How, pray tell, did you arrive at that meaning out of my statement?
The point was very simple - if you wish to help a nation, it would be a very good idea to actually study those nations so that you can have an idea of how to help.
See - I was suggesting that our politicians who were making decisions did not understand what was going on and, therefor, made many of the wrong decisions.
What's to challenge?
An "Ulterior Motive" could be as simple as politicians wanting a reason to send tax payer dollars to corporations in the defense industry. To argue that politicians have only a singular stated objective with any action they take (be it a vote in favor of a war or a vote in favor of Taco Bell for lunch) would be naive.
Of course politicians have ulterior motives, as do the people they grant authority over various budgets, and so do the people who command the forces that consume that budget. Everyone has ulterior motives, including the people in the nations we visit.
The question is what ulterior motives you are referring to.
Some people argue that the ulterior motive was to benefit our alien overlords (the reptilians, or something). I doubt that is the point you were trying to make, but I don't really see how I'm supposed to argue with an idea that isn't stated.
I'm very good at arguing with myself, but this isn't exactly a comedy routine.
If you studied the country, you would understand exactly why the issue of whether or not we should introduce our military came to light.
Yugoslavia was breaking down into civil wars - more properly into ethnic cleansing.
What do Americans see when we look over there? A bunch of white people.
What do the Slavic people see? Croatians (Catholic Serbs), Bosnians (Muslim Serbs), Serbs (Eastern Orthodox Serbs)... but then you have smaller divisions that break down into some business and family relations and some language differences (Montenegrin technically has its own alphabet with characters that Serbs from Serbia consider to be typographical errors).
To make matters more complex, some of these states were in league with the U.N. and were requesting help amidst what amounted to a series of ethnic succession wars.
So, from a U.N. standpoint - what is the point of being part of the U.N. if the nations of the U.N. aren't going to step in and do something about entire ethnic groups being buried in mass graves?
But this isn't a simple "good guy/bad guy" deal. Sure - you could go in and blow up some of the invading army assets - but the next time a vote goes the wrong way in a certain region, the guns come out. Some Bosnians start killing some Serbs, and next thing you know - Serbia is invading to protect their family...
So, how do you fix that?
If you believe what you and I were taught in history class - you go in, destroy the dictator, and hold an election so the people can be happy.
Right?
Democracy creates peace, right?
This is incorrect, and it flies in the face of history.
Democracy is little more than a war simulated at a 1:1 attrition ratio. The only way democracy works is if the issues being voted on are minimal in their impact. If I, as an individual of German lineage, can vote to prohibit an Irish man from owning the type of factory I own - or otherwise targeting his demographic for special registration/certification that serves to limit his ability to compete with my field of expertise... then why should any Irish man accept the legitimacy of the vote?
If I, as a majority, can regularly vote in whatever way I please to preserve whatever advantages I may have over you and to restrict your freedoms in life - then why would you EVER want to be a part of the country?
This is the distinction between a nation of laws and a nation of men.
Much of Europe is a Nation of Men, not a Nation of Laws - decisions are made on the basis of "We are French" or "We are Danish" 'and this is how we do things.'
To compare, we have to look at the differences in culture that gave rise to these nations. America is a very unique nation in this way.
America was formed not as a nation of protestants, of puritains, of british, or of farmers. It was formed as a nation of laws. America formed from a population that, due to its remote location from the British Empire, was fundamentally difficult to control. Thousands who would become the progenitors of the revolution were born into a world where there was no one to tell them what could and couldn't be done, legally. There was vast terrain that could be settled at will if local 'authorities' were not to one's liking.
It was through this environment that many from Europe who would normally be at odds were able to live peacefully together. While there were still racial biases between the British settlers and their Irish slaves (as well as the free Irish), there was a fundamental difficulty in implementing oppressive economic or political pressures when the subjects of that oppression could simply move to a vacant area and do things, themselves.
This had a profound impact, later, when the Continental Congress came into being. It could be thought of as a "United Colonies" and was more of an open forum for colonial leadership than an actual government. Disputes between colonies were frequent and it solidified the need for a more powerful government that could actually express some authority over the colonies (which would come in the wake of the near break-down of the colonies into civil war following the Revolutionary War).
