

The real storyline, if you need one, is this: a verdict was denied but justice was not. Consider the facts: Milosevic was the first head of state in history to face an international court for war crimes, something that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and countless others avoided. Milosevic spent the last five years of his life in jail, forced to listen to thousands of hours of testimony about his actions and their consequences. The trial was broadcast live, and the testimony and the devastating videotape of the massacre in Srebrenica that emerged during the trial destroyed his reputation and helped establish the truth among all but a few pathetic bitter-enders in Serbia.

The result was a qualified success for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It is certainly true that the trial itself was clumsy and proceeded too slowly, and for that the tribunal is accountable. (Does a prisoner, whose poor health was well-known, have to die before anyone notices that the court is following an inexcusably leisurely schedule?) But everyone knew that, one way or another, Milosevic would never see freedom. The sentence was inevitably going to be consecutive life sentences. (There is no death penalty in the war crimes tribunal.) The importance of the event—putting a head of state in the dock for his war policies and giving him a chance to defend himself before the world—transcends everything else. It had practical consequences as well; if Milosevic had not been sent to the tribunal, he would have resumed his political career in Yugoslavia, with seriously destabilising effects on the entire Balkans.

If journalists are looking for the real story about justice denied in the Balkans, they should look at three other men: Zoran Djindjic, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. The first was the Serbian prime minister after Milosevic was overthrown. He made the courageous decision to send the ousted dictator to the war crimes tribunal in 2001. For this, Djindjic paid with his life, assassinated exactly three years ago by some of Milosevic's criminal allies. (On Sunday in Belgrade, far more people turned out for a candlelight vigil for Djindjic than rallied for Milosevic, although the international news media, looking for the Milosevic peg to their coverage, barely mentioned this fact.)

As for justice denied, there is no better example than the fact that 10 years after the Dayton agreement ended the war in Bosnia, Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs who conducted most of the ethnic cleansing, and Mladic, the general behind the mass murders in Srebrenica and elsewhere, are still at large. This is the result of Nato's failure to apprehend the two men, and because Serbs in both Serbia and Bosnia have been allowed to continue sheltering and supporting these two men. That, truly, is "justice denied", but its consequences go further. As long as Karadzic and Mladic are free, they inspire resistance and promote efforts to obstruct the rebuilding of the Balkans. Carla del Ponte, the tribunal's chief prosecutor,was certainly right, therefore, to use Milosevic's death to press everyone from Belgrade to Brussels to redouble efforts to capture these two men. The fact that the men who killed Djindjic were part of the conspiracy that protects Karadzic and Mladic undoubtedly has a chilling effect on Belgrade's current leadership when they consider whether or not to co-operate with Ms del Ponte.

It is ironic that Milosevic died just as the long-delayed negotiations on the final status of Kosovo began under the leadership of Martti Ahtissari, former Finnish president (with Frank Wisner, one of America's most skilled professional diplomats, representing Washington). For it was by exploiting the Kosovo issue that Milosevic rose to power in 1989, using the most extreme forms of nationalism to rouse the Serbian people. Now, even as his family and supporters argue over where he should be buried, he will no longer cast a living shadow over such issues. Milosevic will be spared watching the inevitable result of those negotiations—independence for Kosovo.

As for Bosnia, in which he had lost interest, the problem has been not Milosevic—not for a long time—but Karadzic and his very public henchmen, who continue to try to block every move towards greater integration of the Serb, Croat and Bosnian Muslim communities, as called for in the Dayton agreement.

Even here, however, there has been some progress. The long-overdue military integration of Bosnia's three ethnically based armies—once considered unimaginable—has begun and other important reforms are under way. For this and many other reasons, I disagree with the current European-American position that makes Sarajevo's movement toward a closer association with the European Union dependent on the Bosnian government turning Karadzic over to the war crimes tribunal. Sarajevo should not be held responsible for something that is, in fact, being done by its enemies in the Serb parts of Bosnia.

After he came to power with his skilful and virulent speeches on Kosovo, Milosevic started wars with Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and, finally, Kosovo. He lost them all, before losing power himself in the autumn of 2000. Yet he was not, in my mind, a real nationalist. His preoccupation was power—acquiring it and retaining it. He was a shrewd opportunist whose string ran out, but not before his policies wrecked the Balkans. In death, he joins his old adversaries, Franjo Tudjman of Croatia, Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia and Ibrahim Rugova of Kosovo, who died only a month ago. Only Karadzic and Mladic remain of the big figures of a dreadful, bloody decade. That Milosevic ended his days alone in a cell in The Hague, after spending five years listening to evidence against him, strikes me as a reasonable and acceptable form of rough justice.

The writer, a former US ambassador to the United Nations, was the chief architect of the Dayton peace agreement that ended the war in Bosnia in 1995.

