Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He wasn't exonerated for war crimes. He was only found not well connected to Karadzic's war crimes in Bosnia. Russians twisting the truth as usual. Milosevic was responsible for the war crimes in Kosovo and nobody has cleared him of that (except probably Russian "news").
What "Russian news?"
"The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.
In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.
The March 24th Karadzic judgment states that “the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan” to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory.[1]
The Karadzic trial chamber found that “the relationship between Milosevic and the Accused had deteriorated beginning in 1992; by 1994, they no longer agreed on a course of action to be taken. Furthermore, beginning as early as March 1992, there was apparent discord between the Accused and Milosevic in meetings with international representatives, during which Milosevic and other Serbian leaders openly criticised Bosnian Serb leaders of committing ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the war for their own purposes.”[2]"
"Near the end of the Prosecution's case, a Prosecution analyst admitted under cross-examination that the Prosecution didn't have any orders issued by Milošević's government to any of fighters in Croatia or Bosnia. Theunens, however, was quick to point out, "the fact that we don't have orders doesn't mean that they don't exist" to which Milošević replied "There are none, that's why you haven't got one."[66]"
In all honesty I never looked closely into Yugoslavian war, but what I see from the get go, is that Serbian state would be of big inconvenience for the US/NATO, since the US politicians were aware of importance of historic alliance between Serbs and Russia. And since American motto of those days was to weaken Russia as much as possible under the pretenses of "freedom and democracy" ( that Americans were supposedly bringing there in the 90ies,) the future of the Serbian state was more or less doomed.
I don't think it could happen any other way at that point in time, with Milosevic accusing Slovenians of being a "lackey of Western Europe" ( which I am sure they were/still are,) and Milosevic welcoming the international involvement into Serbia, with Russia playing the major role.
It needs to be said that Russia was headed by treacherous government at that point too - all these Gaidars and Chubaises playing straight in hands of Clinton. Not to mention Yeltsin himself - (the particular episode in that PBS concoction where Clinton laments to Yeltsin, why did he pass all that power he helped him to concentrate in his hands to Putin, makes me chuckle, literally. )
But what happened happened. However that doesn't mean that Russians didn't learn one more viable lesson. And Maxim is absolutely correct while stating that getting more sophisticated and advanced weapons is a right way to go under the circumstances.
Well, after the bombing Milosevic was ousted by the Serbians, and in 2011 the Serbian public broadcaster issued an apology for their propaganda during the Milosevic era.
That was the lesson.
"Serbian public broadcaster" who?
I'm sure that someone like that blond bimbo Sobchak would love to "issue an apology" for Russian takeover of Crimea, but what weight would it have among Russians?
Ok, this is correct remark. Not countries, but independent governments.
The regimes did change and not always for the better, I’ll give you that. However, most of them were crap to begin with.
Quote:
This is NATO's military operation, as I understand it. United States is the leader of NATO.
France was the largest participant in Libya and the one responsible for Gaddafi’s overthrow. The US didn’t play a big role there.
Quote:
It was peaceful changes.
Correct, but you’re original claim was that the US enacted the first changes since WWII. I was pointing out that the statement was wrong.
Quote:
NATO attacked an independent country. It was mistake.
The breakup of Yugoslavia happened between 1990 and 1992. NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999. Once again the partition happened before any NATO involvement.
The one thing I do agree with is that Serbs got the short end of the stick in the conflict. Croats and Bosnians were also heavily involved and killed a lot of people yet the Serbs got all the blame. That doesn’t mean that they were innocent as even Serbs committed many atrocities.
Quote:
What only weapons can protect.
Protect against what? If the US wanted to attack NK it could have done so at anytime in the last 60 years since the end of the Korean War.
The government there is just playing into the fears of its population.
Quote:
China and Russia have normal relationship with NK.
No, they have diplomatic relations, but I would hardly call them normal. China benefits from NK as it acts as a buffer zone, but in reality it holds a very low opinion of the country.
The regimes did change and not always for the better, I’ll give you that. However, most of them were crap to begin with.
France was the largest participant in Libya and the one responsible for Gaddafi’s overthrow. The US didn’t play a big role there.
Correct, but you’re original claim was that the US enacted the first changes since WWII. I was pointing out that the statement was wrong.
The breakup of Yugoslavia happened between 1990 and 1992. NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999. Once again the partition happened before any NATO involvement.
The one thing I do agree with is that Serbs got the short end of the stick in the conflict. Croats and Bosnians were also heavily involved and killed a lot of people yet the Serbs got all the blame. That doesn’t mean that they were innocent as even Serbs committed many atrocities.
Protect against what? If the US wanted to attack NK it could have done so at anytime in the last 60 years since the end of the Korean War.
The government there is just playing into the fears of its population.
No, they have diplomatic relations, but I would hardly call them normal. China benefits from NK as it acts as a buffer zone, but in reality it holds a very low opinion of the country.
Correct, but you’re original claim was that the US enacted the first changes since WWII. I was pointing out that the statement was wrong.
No, I wrote "force"!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident
The breakup of Yugoslavia happened between 1990 and 1992. NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999. Once again the partition happened before any NATO involvement.
NATO bombed the capital of an independent European country and separated part of the territory (Kosovo). These are the facts, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident
Protect against what? If the US wanted to attack NK it could have done so at anytime in the last 60 years since the end of the Korean War.
40 km = 25 mile. If the conflict begins, Seoul will be destroyed by conventional long-range artillery. Who wants such a sacrifice? No one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident
The government there is just playing into the fears of its population.
Yes, it is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident
No, they have diplomatic relations, but I would hardly call them normal. China benefits from NK as it acts as a buffer zone, but in reality it holds a very low opinion of the country.
This is a normal working relationship without hysteria.
Last edited by Maksim_Frolov; 11-02-2017 at 01:28 AM..
This is not an argument. Saudi Arabia is just as much a crap, but it is faithful ally of the West.
Saudi Arabia is crap as well. It's not really an ally, just a convenient source of oil in the region. Given the fact that oil is slowly dying as a primary resource, that relationship is likely to change.
Quote:
NATO bombed the capital of an independent European country and separated part of the territory (Kosovo). These are the facts, right?
Yes, but I was answering your original point about borders being changed by the US for the first time since WW2. Kosovo became independent in 2008.
Like I said earlier, I do believe Serbia got an unfair deal in the 90's because they were not the only ones committing atrocities in the Balkans. The Croats, Bosnians and Albanians have a lot of blood on their hands as well.
Quote:
Yes, it is true.
Earlier this year, NK assassinated one of their politicians in Malaysia. That country is full of paranoia.
Quote:
This is a normal working relationship without hysteria.
How do you define normal? Many countries have diplomatic relationships even thought they don't get along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
It's not terrible. It is normal constructive position.