The establishment of a national government that could levy taxes and form a military were key to having a nation with any kind of borders - but most of the colonies refused to even look at the Constitution until fundamental limitations were placed on the national government.
These became known as the Bill of Rights. Contrary to what your civics teacher probably told you - the Bill of Rights does not grant individuals rights, nor does it actually have the purpose of enforcing your rights.
The Bill of Rights exists as a set of strict limitations on the types of laws and actions that the government can take (which are conveniently ignored in today's world). The government is not to set types of speech that come with a punishment. The government is not to write laws concerning religion or its practice. The government is not to write laws prohibiting peaceful assembly or regulating it in any manner. The government is not to force citizens to yield their homes to soldiers (this was common practice in Europe at the time). The government is not to write laws for or commission searches and seizures of property without just cause (I'm translating the full constitutional context, there). Any powers not expressly stated to be the authority of the federal government are to be reserved to the States - IE, if the States have not expressly granted the nation the authority to do something - the national government can't do it without an amendment to the Constitution.
These are, basically, laws for the laws - or laws that government must abide by.
This is what is meant by a nation of laws. The laws define the nation, not the people.
Frankly, this is an alien concept throughout much of Europe, and this is because - for time eternal - Europe has developed from competing tribal systems/nations that become distinct through cultures that establish marital patterns and in turn lead to divisions of language and physiological distinction (a guy who was in Kosovo during our operations there told me that you could tell a Serb from a Bosnian by looking at the nose... I've no idea, and I feel creepy trying to look through pictures on the internet to see if that's true).
Borders are a product of where that culture spreads to and clashes with a different culture. A process of competition eventually leads to war that creates a sharp ridge in where people of those cultures choose to settle. Depending upon the age of the border and the will of the various peoples to contest it, that border will eventually become peaceful and mutually recognized (as in much of mainland Europe). People just get tired of killing each other and decide to stick to their territories. Although these borders can lapse back into war - which is generally how wars have always worked.
Now...
If we'd done our research, we'd have realized that going in, blowing things up, and trying to encourage everyone to vote on things was ... just ****ing stupid - because the concept of governments is different (although many of the U.N. nations understand this, quite frankly, they used the U.S's enthusiasm and naivete to further their own interests in the region... again - because they see things as a tribal issue more so than a legal/structure issue).
However, the notion of a limited government that is not "for the people of ____" but for the concept of legal absolutes is simply alien to most of Europe and, frankly, the world. So you aren't going to convince them to abide by a constitution that tries to limit the authority of a government that will be run by a large majority a single ethnic group.
Worse, research into the people would show that Serbs and many of their branching ethnic groups are -very- collectivist in their thinking. This means that Serbia is wherever the Serb goes. This will pose huge issues with townships of predominantly Croats in a territory that is majority Bosnian.
Thus, the concept of a limited government is just not there and even an attempt to replicate the U.S. Constitution would fail as no one would understand the importance of -not- using the government's power to do whatever the hell they thought should be done. They are nations of men, not a nation of laws.
Thus, the -only- real option if we wanted to help would be to allow a strong unifying totalitarian in the line of Tito to beat down the special interest groups.
This runs contrary to the concepts of government that we are taught in America - but it is the only way a region like the former Yugoslav Republic is going to see peace amongst its highly collectivist ethnic groups for any length of time.
Eventually, concepts of a limited government that is operated by a democratic republic could float, there. But these are largely foreign ideas to many in the region that conflict with culture and tradition. It will take generations (or one hell of a catastrophic doomsday scenario) to change that.
If it even should be changed (I argue that it should, as relying upon benevolent dictators is a deadly gamble... but we've failed, in America, to keep a proper check on our politicians, so it's not like we can point many fingers).
But this is not a conversation/study many politicians (who set our national policies) have time for ... or want to be had (if they stand to gain from the knee-jerk reaction of 'drop the bomb on the villain').
Agreed. I actually think the federal military should be sold at auction (minus the people, of course) - spare, perhaps, for key elements of the Navy and Marines. The states should take up most of the concerns with defending the nation as a whole via the National Guard (IE - the National Guard is what should be bigger, if anything) and very little/no federal funding should go toward the National Guard (all of it owned and operated by the State governments).