This article originally appeared in the Financial Times.

Sums things up perfectly I think.

Posted by: Brian | March 15, 2006 02:58 PM

This article you posted by Holbrooke is a PURE LIE!! To address only 1, only 1 of his lies is the fact that someone like Holbrooke claims "more than 300,000 dead". THIS MAN IS THE REAL WAR CRIMINAL! Nonsense guys, you ARE WAY out of your leauge on this topic, stick to baseball and the Simpsons. THIS ARTICLE REALLY SAYS THE TRUTH. Haha it was even conducted by the same court Milosevic was tried in!!!!!!!!!!

Death toll in Bosnian war was 102,000
Norwegian News Agency ^ | 14/11/2004 | Av Kjell Arild Nilsen, NTB


Posted on 12/01/2004 7:47:33 AM PST by Decombobulator


The number of people killed in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was around 102,000, according to research done by the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This is half of earlier estimates.

The most common and most widely used number of killed persons in the Bosnia war has been around 200,000. But research shows that this number is too high. Researchers at the court estimate the correct number to be a bit over 102,000.

This number deviates somewhat from a documentation project going on in Bosnia, and project leader Mirsad Tokaca concludes that the number of killed was between 130,000 and 150,000.

For ICTY

The research project is conducted by the two population experts Ewa Tabeau and Jacub Bijak, who works for the ICTY prosecution.

The results were presented at a conference for population experts, demographists, in Norway one year ago, but they have not been publicly known.

NTB has recently gained access to the material presented at the conference, and for the first time they published scientific calculations of how many civilians were killed in the terrible war in Bosnia- Herzegovina from 1992 to1995.

Civilians and military

102,622 civilians and military personnel were killed, Tabeau and Bijak conclude. 55,261 civilians and 47,360 soldiers were killed, including Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats.

The researchers estimate the number of killed civilian Muslims and Croats tobe around 38,000, while the number of killed civilian Serbians was about 16,700.

Among military personnel, the researchers think close to 28,000 people were killed in the government army, mostly Bosnian Muslims.

On the Serbian side, 14,000 soldiers were killed, while a bit over 6,000 Bosnian Croatian soldiers lost their lives because of actions of war.

Higher number

"The project of the Sarajevo Research and Documentation Center also has a goal to document every single person killed in the war," tells project leader Tokaca.

He is not surprised about the numbers of the Hague researchers, but he thinks his own project will conclude with higher numbers.

"In October we had over 84,000 documented names of killed persons, and by the end of the year I think we will have around 100,000," he says.

The project ends this spring, and Tokaca's rough estimate is that they willend up with a number between 130,000 and 150,000.

"I don't like to make premature estimates. But it will be over 100,000, and surely under 200,000. Our list only includes persons killed as an action of war, not those who died of indirect reasons of war," says Tokaca who cannot give enough praise to the support of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Conservative estimates

Researchers Tabeau [and] Bijak have taken a clear reservation that the number could be higher than previously concluded.

Because the researchers work for the prosecution at the ICTY, the numbers have to be so certain that they can be used as documentation in the court.

Numbers for persons dying during the war because of lack of food, low temperatures, lack of medicines and other endeavors in the war inflicted on the civilian population are not included.

The researches are also careful to note that new documentation could influence the final result.

Wrong numbers

The most commonly used number for killed persons in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina has been 200,000, and this number has been repeated ininternational media since 1994.

The number originates from Cherif Bassouni, who was the leader of UN's expert commission investigating war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, finishing their work in 1994.

Tabeau and Bijak conclude that this number is too high, and it was not based on an examination of the cause of death in every single case, rather a summary statistics based on numbers of killed and missing received by the commission in their work and added together.The researchers also reject other numbers presented, ranging from 25,000 to 329,000.

Norway's contribution has been essential to conclude the research.

The demographic unit at the office of the prosecution was established in 1998, and the two researchers said their positions would not be possible to fund without generous contributions from Norway's government.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291965/posts

Posted by: pepe | March 15, 2006 03:40 PM

What's your point? Still makes Milosevic a butcher.

Posted by: Brian | March 15, 2006 04:22 PM

Just to add a few facts to your BS Mr. Lepieu:

1) NATO involvement did not take place until after the UN completely failed to take action against Serbia. Russia was recalcitrant and absolutely refused to allow UN action. Russia had their own Machiavellian reasons for not wanting the UN to get involved, i.e. influence. Russia was reeling from the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and was looking to hold on to power and influence.

