Another Serb monster caught
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
N
numbersix
Guest
He is an indicted war criminal and deserves the harshest sentence there is for his crimes.
However, the Balkans is not an easy area in which to point fingers if we view it from a historical perspective. Bosnian Muslims and Croats sided with the Nazis in WW2 and committed unspeakable atrocities against the Serbian people - the Bosnian Muslims in the Handzar Waffen-SS Division. The Croatian state under the Ustashe was responsible for slaughtering up to 750,000 Serbs.
I am not justifying what happened Srebrenica or Vukovar, not at all. But everything has a context in history, and few leading Croatian and Muslim war criminals were brought to justice after WW2. So it is not hard to understand why the Serbian people may have felt they had unfinished business once the communist social adhesion gave way.
However, the Balkans is not an easy area in which to point fingers if we view it from a historical perspective. Bosnian Muslims and Croats sided with the Nazis in WW2 and committed unspeakable atrocities against the Serbian people - the Bosnian Muslims in the Handzar Waffen-SS Division. The Croatian state under the Ustashe was responsible for slaughtering up to 750,000 Serbs.
I am not justifying what happened Srebrenica or Vukovar, not at all. But everything has a context in history, and few leading Croatian and Muslim war criminals were brought to justice after WW2. So it is not hard to understand why the Serbian people may have felt they had unfinished business once the communist social adhesion gave way.
The portrayal of events in the western media is too simplistic and makes for easy denounciations with only a fraction of the facts being highlighted whilst others are conveniently air brushed or not reported.
Srebrenica was a supposed safe haven, but it was also a base from which the muslim armies were launching raids into neighbouring Serb villages and be-heading innocent civilians with increasingly regularity. There were two significant clashes between the two armies in the lead up to the Serbs capaturing the town. The first one was reasonably easily put down. The second one however was much more fiercely fought and this so called civilian population had mysteriously accquired weapons (flown in under the noses of the Dutch and Norweigans in definance of an arms embargo - who do you think supplied them? - surprise surprise - yes it was). They had also become suspiciously well trained in a very short space of time (like the Croats before them, who had gone from a rag bag outfit of irregular, frequently drunk volunteers with little by way of weapons, uniforms, or discipline) to a well trained and supplied quasi national army. The process took about 6 - 9 months. The result was that the second offensive was a close run thing, with the Serbs only just winning it. They correctly deduced however that they might struggle to win a third given the levels of support, supplies and training that the muslims were receiving and needed to act pre-emptively (pre-emptive action is of course something with which this current White House is all too familiar with having used to justify their own global activities).
It is well documented that the muslim commander (Oric if memory serves me correctly?) refused to allow 2000 muslim civilians to leave (he needed them in the town in order to keep up its appearance of a non-militarised area), when it was anything but. With a civilian population to cloak Srebrenica's true nature, he could continue to raid and slaughter defenceless Serb villages and then retreat back to the town and play the safe haven/ civilian card.
So tell me, how would you react in Karadic's position to the pleas and urgings from your own civilians who were being routinely slaughtered by a garrison in an identifiable town that was gaining in strength and audacity?
The Serbs started to close in on the Srebrenica in order to provide a protective umbrealla cover to these villages. The intention at this stage wasn't to capture the town.
Then something pecuiliar happened. The leader of the Bosian Muslims (Itzerbegovic?) withdrew his military commanders and portions of his army, effectively abandoning the civilian population. Why? He was certainly showing less loyalty and concern to his own people than the Serbs had to theirs. Indeed, whilst they legged it to Tusla (i think it was) the civilian population and a skeleton protectorate were left in place.
There is no shortage of incidents in military history where a degree of conivance has occured, with one side setting up a position to draw a third party into a conflict, which they calculate would be to their advantage. Typically it involves sacrificing people by way of an orchestrated incident to provide the justification. From the Lusitania to Pearl Harbour, (the British and Soviets knew) Srebrenica joins the list of pre-texts for outright American intervention and support. This particular issue has been debated, and although it took a confession on his death bed from Itzerbegovic to finally admit it, there were no shortage of witnesses who had testified that he'd calculated that he could provoke the Serbs into an action that could then be portrayed by their Washington based PR and lobbyist firm to portray the Serbs as aggresive quasi Nazis. Efectively he abandoned them to their fate,knowing (perhaps even hoping) they'd meet a grizzly end. They could conveniently blame NATO and allow the Dutch to carry the can, even though the Norweigans had been monitoring USAF supply flights for the months leading up to it.