The federal government will have the responsibility of making sure that the states can organize their units together and will have the authority to declare emergencies where they are called to service to defend the nation as a whole (and operate as if they were one military).
All export restrictions on arms should be released. If -IRAN- wants an F-22, Iran should get an F-22 if and only if they are willing to pay whatever the company that is making it is charging. I am no fan of Iran and I honestly believe that they could be bombed off the face of the planet without being missed. That said - if they are willing to pay for our weapons (no government aid should go to any foreign country - let charities do that if they feel so empowered to do so) - then they can have our weapons. They can contemplate the wisdom of using the weapons we designed and built against us, later.
America should become a net exporter of defense contract services. We should not be trying to protect the oceans of the world and the borders of every country on our tax payers' dime. If a country or company wants to contract Americans experienced in war fighting or security - they should be able to.
If we're going to be soldiers for hire, we should let the free market handle it as opposed to trying to make it a government policy.
It was largely meant as an address to people at large.
And you got this meaning out of my statement, how?
Ideologically, I'm an anarchist.
I do not believe any government will be able to resist the temptation of expanding its own power.
Even in the limited government model, a government will eventually run a surplus budget (take in more tax revenue than is spent). This, invariably, leads to the discussion of what it should be spent on. This is where people begin adding their own ambitions into the framework of government. Surplus budget income is dedicated to various pet projects of politicians who then use these items to campaign on.
Years later, when a deficit occurs and taxes need to either be temporarily increased or spending cut - the taxes are always increased. The completely unnecessary project is -never- cut, as there were plenty of people who were happy about it being implemented.
Thus, the power and authority of government has crept, the amount of money it claims from the population has increased, and there will be another surplus in the coming years that needs to be spent.
This will continue until the framework of a constitution has been trashed and people are able to vote to literally steal money from each others' bank accounts (it happened in Greece - though not quite as the politicians advertised....). At which point, the vote will be meaningless unless it is with a bullet to the opposing groups' head.
This is the cycle of all nations.
The notion that people don't need a nation has never truly been floated.
I believe that there should be no institution with arbitrary legal authority over humanity. We can settle our affairs through contract negotiations, metric standards long since established in industry, and through risk sharing investments (insurance policies).
All functions of criminal and civil legal systems can be carried out via mediation between affiliated insurance companies and bounties levied by the same.
From a more realistic and immediate perspective, I'm not a big fan of any of the presidential candidates of the past several elections - even many of the primary candidates.
The problem is not so much who the President is - but what Congress isn't. We do not have a principled Congress, any longer - we have a party line congress that places political agendas above functional governing principles. Democrat or Republican - both essentially play a game of bargaining who gets what amount of power.
The Republicans, spare perhaps for some of the infamous "tea party" group, will not repeal Obamacare. They want to replace it with their own "Republicare" to be able to have their own set of rules and control over the government.
Right now, the U.S. is torn between Social Fascism and Corporate Fascism. In the end - we get Fascism out of the deal be it for the sake of the collective or corporate interest.
Because you are ignorant of the facts of the case.
Just as you are ignorant of our foreign policy and our reasons for intervention in many other nations.
Rarely has it been "self defense" - nor did we even make the claim to self defense. Usually, it is the argument of "regional security" - which means protection of nations we consider allies or whom we have signed frivolous defense treaties with (which is why the issue in Ukraine is troublesome - we have "Mutual Defense Pacts" with many of these nations and will eventually have to choose whether to honor those when Russia presses a direct invasion or to ignore those.... and -THAT- will be a hard call to make, since it will be one huge cluster**** if NATO gets involved - yet what's the point of being friends with all of us if we refuse to honor our agreements to defend each other from invasion?)
Ukraine boils down into a very similar issue of Serbia and Kosovo.
It's not going to be solved simply by blowing up some Russians and declaring Ukraine to be a nation.
Frankly, I've made the argument that Europe would be better off to ally with Russia within the next two years as it will be the easiest way to preserve their cultural identity as a sub-nation... which is not what they will be able to do once ISIS begins sweeping through the Balkans.
Perhaps it's a bit of cultural lensing.