2) Clearly, the rest of Yugoslavia did not want to remain united with Serbia. If you actually knew anything about Serbia and the Balkans, you'd know that the Serbs dominated the other ethnic groups within the union since the time of Tito. There was substantial prejudice towards the other ethnic groups of Yugoslavia, to the point where it was difficult to impossible to find a job outside the region of your birth. Naturally, when they had the chance to split, they broke away. Milosevic reacted by trying to force them to return to the union, or, in his favored alternative, force the people off the land to claim it for Serbia.

3) As to the vague claim that this was fuelled by US imperialism by sitting back and watching things happen while selling weapons: Total and utter crap! Ex-soviet and Eastern Bloc weapons were not only cheaper, but much easier to get their hands on. Arms dealers are rampant throughout the Balkans. Go watch the movie Underground if you want to know what I'm talking about.

Please refrain from claiming NATO's involvement in ending Milosevic and Co.'s brutality is somehow connected to imperialism. You just make yourself look stupid.

Posted by: Brian | March 15, 2006 04:48 PM

What is my point? Are you kidding me? Name calling?? your intelligence is on display, typical, when you can't look at ALL of the facts you run and hide and say things like "so what, who cares" etc etc..WHAT???? So then in your eyes lies are ok? Inflating #'s of dead to demonize a nation is fine as well? if Milosevic is a butcher what is Bush? What jail does he belong to? You don't even have a clue as to what his "crimes" are and you make silly claims. bottom line is if he should be in jail, the leaders of the Croats and Muslims should have been there waiting for him. Again watch the video:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,91134-bosnia_p3705,00.html

Posted by: pepe | March 15, 2006 05:16 PM

"Nato got involved only after the UN failed" dude what is wrong with you? Seriously stick with baseball and coca-cola because you are clueless. NATO, UN, EU anyone and everyone involved did nothing until they got the green light from the USA. Again from bombing the Serbs in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia. The main people in charge of shaping the situation in which all of the former Yugoslavia finds itself were: Albright, Holbrook and the Clinton admin.. You say to "add to my bs" your intelligence and class are just typical of a coca-cola drinking simpleton) SHOW ME ONE THING THAT I SAID THAT WAS A LIE, PROVE ONE FACT WRONG. HAHA!


your quote:
again youIf you actually knew anything about Serbia and the Balkans, you'd know that the Serbs dominated the other ethnic groups within the union since the time of Tito"
HAHAH what an idiot, TITO WAS A CROAT, A CROAT WHO drew the borders of Croatia (gave them land that was never theirs) while he made Serbia weak by dividing it up into 3 parts, Vojvodina, Kosovo and Serbia proper. A CROAT RULED THE SERBS for 40 years! A Croat who fought with the Germans in ww1 and went on to see his Croatian people become the most hardcore NAZI loving people in Europe, look up 2 words: USTASA and JASENOVAC (the only Nazi concentration camp outside of German held land in ww2). The fact that the Croats did not want to stay with the Serbs anymore is fine (even though in any nation on the face of this earth would do everything in its power to not let itself fall apart by forceful separation, which is what Croatia did) the Serbs there wanted autonomy in the regions they were the majority in and not to be treated like animals which is how the Croats treated them (not even a mention of the Serbs in the Croat constitution of the Tudjman government, Serbs getting kicked out of their jobs etc). how is it that the Serbs were wrong about that and the US BOMBED THEM in Croatia for "wanting to break away" while the USA did exactly the opposite in Kosovo and actually went to bomb and fight FOR the Albanians to HELP them SEPERATE?????????? WHAT?????? R U KIDDING ME???

your quote:
"There was substantial prejudice towards the other ethnic groups of Yugoslavia, to the point where it was difficult to impossible to find a job outside the region of your birth".
utter nonsense and stupidity, this is just a stupid lie. In fact Yugoslavia was the only Eastern European nation from which you could travel all over the world from (hence the huge Diaspora of Croats, Serbs and Albanians in the West) Don't you find it ironic that the Albanians in Kosovo had actual freedom to travel to western Europe from Kosovo and had a 10 time higher standard of living from their brothers in Albania yet they wanted to break away a part of Serbia that was never Albanian?!!??!

your quote:
"Milosevic reacted by trying to force them to return to the union" Total lie, again stick to like TV or whatever but this is just nonsense. To prove to you how easy it is to crush u in a debate I will simply ask you to give me 1, just 1 example of who Milosevic tried to "force back in to the union" idiotic.

dude your last "point" just proves that you are clueless on this topic, you actually CONTRACDICT yourself from a previous post about the arms embargo.

"Ex-soviet and Eastern Bloc weapons were not only cheaper, but much easier to get their hands on. Arms dealers are rampant throughout the Balkans"

exactly, that proves the point that Croats Muslims and Serbs were all armed.

