Now, Milosevic - was he attempting to wipeout or relocate Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims as well as Albanians?
How about Tudjman? How about Alija Izetbegovic?
For every war at least two sides are needed. In this case, there were 3 sides (I am talking about the breakup of Yugoslavia). As much as I hate Wikipedia, this article is actually good, so go read it for a start:
<!-- m -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia<!-- m -->
and this, which just goes to show how it's all about ordinary people dying while puppet masters play their games:
<!-- m -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara%C4%91 ... _agreement<!-- m -->
This hole thing is so perplexed, and from what I see you are just another clueless hard-on bearer who just wants to come across as smart and informed.
Kosovar albanians (shiptars) were not just sweet innocent people (not all of them ofc). Ever since Albania was formed in 1913, there were intention of Kosovo separation and its annexation to Albania, in order to form Greater Albania, and Tito's constitution from 1974 encouraged them in their goal. Their refusal to integrate into scholar system and bunch of other stuff... Back in gloryhole era I remember not a day would pass without hearing about death of Serbian civilians, or Serbian cops and numerous provocations of UCK and Albanian borderers.
Now, I am not saying there was not ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, as I said Milosevic was not some good hard-on bearer. But he was not African type of dictator.
What we have today in Kosovo? Your precious democracy maybe? Or maybe it's more like the most criminal region in Europe, including drugs, black market trade of human organs, prostitution etc.? FYI, just to make clear what are American intentions with this region - on Kosovo Americans have built one of their biggest military basses abroad called Bondstil:
Did he instigate four wars in the 1990s?
Which 4 wars, be more specific?
Did he, or did he not instigate ethnic cleansing in Kosovo?
No, he's not. He had his part in it, but he was not alone.
Did xenophobic nationalism run riot under his rule?
Yes, but war is the most fertile soil for explosion of nationalism. You were never there, tucked up in the chair you wouldn't know. The same was in Croatia, RSK and in Bosnia. The whole fucking region, not just Serbia. Do you get that?
Did he send Ratko Mladic back in to lead the army after he'd already been busted for committing atrocities? Or is all this bullshit?
Yes. And what about Ante Gotovina, Hasim Taci, Haradinaj (former two confirmed criminals) and numerous others?
Go read.
The point is that he wasn't what America & the rest claimed him to be. The proof is Hague Tribunal, where Serbs have the the largest number of convictions by far, and somehow I don't see that this civil war was one sided... What about Tudjman and Izetbegovic, for ex.? They let them die naturally, and only after their deaths we hear about their big roles in ethnic cleansing (Oluja etc.). Nowadays we see carrot and stick policy with European union too. I am not a nationalist and I am trying to be as objective as I can, but I live it, while you just read it (or in this case, you even don't do that) so I can see what's happening.
US of fucking A and axis around it (figuratively speaking) committed more crimes against humanity than Nazis would ever commit, it's not even funny.
Uni777,
There was a lot of bad blood between Croats and Serbs
Care to explain a little more how that came about?
I know some Serbian people who feel Milosevic was their liberator. While a lot of Croatians think the opposite.
But the whole matter seems so complex.
Is there good unbiassed info to be found somewhere without needing to do a extended study of the matter?
It dates way back, but let's just say it exploded in WWII with NDH (Croatian fascist State) and Chetniks. In 1918, which was the year of formation of The State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs (which predates Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) there was a lot of people on all sides who didn't want to be in one big state. 3 different faith: catholic, orthodox and islamic, and lot of other factors...
I definitely can understand those who see Milosevic as their liberator, because he sent troops to defend them from bosnian muslims/Croats (ofc, those troops were not just doing that). There were also numerous paramilitary troops on all sides.
It's something like how people in WWII would see soviets as their liberators, and Germans would not. It's close enough. I underline once again, Milosevic is not a hard-on bearer I would support nowadays ofc, but if I were to live in Bosnia in 1991-95, waiting any second for Croats or Muslims to cut my throat and wipe my family off the face of the Earth, I would worship him 'till I die, if you get my meaning.
As I said, this is so perplexed, lot of different cultures and nationalities and nations on a relatively small space.
)
. the ruskies were right: it set up a dangerous precedent. just take a look at that ossetia situation (oh, and btw, ossetia had faaar faaar more stable/just/lawful/historical/whatever grounds to secede than kosovo)