What Americans saw was people being put into mass graves and armies sweeping through towns to leave almost no one behind (how many were killed and how many simply fled ahead of the invasion would be hard to know from our perspective - but of course the media interpretation is that they all were killed... from some of the soldiers that I know who were over there - they left the impression it wouldn't have been far from the truth). That is what America wanted to stop.
How do you stop an army? Destroy it.
But the overwhelming majority of Americans can barely place Yugoslavia on a map, let alone have any idea -why- people were killing each other over there.
Americans like a simple good-guy/bad-guy problem. The invading armies are the bad guy. The civilians being killed are the good guys. Blow up the bad guys and the problem is solved, right?
But then when the good guys turn around and become the bad guys a year later... we don't get it. So we go back and blow up the bad guy.... and... why are the good guys killing people, now?
In the end - all we end up doing is confusing a bunch of people and ourselves - not to mention pissing them off.
I remember the Kosovo bombing campaign. I was ten years old, then.
My father was a Vietnam veteran, and I grew up with him having a rather "you send in the military to leave behind burning buildings and screaming widows" mentality - kind of a hard edge. I heard about the news and was watching some of the bombs drop live on TV. I remember greeting my father when he got home: "Dad! Did you hear? We're going to war, we're going to get the bad guys!"
He looked at me and said: "It isn't anything to be happy about. Right now, people are dying."
He and I never really discussed the issues concerning Yugoslavia before he died. I imagine he knew more about what was going on over there than most - he seemed to know a lot about the areas of the world that used to be under Russian influence (perhaps his growing up during the Cold War and being similar to myself in his curiosity and desire to know about things).
I suspect he was in disagreement with our decision to get involved in a war we didn't understand.
Either way - it was a comment of his that stuck with me for years... and when I met a young lass from Montenegro who was, at that very time, in a bomb shelter... it made sense why that comment stuck with me.
Frankly, this overlooks the fact that you all were doing a damned good job of destroying yourselves.
While I'll be the first to admit that America made decisions for the sake of political expedience and caused far more damage than she should have, by that same token, to deflect the entirety of the tragedies onto other nations is intellectually dishonest.
There are many ways to see the world, and quite a few of them exist from outside the Balkans. Discrediting those views - however painful they may be to entertain - may be one of the greatest faults of the culture that spawned such influential individuals as Tesla.
First, Slavic people? When you said that you know a lot about our country or what used to be our country I was expecting that you will at least know the name of it and its residents. Phrase ‘Slavic people’ is used to describe Indo-European group living in Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Southeast Europe, North Asia and Central Asia. Today this huge group is classified into West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs. People who live in the Balkans are South Slavs. South Slavs present the following people: Bosnians or Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs, and Slovenes.
U stated that Slavic people see Croats as Catholic Serbs, Bosnians as Muslim Serbs which would be equally saying that West Slavs, East Slavs and all South Slavs see things on Balkans like this. I would not like to be in your shoes if you would say something like this somewhere in Croatia or Bosnia. If you would say that in Serbia, tho, they would ask you with a laugh ''Who taught you to be četnik, mate?'' If you don’t know what are četniks, google it, I ain’t explaining even that here…
Čatniks are those who see these countries like that, that is, as their own territory inhabited by people of different religions, that is, wrong religions, religions they took as their own not by their own will but because they were forced in some way, which is not totally wrong statement but is far from being right.
It’s stupid ( no offence ) that a person who is called smart by so many people from here tries to define what was the issue of Yugoslavia in the sentence which proclaims politics of četniks. Even today it’s very arguable how each people of Yugoslavia perceive and see each other + it’s very arguable how to address properly some countries nationality wise, religion wise etc. and not to make a mistake.
Second, smaller divisions that break down into some business and family relations? Oh dear, where I should start? Smaller divisions, what you call them, are divisions of once different countries, different religions, different history, different culture, different food, art, clothes. It won’t be exaggeration to say that those ‘smaller divisions’ are divisions which exist between US and Canada or even on larger scale. Business and family relations? Do you think that Yugoslavs were some sort of tribes during the 90s when the war broke out? Do you know when Yugoslavs formed their first kingdoms?
Third, Serbs from Serbia consider that Montenegrin own alphabet has characters with typographical errors? Lol Dude, you do sound like proper Četnik, I can tell you that.