The extent of the massacre itself (like so many before) is also disputed. It is documented that the males were hived off seperately. Why wouldn't they be? Let's not forget that for the months previous this town was responsible for launching raids into neighbouring villages and guilty of committing its own attrocities. Is it really so unreasonable not to try and filter the ranks of the population with the view to trying find any perpetrators? As it happened they found very few, and quite a lot of them were simply sent on to Tusla (effectively cleansing the town to use the euphamism of the day).
I don't doubt however that some were executed, and there would have been innocents amongst them (war is messy, and civil war even more so). Events from this decade alone however, should teach us to be wary of claims of body counts though. The only mass graves we've turned up in Iraq to date have been dated to the war with Iran, and as yet we haven't found evidence of Saddam's alleged killing fields despite us being assured that 100,000's of them exist.
The figure we report in the west for Srebrenica is 8,000, although to date we've only uncovered 3,000 of which a small percentage died from other causes. The figure is significantly less than Spain incidentally in order to give it context, yet we routinely entertained Franco for decades. The missing 5,000 is disputed. There isn't any conclusive evidence that I'm aware of that places them in Srebrenica, and I think it's entirely possible that they simply went missing as the war unfolded (kille din other actions) whilst others just melted into the background and couldn't be accounted for, or were never there in the first place.
As I said, war is messy and there's rarely a case of right and wrong. Our own history isn't exactly stain free of slaughtering innocents (Amaritsar and I'm sure others can point to many more).
What were the Serbs supposed to do with Srebrenica given that it was garrison town masquerading as a protectorate which was being used to launch raids against Serb civilians? What would you have done when faced with such a horrible dilemma? Would you have sat back and allowed it to continue? You might argue that having captured the town the Serbs shouldn't have done anything else? I'd tend to agree, but as they moved through the terrorised villages en route to Srebrenica and saw what had been happening, I can understand (if not condone) why some reacted in the way they did. However, a pre-text for a wider action was needed, and so it became forgiveable to air brush muslim attrocities and exaggerate those of the Serbs.
No rights I'm afarid, just wrongs, and some with very cynical and calculating motivations.
By way of a footnote, (and it never occurred to me at the time) but I can now see how this relative low key precedent (military intervention on humanitarian grounds, however trumped up) could be invoked for future justifications?
Srebrenica was a supposed safe haven, but it was also a base from which the muslim armies were launching raids into neighbouring Serb villages and be-heading innocent civilians with increasingly regularity. There were two significant clashes between the two armies in the lead up to the Serbs capaturing the town. The first one was reasonably easily put down. The second one however was much more fiercely fought and this so called civilian population had mysteriously accquired weapons (flown in under the noses of the Dutch and Norweigans in definance of an arms embargo - who do you think supplied them? - surprise surprise - yes it was). They had also become suspiciously well trained in a very short space of time (like the Croats before them, who had gone from a rag bag outfit of irregular, frequently drunk volunteers with little by way of weapons, uniforms, or discipline) to a well trained and supplied quasi national army. The process took about 6 - 9 months. The result was that the second offensive was a close run thing, with the Serbs only just winning it. They correctly deduced however that they might struggle to win a third given the levels of support, supplies and training that the muslims were receiving and needed to act pre-emptively (pre-emptive action is of course something with which this current White House is all too familiar with having used to justify their own global activities).
It is well documented that the muslim commander (Oric if memory serves me correctly?) refused to allow 2000 muslim civilians to leave (he needed them in the town in order to keep up its appearance of a non-militarised area), when it was anything but. With a civilian population to cloak Srebrenica's true nature, he could continue to raid and slaughter defenceless Serb villages and then retreat back to the town and play the safe haven/ civilian card.
So tell me, how would you react in Karadic's position to the pleas and urgings from your own civilians who were being routinely slaughtered by a garrison in an identifiable town that was gaining in strength and audacity?
The Serbs started to close in on the Srebrenica in order to provide a protective umbrealla cover to these villages. The intention at this stage wasn't to capture the town.
Then something pecuiliar happened. The leader of the Bosian Muslims (Itzerbegovic?) withdrew his military commanders and portions of his army, effectively abandoning the civilian population. Why? He was certainly showing less loyalty and concern to his own people than the Serbs had to theirs. Indeed, whilst they legged it to Tusla (i think it was) the civilian population and a skeleton protectorate were left in place.