WATCH TEH VIDEO CLIP
http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,91134-bosnia_p3705,00.html

Posted by: pepe | March 15, 2006 05:49 PM

So in all this barely legeble venting Pepe. Do you actually have a reason why the US would bother with a third rate little country to go through the trouble of getting an entire world alliance to go after it?

You're ranting that its all a conspirecy and that the MSM is lying to us all but you haven't yet given a reason why the US would bother.

Posted by: Duck | March 15, 2006 08:37 PM

Pepe, now you're just giving me agita.

I will no longer dignify you responses as you are 1) A raving anti-American with nothing better to do than spout baseless accusations and vitriol on a topic you really don't know anything about and 2) need to be on a very strong prescription for Prozac.

Duck succinctly sums up the fact that you've completely failed to prove your point. Where's the conspiracy? Where's the evil-doing? (except by Milosevic) Have you ever actually been to Serbia or anywhere in the Balkans? Have you actually ever talked to people from this region? Do you really know anything about the region's history? No? I thought so... If you want to spew forth garbage like an unintelligible madman, do it somewhere else. It's just really sad to see every single topic on Mr. Morley's blog break down into a pointless anti-American rant by every wierdo who crawls out of the woodwork.

Finally, Milosevic was a gangster, thug, murderer and generally naughty fellow, get over it.

Posted by: Brian | March 15, 2006 09:35 PM

Why not "Elusive justice in America," where your president has yet to be tried for his crimes and where he now has the gall to re-assert the doctrine of pre-emption, thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and at international law. The man should be arrested, detained at The Hague and tried for his crimes against international law. Next to Bush, Milosevic is really just a small-time criminal.

Posted by: William | March 15, 2006 10:18 PM

"Why not "Elusive justice in America," where your president has yet to be tried for his crimes and where he now has the gall to re-assert the doctrine of pre-emption, thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and at international law. The man should be arrested, detained at The Hague and tried for his crimes against international law. Next to Bush, Milosevic is really just a small-time criminal.
"

You'd never make it stick unfortunatly. The best you could get Bush on is reckless endangerment or Manslaughter which arn't crimes under international law.

Posted by: Duck | March 16, 2006 10:40 AM

The biggest problem with Bush and Blair is that their actions in Iraq have completely undermined the ability of a court in the West to judge the actions of Milosevic and others of his ilk. We no longer have any moral authority at all in this area, now and in the future. That is what happen when you start unprovoked wars, torture people, dissapear people, etc.

As for the idea that Milosevic is the "victim" of American imperialism, there is plenty of blame to go around in what happened in the former Yugoslavia. But Milosevic and his ilk are monsters and the virus of Serbian ultra-nationalism is only dormant and will probably return to the great misfortune of her neighbors.

Posted by: Stuart Dryer | March 17, 2006 11:36 AM

if the administrator stopped deleting my posts you would see how easily it is to debate you (just like any other American). go back to the begining first and answer my questions like I did yours if you have the brain power.

Posted by: pepe | March 23, 2006 05:55 PM

"know nothing about" really?? show me 1 thing I sid that was wrong or false. I addressed every single idiotic point you made, can you address mine with out the stupid rhetoric for once? conspiracy????? hahah who said anything about that? stop reading comic books and read books. nothing that the US/West did in the former Yugoslavia was a "conspiracy" it was all very well known, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the classic set-up that led to it is available for all to read about if they really wish. Milosvic's transscripts all on the web, read them for once. u r a JOKE JOHN WAYNE!

Posted by: pepe | March 23, 2006 06:01 PM

Pepe,

You sure know a lot about the Balkans. Tell me, though, why do you think Americans should spend their time reading the transcripts from the trial of the now dead former leader of a messed up little country in a crappy part of the world?

Presumably you're from that crappy little part of the world, or have some strange attachment to it. Wouldn't it make sense, then, that you would know more about it than the vast majority of Americans?

Just because you know more about that crappy little corner of the world, don't get too comfortable with your apparent belief that you can out debate "any other American."

If you were educated in that crappy little corner of the world, it probably wasn't much of an education. In case you hadn't noticed, most of the best universities in the world are actually in America.

Posted by: LWP | March 26, 2006 02:59 AM

Dude you are a beyond a stupid American (at least the stupid americans shut up when they have no clue as to what they are talking about). Your answers prove how scary it is when a brainwashed population decides who their leaders are, "no need to read the transcripts, etc" yet u can meddle your nose in the region and preseume someone is guilty even before a trial????? HOW UNAMERICAN!!! U DUMB MORON. stay away from the region then, why is that hard? I bet you anything 90% of your professors at university are Eastern Euros who can school and outsmart you the same way I did every time I responded to ur redneck ass. HAHAHAH

Posted by: pepe | April 10, 2006 04:32 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2006 The Washington Post Company