I hate when foreigners try to talk about my country like they know everything about it. I was once talking with American who claimed that bombing was right thing to do from American side and who claimed, just like you, that Americans were trying to save us, while at the same time he kept repeating ‘We did good job in Balkan Wars!’ apparently not even knowing that Balkan Wars happened at the beginning of 20th century and not at the end of it. From this reason I felt obliged to mention some things you wrote as a response to OP which are far from correct.
And now to respond to you.
I have nothing to say about your statement that US tried to help us which you keep repeating. If I put up some facts here I will meet the same response as I usally do when I am talking about this. You will tell me how I was brainwashed and video and audio recordings, letters, documents which I would show you for you would be just part of propaganda from this part of world to justify themselves. However, American side of story will not be propaganda of any sort as long as they are standing as winners.
While you were happy about your country which was going to war that guy from Montenegro and me were in the bomb shelters. Some of us who were lucky didn't lose family members and their homes, but some of us didn't have the same luck. And while you will always remember that period of your life as chating with your dad and learning some good things I will remember that part of my life as time when we lost home and family members. And no matter how I see the world I will still see that time through blood and tears, and nothing will change that. And I guess that's where you and I differ as well and where we are not able to understand each other. We didn't see, we didn't learn the same.
I am not accusing Americans for everything that happened here during the 90s. Stupidity of our people helped great deal to Americans in their ways. Stupidity or greed, I don't know, but the outcome is the same so it does not matter.
And it's not nice that you are making subtle insults on my account when we are talking in civilised manner. I am done with this conversation. Cheers, mate! or as we Yugoslavs would say Živio, prijatelju!
First, Slavic people? When you said that you know a lot about our country or what used to be our country I was expecting that you will at least know the name of it and its residents. Phrase ‘Slavic people’ is used to describe Indo-European group living in Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Southeast Europe, North Asia and Central Asia. Today this huge group is classified into West Slavs, East Slavs and South Slavs. People who live in the Balkans are South Slavs. South Slavs present the following people: Bosnians or Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs, and Slovenes.
U stated that Slavic people see Croats as Catholic Serbs, Bosnians as Muslim Serbs which would be equally saying that West Slavs, East Slavs and all South Slavs see things on Balkans like this. I would not like to be in your shoes if you would say something like this somewhere in Croatia or Bosnia. If you would say that in Serbia, tho, they would ask you with a laugh ''Who taught you to be četnik, mate?'' If you don’t know what are četniks, google it, I ain’t explaining even that here…
Čatniks are those who see these countries like that, that is, as their own territory inhabited by people of different religions, that is, wrong religions, religions they took as their own not by their own will but because they were forced in some way, which is not totally wrong statement but is far from being right.
It’s stupid ( no offence ) that a person who is called smart by so many people from here tries to define what was the issue of Yugoslavia in the sentence which proclaims politics of četniks. Even today it’s very arguable how each people of Yugoslavia perceive and see each other + it’s very arguable how to address properly some countries nationality wise, religion wise etc. and not to make a mistake.
Second, smaller divisions that break down into some business and family relations? Oh dear, where I should start? Smaller divisions, what you call them, are divisions of once different countries, different religions, different history, different culture, different food, art, clothes. It won’t be exaggeration to say that those ‘smaller divisions’ are divisions which exist between US and Canada or even on larger scale. Business and family relations? Do you think that Yugoslavs were some sort of tribes during the 90s when the war broke out? Do you know when Yugoslavs formed their first kingdoms?
Third, Serbs from Serbia consider that Montenegrin own alphabet has characters with typographical errors? Lol Dude, you do sound like proper Četnik, I can tell you that.
I hate when foreigners try to talk about my country like they know everything about it. I was once talking with American who claimed that bombing was right thing to do from American side and who claimed, just like you, that Americans were trying to save us, while at the same time he kept repeating ‘We did good job in Balkan Wars!’ apparently not even knowing that Balkan Wars happened at the beginning of 20th century and not at the end of it. From this reason I felt obliged to mention some things you wrote as a response to OP which are far from correct.
Now - you're free to argue that not all of those in Yugoslavia agree with Catniks, but history would indicate whom has primarily motivated the politics in your nation?
Slandering the existence of the ideology does not remove its influence.
Further, allow me to ask you something...
What of those in Bosnia who wish to be Bosnia?