There is no shortage of incidents in military history where a degree of conivance has occured, with one side setting up a position to draw a third party into a conflict, which they calculate would be to their advantage. Typically it involves sacrificing people by way of an orchestrated incident to provide the justification. From the Lusitania to Pearl Harbour, (the British and Soviets knew) Srebrenica joins the list of pre-texts for outright American intervention and support. This particular issue has been debated, and although it took a confession on his death bed from Itzerbegovic to finally admit it, there were no shortage of witnesses who had testified that he'd calculated that he could provoke the Serbs into an action that could then be portrayed by their Washington based PR and lobbyist firm to portray the Serbs as aggresive quasi Nazis. Efectively he abandoned them to their fate,knowing (perhaps even hoping) they'd meet a grizzly end. They could conveniently blame NATO and allow the Dutch to carry the can, even though the Norweigans had been monitoring USAF supply flights for the months leading up to it.
The extent of the massacre itself (like so many before) is also disputed. It is documented that the males were hived off seperately. Why wouldn't they be? Let's not forget that for the months previous this town was responsible for launching raids into neighbouring villages and guilty of committing its own attrocities. Is it really so unreasonable not to try and filter the ranks of the population with the view to trying find any perpetrators? As it happened they found very few, and quite a lot of them were simply sent on to Tusla (effectively cleansing the town to use the euphamism of the day).
I don't doubt however that some were executed, and there would have been innocents amongst them (war is messy, and civil war even more so). Events from this decade alone however, should teach us to be wary of claims of body counts though. The only mass graves we've turned up in Iraq to date have been dated to the war with Iran, and as yet we haven't found evidence of Saddam's alleged killing fields despite us being assured that 100,000's of them exist.
The figure we report in the west for Srebrenica is 8,000, although to date we've only uncovered 3,000 of which a small percentage died from other causes. The figure is significantly less than Spain incidentally in order to give it context, yet we routinely entertained Franco for decades. The missing 5,000 is disputed. There isn't any conclusive evidence that I'm aware of that places them in Srebrenica, and I think it's entirely possible that they simply went missing as the war unfolded (kille din other actions) whilst others just melted into the background and couldn't be accounted for, or were never there in the first place.
As I said, war is messy and there's rarely a case of right and wrong. Our own history isn't exactly stain free of slaughtering innocents (Amaritsar and I'm sure others can point to many more).
What were the Serbs supposed to do with Srebrenica given that it was garrison town masquerading as a protectorate which was being used to launch raids against Serb civilians? What would you have done when faced with such a horrible dilemma? Would you have sat back and allowed it to continue? You might argue that having captured the town the Serbs shouldn't have done anything else? I'd tend to agree, but as they moved through the terrorised villages en route to Srebrenica and saw what had been happening, I can understand (if not condone) why some reacted in the way they did. However, a pre-text for a wider action was needed, and so it became forgiveable to air brush muslim attrocities and exaggerate those of the Serbs.
No rights I'm afarid, just wrongs, and some with very cynical and calculating motivations.
By way of a footnote, (and it never occurred to me at the time) but I can now see how this relative low key precedent (military intervention on humanitarian grounds, however trumped up) could be invoked for future justifications?
Last edited:
rorydelargy
At the Start
That money was only resting in his account....
Warbler's revisionism and its use of relative numbers always reminds of the difference between a $5 whore and a $500 whore. Once you have established a principle it's only the price that's different. So Radovan wasn't that bad because Franco was worse, eh?
I am not anti-Serb, as W rightly points out they were decimated by the Pavelic regime and ultra-nationalism while ugly, was understandable.
My regret is that Tudjman died in his bed as he had agreed with Milosevic during the Krijina phase of the Serbia/Croatia war to carve up Bosnia when they were finished duking it out. This was a tacit green light for Slobo for what followed. Secondly, when Sarajevo was under siege the Croats, instead of relieving the Muslims, actively invaded southern Bosnia,meaning Itzebegovic had to open up a second front. Remember that it was the Croats that shelled Mostar and it's iconic bridge. The Serbs had always represented Tudjman as the return of the Ustace. They were'nt far wrong.
I am not anti-Serb, as W rightly points out they were decimated by the Pavelic regime and ultra-nationalism while ugly, was understandable.
