Here's a nice tribute to our Military:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL-0mdEg0U4&feature=related

Check it out

pk

Good one, pk. Thanks for sharing it.

PKRAUSE

THAT was great thank you


dgrimm60

You welcome rudywoofs

pk

Thanks dgrimm

pk

That was nice Pete.

Alex

Thanks Alex

pk

Why would you post this on a Christian forum is beyond me. Those 'heroes' have invaded countries, occupied, and murdered on a large scale. Those 'heroes' bombed my country for 3 months in order to support terrorists and the same 'heroes' did nothing when Christian churches and monasteries were burned down and destroyed. These guys are not heroes, they are nothing but a forces of destruction in the service of various neo-colonialist, murdering U.S. administrations.

Maybe a little more information would be helpful.

That's just standard history. Bombing of Serbia, an orthodox Christian country, in 1999. And then basically standing by as Albanian thugs burned down churches and blew up Christian monasteries, built almost a thousand years ago. All in the name of democracy, I guess. Who knows, maybe they even said a prayer to Jesus Christ, as in that video, before they dropped bombs on hospitals, TV stations, schools, and other civilan objects, killing women and children.

Thanks for the reminder. Was there a little more to this than the americans just deciding one morning to bomb Serbia. Can you provide something that gives an indication the americans mapped out the location of hospitals,schools women and children and then proceeded to bomb them?
A little history on the Serbs might be nice as I recollect. Have to check back to make sure tho

This is going too deep into politcs. Check anything on American foregin policy after 1945 and you will find out that there is no other regime as murderous and criminal as the U.S. government. Check on the overthrow of Mossadegh or the overthrow of Qassim. Check what the Americans did in Central and South America. Or in Asia. One murderous campaign after another. All in the name of freedom.

You're full of poppycock. Get a laxative. And some Valium.

No,it shouldn't be to deep into politics.You were the one that with the first post started making accusations.If you did not want to discuss or condemn the US why bring this up in the manner you did.
In between posts I did check out a few sites. Not all the facts I am sure but it seems the Serbian's were not exactly pious altar boys

[quote=Avinoam
This is going too deep into politcs. Check anything on American foregin policy after 1945 and you will find out that there is no other regime as murderous and criminal as the U.S. government. Check on the overthrow of Mossadegh or the overthrow of Qassim. Check what the Americans did in Central and South America. Or in Asia. One murderous campaign after another. All in the name of freedom. [/quote]


I am just remembering some benign regimes like Pol Pot in Cambodia......

Although I would have to say I see nothing "nice" about all those weapons of war; I would also have to say it is pointless to single out the US military like this. Many other governments and their military are just as guilty - but then the equation changes when we start to look at all the military and government personel who are decent honest people and are really trying to make a difference.

Thank you for your kind words.

Just to clarify something: My Adventist family had to hide in bunkers for three months in order to survive bombs dropped from U.S. planes, day and night they lived in fear and witnessed the destruction of their city by the American forces, and now there is an American Adventist on this forum posting a video which glorifies that same military machine, and I am supposed to abstain from commenting on this?

Yes and that same Adventist who's father spent 2 years in german labor camps and than 5 years in concentration camps is very thankful and greatful for those horrible americans that bombed all the cities in germany to free those Jews who were being tortured by the Nazi's. 6 million jews and many others were killed by Nazi's the American soldiers (HEROES in my book) saved europe and probably the rest of the world because no one else wanted to. I've never said that I agree with all the things the USA, its government has done is on the up and up. But this men and women that go into harms way, from any country that helps to keep the peace, they should be praised for risking there lives for all not just the USA. And if we really want to get down to it, my grandfather who was a soldier for the german army was captured by the russian's and given over to the Yugoslavinians to be held as a pow, was brutely tortured by them. My mom said that after the war he came home with broken bones, etc. He said that compared to the yugoslavains the russians were angels. Why don't we go deeper into the history if you would like?????

pk

You make accusations and then say it is to ......going too deep into politcs. Check anything on American foregin policy after 1945 and you will find out that there is no other regime as murderous and criminal as the U.S. government. Check on the overthrow of Mossad

Buildings get blown to pieces and innocent people die in any war.
It sounds like you believe that the americans just woke up one morning and decided your country was a good place to lob a few bombs and make innocent adventists hide in bunkers.