What about those in Kosovo who wish to be Kosovo?
Would it not be the same politics of the Catniks to insist that Yugoslavia takes precedence over those desires?
Yugoslavia is a wonderful idea that many people agree with... but exactly what it means to be a part of Yugoslavia may not be the same among the different people within the former republic.
Many Americans believe in the "American Dream" - but what is it? What does it mean? Some think it means a hassle-free life (they tend toward socialism). Others think it means the freedom to choose one's challenges and overcome them in the pursuit of reward. Still others think of completely different concepts of the "American Dream."
You'll get a lot of people who "love America" or "uphold the Constitution" - but what do each of those mean? Do people love America - the flag? Can we stick an American flag on Stalin and love how patriotic Stalin is? Some Americans are that shallow. How many people who uphold the Constitution actually know what it says? Among those who do - how many agree that certain sections mean the same thing?
Basically - all of Yugoslavia generally subscribes to the unconstrained vision of mankind.
And now to respond to you.
I have nothing to say about your statement that US tried to help us which you keep repeating. If I put up some facts here I will meet the same response as I usally do when I am talking about this. You will tell me how I was brainwashed and video and audio recordings, letters, documents which I would show you for you would be just part of propaganda from this part of world to justify themselves. However, American side of story will not be propaganda of any sort as long as they are standing as winners.
You didn't really pay attention to anything I said, did you?
Or has it still not dawned on you that I believe America and the U.N. took the wrong action during the various Balkan conflicts?
Even so, I'm not quite certain what I'm supposed to believe you are brainwashed to believe. That we were there to do... what?
Or does it even speculate an agenda - just insist that we were there to kill people or that we deliberately targeted civilians, or something?
I know what the arguments in our nation and culture were. I can attest to that, and it's easily available on the web to look through some of the newspaper articles and discussions of the time that were circulating in our nation.
Now, I also know some of the military people who were there. I know what they thought about a lot of it; and I also know how things can play out within the military to have negative consequences for civilians. The reason my father was a "you send in the military to break things" is because he generally understood that a military in action is going to destroy and break things. Sending in the military for the political mission of peacemaker is going to result in blunders that cost civilian lives.
And that is just operational blunders. That doesn't cover the reality of the fundamental political blunder of assigning a "bad guy" and failing to realize that the "good guy" will become the "bad guy" as soon as you've eliminated the first "bad guy's" means of defense (which they were using to attack).
This devolves into a general concept of disarmament of military and partisan forces that are civilians committed to fighting - so now you're bombing pickup trucks because people use them as an improvised Infantry Fighting Vehicle - and that always "wins hearts and minds" - because invariably you blow up a farmer and his pregnant wife, or something equally bad.
So, in terms of what your politicians insist is evidence of our mal-intent... I've no doubt that it exists and that it has at least some basis in fact. Soldiers talk a lot of shit while they are in the act of blowing things up, it's a guarantee that there were disparaging words said - it's quite possible that a few people defied their orders and did things they shouldn't have.
Without doing an investigation into each claim, it's difficult to say - but I'm not of the opinion that it is "pure propaganda" and "completely untrue."
At the same time - keep in mind that the same people who fanned the flames of war amongst your people are some of the same ones who now fan the flames of hatred against a foreign nation - for the same reason. It is just easier and less risky to focus all of the animosity toward a foreign nation than it is to blame problems on the Sub-Serb group of the month. They don't necessarily want to get shot any more than anyone else does.
While you were happy about your country which was going to war that guy from Montenegro and me were in the bomb shelters. Some of us who were lucky didn't lose family members and their homes, but some of us didn't have the same luck. And while you will always remember that period of your life as chating with your dad and learning some good things I will remember that part of my life as time when we lost home and family members. And no matter how I see the world I will still see that time through blood and tears, and nothing will change that. And I guess that's where you and I differ as well and where we are not able to understand each other. We didn't see, we didn't learn the same.
The simple thing is that the past is only as relevant as you choose to make it.
I look at your history and I see a culture of strong people who have endured a lot of bullshit from outside and within. Now, all of a sudden, as if a foreign nation's involvement in your cultures' affairs is a new thing, you all are focused on playing the victim and living in the past.
You're better than that.