My regret is that Tudjman died in his bed as he had agreed with Milosevic during the Krijina phase of the Serbia/Croatia war to carve up Bosnia when they were finished duking it out. This was a tacit green light for Slobo for what followed. Secondly, when Sarajevo was under siege the Croats, instead of relieving the Muslims, actively invaded southern Bosnia,meaning Itzebegovic had to open up a second front. Remember that it was the Croats that shelled Mostar and it's iconic bridge. The Serbs had always represented Tudjman as the return of the Ustace. They were'nt far wrong.
N
numbersix
Guest
To a Serb, the checkerboard Croat flag is genuinely as abhorrent as a Nazi flag is to a jew. Their associations with Muslims start with images of Fez Wearing SS Uniformed soldiers.
This is what Serbs were brought up with folliwng WW2, so it is little wonder that once Croat and Bosnian Muslim nationalism started to surface once again in the early 90's with the fall of communism, the Serbian people felt extremely threatened, especially as the perpetrators of the murder of Serbs druing WW2 had been allowed to walk free by the Western Allies - Pavelic himself never pursued by the US or UK, and in the end having foind refuge in Argentina was allegedly shot and wounded by a member of Tito's.
At an Electoral rally in Dubrava on March 17, 1990, Franco Tudjman observed "Thanks to God that my wife is neither a Jew nor a Serb".
By the way the Bosnian Muslim leader in the 1990's Balkans War was the late Alija Izetbegovic.
This is what Serbs were brought up with folliwng WW2, so it is little wonder that once Croat and Bosnian Muslim nationalism started to surface once again in the early 90's with the fall of communism, the Serbian people felt extremely threatened, especially as the perpetrators of the murder of Serbs druing WW2 had been allowed to walk free by the Western Allies - Pavelic himself never pursued by the US or UK, and in the end having foind refuge in Argentina was allegedly shot and wounded by a member of Tito's.
At an Electoral rally in Dubrava on March 17, 1990, Franco Tudjman observed "Thanks to God that my wife is neither a Jew nor a Serb".
By the way the Bosnian Muslim leader in the 1990's Balkans War was the late Alija Izetbegovic.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
That's rather selective - Serbian nationalism is/was hardly benign!
N
numbersix
Guest
Correct, but with the fall of Communism the Croats and the Muslims stirred very worrying memories in the minds of the Serbian population across the territories of the former Yugoslavia.
Not insignificant Serb populations living in both Bosnia and Croatia felt under siege and looked to the Belgrade Government to assure their safety. So in fact, what is often portrayed as Serb nationalism leading to the start of the Balkans war in the Balkans was in fact a Serb reaction to the deeply disturbing rhetoric from Bosnian Muslim and Croat leaders. It benefited both Croat and Bosnian Muslim propagandists to depict Serb moves as being evil nationalist measures, largely to attract Western support. Remember Serbia has traditionally been a Russian ally so the Croats and Bosnian Muslims did not need to work that hard to get the West onside.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
And vice versa. What about the very real fears that Bosniaks, Croats, Slovenes etc. had about attempts by Milosevic and his allies to create a Greater Serbia?
It was always Milosevic (et al)'s tactic to paint Serbs as the victims and justify atrocities as "defending ourselves and our brothers". It shouldn't wash with any impartial observer.
Tout Seul
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,628
The nature and level of atrocities in the Balkans at that time was so appalling that it caused me to completely revise my belief in the innate decency of man. No leader of any faction emerged with any credit and most have bloodstained hands imo. Where was the man who could and stand and stop the atrocities being commited by his people?
The western press tended to place the blame largely on the Serbs and there certainly hasn't been such a clamour to bring the war criminals on the other sides to the international courts. The trial of Karadic whilst necessary and warranted will also serve to emphasise to the Serbian people the failure of the outside world to act evenhandly. Although they want the benefits of EU membership I would imagine that on the whole the nation will look to the East as protector. In the 90's Russia was weak, that is no longer the case.
This particular volcano is not extinct.
The western press tended to place the blame largely on the Serbs and there certainly hasn't been such a clamour to bring the war criminals on the other sides to the international courts. The trial of Karadic whilst necessary and warranted will also serve to emphasise to the Serbian people the failure of the outside world to act evenhandly. Although they want the benefits of EU membership I would imagine that on the whole the nation will look to the East as protector. In the 90's Russia was weak, that is no longer the case.
