We aren't nation building or fighting a guerilla war in Serbia. Saddam needs to be tried in a court where the Iraqi people can have some faith in justice. We are going to make a big show of destroying the power of the last regime.

I'd have to do some research in order to dislike Milosevic for fighting Muslims.  True.

Tate, there is a difference between fighting and genocide.

Milosovic was a thug and should have been tried by Jugos.  However he was no direct threat to countries around him and definatley not to America.  If somebody wanted to to do something about him because he was a dick that's fine.  I really consider it Europe's problem by he was a thug.
Hussien on the other hand not only was a direct threat to the countries around him he was indirectly attacking American.

HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!

Not all Muslims are alike.  The Balkans ones are not the bad ones.  They pretty much are like the Turks.

I am shamed to have the Serbs call themselves Christians.

Oh, it's very SIMPLE: EU was involved in Kosovo war.
The demand to bomb Yugoslavia was called by NATO and EU countries. But the question is: how come that if was an European call far war, US bombers bombed Yougoslavia?

If you remember President Clinton was in charge at that time. And always at that time he was caught with his c*ck... er... "cigar" in the wrong mouth.

In the aftermath of the war, when the dirty job has been done, Eu troops and Eu politicians took over again in a war where USA interests were marginal and they were involved only to divert US public opinion from sexual habits of his President.

I think Clinton was a fool to go on TV and tell the world that no US soldiers would be sent to invade. He was trying to keep the public in support of the war. He should have gone on TV and said:"The 82nd Airborne is in the air motherfucker!"

I'm learning - thanks.

I'd still watch them personally - I'm prejudiced against all Muslims.

Milosevic cleans up pretty good

There is not much difference.


1)  Both men have destroyed their countries.

2)  Both of them stole money from the goverment.

3)  Responsible for mass genocide (amount of people may vary).

4)  Both were threats to neighboring countries (Yugoslavia- Macedonia/Greece/Albania & Iraq - Iran/Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait).



GOOD RIDENS!

Paulo, you have amazing insight.

Next time I am in Italy, I am definitely buying you a beer.

Like the Balkans ones who have been through the al Qaeda training camps? Those ones?

Obviously not all Muslims or Balkan Muslims are al Qaeda terrorists or supporters, but you can't make a sweeping generalization that all of them are not, either.


And that's the problem for the Serbs. The fact that the Turkish invasion and tyranny in Serbia was in 1389 does absolutely nothing to diminish the hatred the Serbs hold for their conquerors the Turks or the descendants and collaborators of their conquerors, Balkan Muslims.

Want to know how a grudge like that can survive centuries? Google the word "Janissaries."

I work with a well educated Hi tec Serbian guy that explained a couple of things.

Milosevic was a asshole, but warned ahead of months about the danger of Al Qaeda training camps in Kossovo.

Nobody in EU was listening. Why?

Italy was trying to smuggle money for left wing parties acquiring the disastrated Telekom-Sbrjia (the Serbian mobile telephone company) .

French, Germany but above all GREAT BRITAIN made a lot of estate investments and Milosevic menaced them to nationalize everithing.

Got why GB asked USA to bomb Yugoslavia, taking profit of the need of Bill Clinton embarrassment of being caught with his "cigar" in the mouth of Monica Lewinsky?

Thats where the Chetniks came in.  They were the buffer between the Turks and the rest of  western europe. The Chetniks were the most feared by the Muslim invaders.

[img]http://www.tridentmilitary.com/World-Militaria/yu343.jpg[/img]

I'm not saying there are not thugs there and I know that they have issues that go back to the break up of the Roman empire however their societies are quite different from the religous fanaticism of the middle east.  Also they tend to keep the killing isolated to their region.  Sure they are bad guys but so are a billion others.  The worst massacares in the last decade have been in Africa, but we can not afford to fix every world problem. We should only be worried about the ones that are a threat to us.  Hussien was, Milosivic was not.

Milovsovic was no threat to the United States and was therefore the right person to go after.
Hussein directly threatened the US and that is why Bush is a warmonger.
That is the DU explanation anyway.

More to the point, what would Yugoslavia charge Milosovic with?  He never really did anything to his own people.

[B]More to the point, what would Yugoslavia charge Milosovic with?  He never really did anything to his own people.[/B]

Not entirely true.  He did remove Serbians that were opposed to his politics.  He had his own secret police.  Serb dissidents were assassinated and or jailed by his regime.  They were a brutish bunch of hoods and Serbs were victims to.



 

Valid point.
However, not nearly to the extreme of Hussien.
Milosovics crimes are basically those of half the African dictators today.

The Monica Lewinsky sex scandal was all settled by the time Clinton began bombing Serbia--a country that posed no threat to the United States and where we had no compelling national interest--without approval from the United Nations security council in 1999.

Clinton got very tough on Iraq in 1998 during the height of his sex scandals and impeachment hearings.

Thats correct, Milosevic was not to the extreme of Hussein.

The difference is that nobody took down the whole Serbian government and occupied the country.  Milosevic was still pretty popular with the Serbian people.  

In Iraq, the entire regime has been dissolved and the majority of Iraqis aren't great friends of Saddam.  If Saddam had just resigned and the Baathists still held power I doubt that the US would have wanted him to stand "trial" in Iraq.

A clue for the group:

Milosevic was not as bad as the edia portrayed him, nor were the mainstream Serbs.

They were fighting the attempt by the Muslim albanians to *steal* Kosovo.  They had been allowed in as refugees during the Second world war and afterwards; their thanks was to try to steal the province and agitated to either be sovereign, or more likely join to Albania after all was said and done (the Texas strategy).

The Serbs (mainstream) would announce to a Muslim village (the muslim did not usually allow Serbs to live with them) that the village would be razed in four days, it's time to leave.  If they didn't leave force was used.

Yes, there were massacres.  The perpetrators should have been executed; Milosevic covered these up in the interest of getting the war done quickly.  He did not order the massacres; that was never proven.

The news came out of the Euro dominated press (anyone here think they are our friends) and then through the major news organs here (objective and forthright?), so it's no wonder that it was all turned around.

Another case of Muslims stealing a country, but this time the owners said "NO".  So NATO backed the theives and forced the issue.

When Saddam is tried in Iraq, it's going to happen more swiftly than the 3-6 years it probably will for the Hague to try Milosevic.  My perception is that Europeans have short memories, so the longer it takes, the less evil the guy will appear.