You're not the first country to be bombed. Go complain to the Germans. Go whine to the Japanese. Go tell the Koreans (one of the world's ten largest economies) about having buildings blown up. They'll nod and point to the trees that are planted in rows all across the terrain (the mountains are ringed by cherry trees that blossom in the spring to from a ring of cherry blossoms). Why? The Japanese cut -every- tree down when they gave up the occupation. During the subsequent fighting with the North Koreans, every town outside of the Pusan Perimeter was shelled to rubble with hardly any buildings standing. They boiled and ate grass.
The world is so much bigger than you all, and while it may be the center of -your- world, it would behoove you all to look outside of yourselves. It's that obsession with yourselves that has served as the root cause of the wars that amount to one giant identity crisis when you can't agree on who the hell you are.
It would be comical if it were just a story without any real impact.
I am not accusing Americans for everything that happened here during the 90s. Stupidity of our people helped great deal to Americans in their ways. Stupidity or greed, I don't know, but the outcome is the same so it does not matter.
If I let the cat inside and she scratches on the door frame, I kill the cat and get a new one. A friend lets that cat inside and she scratches on the door frame. I kill the cat and get a new one. My friend looks at me like I'm crazy, and I tell him: "The outcome is the same, so it doesn't matter."
At some point, you've got to dedicate some time to puzzling through why, exactly, y'all have decided you need to kill the cat each time she scratches on the door frame - and what, perhaps, can be done to keep the cat from scratching on the door frame.
Or... just... have a high turnover rate for cats...
I think cats are cute and killing them should be avoided. But that's me.
And it's not nice that you are making subtle insults on my account when we are talking in civilised manner. I am done with this conversation. Cheers, mate! or as we Yugoslavs would say Živio, prijatelju!
"Americans are greedy and believe their own propaganda that they were here to help us but were here to ... make war. This is a civilized discussion."
No, it's not a civilized discussion.
You just stuck your foot in a bear trap and are trying to figure out how to look cool in front of the gang.
I'm not quite sure what you take as a subtle insult other than the insistence that your current behavior is unbecoming of your peoples' legacy. Which isn't exactly subtle - and it really depends upon your perspective as to whether or not you consider it an insult.
If you look at simply the immediate context, then, yes - it is an insult.
If you consider that I view you as being capable of far better - then it is less of an insult and more of a criticism (albeit pointed).
The reason why I insist that all Americans should study Yugoslavia is because it highlights the very problems that are arising within our own nation and the collapse of Yugoslavia is fundamentally similar to many of the trends emerging within American politics.
When the friend I mentioned earlier was in America, she had an encounter during one of her last days at her place of work where the subject of where she was from came up. People who she came to think of as grandparents let it be known that they thought the Balkans were a bunch of animals - or, at least, behaved like it (though she was not in the frame of mind to pick up that distinction if it was made). I didn't get a whole lot of detail on what happened, but she has a far more externalized view of the Balkans than most others who have been raised there their entire life - and it was a massive blow to her.
"I understand, now." She told me. "My people are cruel."
I should have asked what she meant, but was arrogant enough to insist that it wasn't the case. Not that I believe you all -mean- to be cruel if that is the case - but that I should have listened to her perspective a little better. Nor do I believe there is anything America has done within its culture that couldn't be replicated in any part of the world (provided the social understanding of government permits it).
I don't think you all are animals - not any more so than the rest of us are at our core. The question is what have the rest of us done to prevent us from being animals that is lacking in parts of the world where conflict and destruction persist.
You're not a bad person.
You're not a bad culture/nation/group.
You should, however, take the time and opportunity to explore the world outside of Yugoslavia a bit. Which, honestly, it's curious that you guys spend so much time on yourselves but don't have much in the way of history books (I asked because I wanted some reading material to practice translating and because I want to make a stab at novelizing the history of the Balkans with historically accurate characters and spend several years there researching the family lines of prominent figures and what can be pieced together about them to build a personality for an accurate character... the lack of history books makes this difficult and I found myself having to go to works that attempted to construct a history from the documents of surrounding empires with history books.... that is also what makes the history so fascinating and important to sort through - the fact that an entire people were literally destroyed to the point of losing their language and even substantial portions of their identity.... not to mention - you all have some amazingly animated characters in the rebellions against the ottomans. Signed letters in blood signifying the beginning of a revolution? That's awesome! Vlad "The Dragon" - his exploits against the Ottomans was absolutely amazing and left a permanent scar on Islam ... although the Western Europeans freaked out and gave him an unjust reputation... but that's a fascinating story in and of itself... your region has some absolutely ****ing awesome history to it and you all should be proud of it... but it's like you find a lot of the wrong things to pay attention to, for some reason - like how America is currently obsessed with the history of black slavery and wants to try and act like every black person alive today was just freed from slavery yesterday and every white person today owned a black slave the day before...).