This particular volcano is not extinct.
Last edited:
I wouldn't disagree, Gareth, Milosevic was no teddy bear. On the other hand, it's good to see it being recognised for a change that the Serbs did not have a monopoly on wrongdoing.
It was a big mistake for Germany, which held the EU presidency at the time (I think), to give immediate recognition to the newly declared Croatian state at a time when outsiders should have been trying to bring the respective parties into negotiations, and it could be just as big an error to allow Croatia EU membership ahead of the remainder of the ex-Yugoslav states.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
There have of course been many Croats and Bosnian Croats brought up in front of the ICTY. I suppose it's a mixture of the fact that Karadic and Mladic went on the run, and Milosevic stayed in power (and didn't conveniently die!) that led to that particular triumvarate being the focus of so much of the post-war reportage.
N
numbersix
Guest
Gareth,
The problem really boils down to
a) Franjo Tudjman, an avowed anti-semite and anti-Serb, being allowed to go free even though he presided as Prsident of Croatia over the atroctiices and ethnic cleansing in Krajina (Operation Storm) in 1995, andh now only out of political expediency Croatia has handed over a "fall guy" soldier to the Haugue.
b) Ante Pavelic - also failed to stand trial for presiding over WW2 atrocities that even atttracted condemnatino from the Nazis!
So, if you are a Serb and have seen no action taken to indict the Presidents of a Country wghich has commited atrocities against your people, would you think the Milosevic or Karadzic trials were fair?
It is misleading to suggest Milosevic was hell bent on "creating a greater Serbia". You have to consider the context of the origins of this war. I have already pointed out the context vis WW2 and the very genuine fears that Serbs felt when the Croatians declared independence from Yuogslavia in June 1991. The same occured in February 1992 when the Bosnian Muslims declared an independent state. The large Serb populations in both Croatia and Bosnia felt vulnerable to the people who had murdered them en masse in WW2.
It was therefore wholly expected that the Serbian government in Belgrade would be called upon to defend the Serbian minorities in both Croatia and Bosnia. The tragedy of Krajina seemed to have justified that decision, although by then Belgrade had allowed political expediency in accepting the Vance/Owen peace plan.
I am not trying to justify atrocities carried out by any side, I am merely trying to put a balanced perspective on a conflict in which the victors have conveniently and consistently been economic with the truth - "Only winners decide what were war crimes".
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Tudjman was only "allowed to go free" in that he wasn't indicted before he died. Whether he ever would have been is unprovable either way - a situation that suits those Serbs looking to play the victim card quite nicely.
As for Croatia declaring independence in 1991 - they were way down the road by then. You need to look at the gradual rise of nationalism across the former Yugoslavia from the moment Tito died.
As for Croatia declaring independence in 1991 - they were way down the road by then. You need to look at the gradual rise of nationalism across the former Yugoslavia from the moment Tito died.
Tout Seul
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,628
As much as i enjoy the cut and thrust of reasoned argument there would seem to be potential for unnecessary heat in this thread. So far as I've seen all posters agree that many of the things that took place were unpardonably appalling, that no side was blameless, and that those responsible should held to account.
If that is the case then no-one is seeking to justify atrocities but rather to explain what factors might possibly have led to elements of all sides reaching and passing a point beyond which any reasonable and half decent man would go.
If that is the case then no-one is seeking to justify atrocities but rather to explain what factors might possibly have led to elements of all sides reaching and passing a point beyond which any reasonable and half decent man would go.
N
numbersix
Guest
Gareth that is a wholly unacceptable defence of the failure of the Allies to indict Tudjman (I notice you have not commented on Pavelic).
Yes, Tudjman died. But the tragedy of Krajina took place in 1995 - fully 4 years before his death. Karadzic and Mladic were originally indicted as war criminals in 1995 (the same year the Srebrenica massacre occured) by the Internatinoal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, so the Allies had plenty of time to deal with Tudjman if they had the desire.
The simple fact of the matter is that Croatia had been welcomed into the International Community as the "good guy" with German collusion (as Grey has already covered) plus significant US assistance in the execution of Operation Storm, and the Allies had no intention in going after anybody other than Serbs.
The recent indictment of Croatian General Ante Gotovina is pure political expediency by the Croats, and their allies to secure entry into the EU. In much the same way as the new Serbian administration's surrender of Karadzic is being interpereted.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Welcome to 21st Century politics. Expediency is God. Please keep your hands within the vehicle at all times................