But, I've rambled enough for someone who is "done with the conversation" (but probably read at least part of this, anyway - if for no other reason than to see if you needed to put a "didn't read, lol").
And now to respond to you.
I have nothing to say about your statement that US tried to help us which you keep repeating. If I put up some facts here I will meet the same response as I usally do when I am talking about this. You will tell me how I was brainwashed and video and audio recordings, letters, documents which I would show you for you would be just part of propaganda from this part of world to justify themselves. However, American side of story will not be propaganda of any sort as long as they are standing as winners.
I've discovered more about the story, and figure it should be placed in the public (or as public as NB is).
There is no "side" to the story. There is simply what happened. This is the most complete accounting I could find and once I had some names and specific things to plug in, it came right up.
You must be registered for see links
You are not unfounded, in the slightest, in your suspicions regarding America's involvement.
The report is rather exhaustive and probably is not all-inclusive. However:
" According to the London Sunday Times, the KLA’s background did not deter the US from training and strengthening it:
" American intelligence agents have admitted they helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army before Nato’s bombing of Yugoslavia. The disclosure angered some European diplomats, who said this had undermined moves for a political solution to the conflict between Serbs and Albanians. Central Intelligence Agency officers were ceasefire monitors in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, developing ties with the KLA and giving American military training manuals and field advice on fighting the Yugoslav army and Serbian police.
When the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which co-ordinated the monitoring, left Kosovo a week before airstrikes began a year ago, many of its satellite telephones and global positioning systems were secretly handed to the KLA, ensuring that guerrilla commanders could stay in touch with Nato and Washington. Several KLA leaders had the mobile phone number of General Wesley Clark, the Nato commander.48"
According to former U.S. Army Captain David Hackworth, later Newsweek’s contributing editor for defense, former US military officers in the private U.S. military contractor MPRI (Military Professional Resources Incorporated) not only trained KLA personnel, but even fought alongside them.49 This reinforced earlier reports that MPRI personnel had also been involved in training Croatians at the time of the illicit Croatian arms pipeline to Bosnia.50 "
Of course, all of this was sold in the media as a humanitarian intervention.
Don't ever stop speaking the truth just because you are told you are crazy or brainwashed. This all would have been much easier to locate with better search terms, and there are some of us out there who will actually listen and verify for ourselves.
You are correct. The U.S. and NATO policy makers largely created the conflict by fueling aspirations and providing arms. This was then presented in the media as being a conflict necessitating humanitarian intervention and the public was able support military intervention in both Bosnia and Kosovo.
What does it matter?
Well, simply speaking for myself, I learned something. I might have learned it on my own, but I never really would have recognized the significance if I didn't have the memory of a tense discussion in the back of my mind.
It also matters in that when you stop telling the truth, lies win. Lies are told for a reason, and that reason is often destructive. The lies told by our government and our media perverted the good intentions of our people - and yours. If they did it once, they will do it again. The more lies are allowed to win, the more times that destructive history repeats.
People can change. They can change their views, they can change their understanding, they can change at the very core of who they are. Certainly, people often resist change, but everyone can change. You have to be steadfast if you want to overcome that resistance to change.
And this is something that needs to be understood and changed. As I said - our nation is more powerful than our people understand or have respect for. They need to know and understand that their allowance for such large and unchecked power has created many of the very problems they were so disgusted by... or it will simply continue to repeat.
I apologize for letting my zeal get the best of me.
And thank you for standing up. Just don't be afraid to hit me across the face - especially with facts.
Perhaps you will re-return to read this, perhaps you won't. But it is only proper that the correction be made in public.