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
numbersix, that fact that you have jumped to the conclusion that I wish to "defend" the "Allies", added to the other sentiments that you have already expressed, suggests to me that you have extremely entrenched and one-sided views on the subject and that little is to be gained from discussing the issue with you. For those reasons, I'm out.
(Edit: that, and there's only so much fact-checking about people responsible for ethnic cleansing and rape camps that I want to do.)
(Edit: that, and there's only so much fact-checking about people responsible for ethnic cleansing and rape camps that I want to do.)
N
numbersix
Guest
Sorry you feel that way Gareth. I ddin't mean to jump to a conclusion - sorry
.I have no vested interested, although I spent a lot of time in Zagreb and Belgrade in the late 80s. I also became good friends with my Bosnian Serb Maths teacher at college, who entertained me in his homeland (Sarajevo) in the mid-80s for a couple of weeks.
I guess becasue of this the Balkan war had an enduring resonance on my psyche, and I did find the whole episode unspeakably tragics, seeing places I had visiited reduced to rubble in the 9 O'Clock news.
Neither side is free of guilt. Of course they are not. However the portrayal of the Serbian people and their leaders as the only culprits is a complete distortion of the news. Even last night on the news they kept talking of the Serbian shelling of Sarajevo - what about the shelling and bombing of innocent civilians by the Allies during the War in Iraq?
Totally agree, the Serbs have been given a very bad press in the west, and some of these frankly knee jerk condenmations need to be seen in context, as it is all to easy to rush to them. Those of you who have should hang your heads in shame.
You might like to ponder how America would have reacted 10 years later? and I note with interest that no one has yet answered my "what would you have done question?". I keep it open and invite anyone thus.
To my mind the Pentagon (which isn't renouned for it's alacrity of thinking) was still in cold war mode and saw the opportunity to capitalise on the failings of the former Soviet Union and impose its supposed supremecy. They backed the wrong side in that respect (again). As things transpired the threat of an empowered radicalised muslim movement (although assessed in the mid 90's) hadn't been undertstood (again).
I'd be curious to watch how the Americans would sell this to their people now? It's alright to kill muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan but you must protect them in the Balkans? I'm sure if I were GI who'd witnessed my comrades being killed by essentially muslim militia in the far east I'd have difficulty reconciling the two?
You might also recall the hand rining over Grozny that the west took? Oh how their media gave us the high moral ground in denouncing the Russians. Anyone heard much of this lately? Put two and two together folks. If you're ever going to extract an admission of misjudgement by the American authorities, their silence on this issue is as near as you'll get
You might like to ponder how America would have reacted 10 years later? and I note with interest that no one has yet answered my "what would you have done question?". I keep it open and invite anyone thus.
To my mind the Pentagon (which isn't renouned for it's alacrity of thinking) was still in cold war mode and saw the opportunity to capitalise on the failings of the former Soviet Union and impose its supposed supremecy. They backed the wrong side in that respect (again). As things transpired the threat of an empowered radicalised muslim movement (although assessed in the mid 90's) hadn't been undertstood (again).
I'd be curious to watch how the Americans would sell this to their people now? It's alright to kill muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan but you must protect them in the Balkans? I'm sure if I were GI who'd witnessed my comrades being killed by essentially muslim militia in the far east I'd have difficulty reconciling the two?
You might also recall the hand rining over Grozny that the west took? Oh how their media gave us the high moral ground in denouncing the Russians. Anyone heard much of this lately? Put two and two together folks. If you're ever going to extract an admission of misjudgement by the American authorities, their silence on this issue is as near as you'll get
Last edited:
N
numbersix
Guest
The USA has systematically fuelled war across the planet since it realised its twixt the wars isolationism was not solving the great depression. It entered into WW2 in order to further its economic interests abroad, and very obviously brought itself out of depression by doing so - coincidence or design? You decide.
Since 1945 the USA emerged as one of two major world empires - the other the Soviet Union. Was America unhappy with this? Unlikely. Did America genuinely enter the war to help Britain or cripple it financially and rob it of its own economic empire? Again, you decide.
The root of all wars can be found in economics. Ideology is a convenient pretext which is easier to sell to the public than ecominic grounds.
Last edited:
Plenty, and you know that. But you equally know there is a duplicity in the country's behaviour?