From accounts that have been published sounds like there was a little more to it than that.

Instead of trying to include other area's of war,tell us about yours.
Why was your country under attack?

Well it's not true that the Americans 'saved the world because no one else wanted'. Are you not forgetting the contribution of the Russians? Or the resistance of the individual conutries which were occupied by Germany? Apart from that no one is desputing the American contribution and many in Europe are thankful.

So your grandfather fought for Hitler's Germany, for the Nazis who brought destruction over whole Europe, and considering that 1.7 million Yugoslavs died in WW2 he in fact complains about bad treatment and broken bones? Am I understanding you correctly?

No, it doesnt sound like the Americans woke up one morning and decided today we're gonna bomb this and that country. I am saying this is typical American foreign policy since 1945. It is a clearly developed strategy. Each US administration has developed its doctrines which regulate American interests and these interests are being pursued no matter the cost.

I'm not sure if I would have enough time and space to elaborate on the reasons why my country was under attack, actually I would have thought that you as an American (I assume you are) would be sufficiently informed to know and understand what your country is doing. It seems, however, that this is not the case.

You said "Buildings get blown to pieces and innocent people die in any war." Would you apply the same reasoning for the 9/11 attacks as well?

I did say war,not a mindless attack designed to kill as many innocent people as possible thru cowardly means. These people had no where to hide,no warning.Babies and women as well as men were killed for the sole purpose of instilling as much terror and bloodshed as possible.
Unable to fight military might,they chose innocent people.Many women and babies

Just take a stab at the high lights. I am an american,proud that I am and value those in the military.
Depends on what you call informed.Do I remember every detail of every conflict,NO.Then I go look it up.Interesting,you usually learn more information than you atarted with.

Could the "Butcher of The Balkans" have had anything to do with the events you are describing?

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/m/slobodan_milosevic/index.html

Slobodan Milosevic
Paul Vreeker/Associated Press

Slobodan Milosevic, the Communist leader whose embrace of Serbian nationalism set off almost a decade of Balkan warfare, was found dead early Saturday in his cell at the United Nations detention center in The Hague on March 11, 2006.

Death came as Mr. Milosevic's four-year trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide was drawing to a close with a verdict expected later that year.

He was the first former head of state to answer charges of such crimes and his was the longest war-crimes trial of modern times, delayed by Mr. Milosevic's frequent bouts of illness related to high blood pressure and a bad heart.

Read More...

The complex indictment covered the events of three wars — in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo — and almost a decade of bloodshed and vengeance that killed more than 200,000 people and earned Mr. Milosevic the sobriquet "Butcher of the Balkans."

As he rose and then clung to power by resurrecting old nationalist grudges and inciting dreams of a Greater Serbia, Mr. Milosevic became the prime engineer of wars that pitted his fellow Serbs against the Slovenes, the Croats, the Bosnians, the Albanians of Kosovo and ultimately the combined forces of the entire NATO alliance.

By stirring a dormant but incendiary nationalism, he succeeded in rallying support for himself in the late 1980's, at a time when Communism in the rest of Eastern Europe was in its death throes.

Exercising carefully calculated control of the media and operating ruthlessly behind the scenes, Mr. Milosevic established a cult of personality that struck fear into non-Serbs in Yugoslavia.

The consequences of Mr. Milosevic's rule for Serbia were devastating. His final confrontation, with the Albanians of Kosovo, provoked a NATO bombing assault in the spring of 1999 that destroyed government buildings, factories and much infrastructure in a land already ruined by years of international sanctions intended to punish Mr. Milosevic for instigating earlier wars.

Sounds like a real fun group. There is more including crimes against serbs in the accounts but sounds like Serbs don't have clean hands either

Ethnic Cleansing.....

During the 1990s the term was used extensively by the media in the former Yugoslavia in relation to the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, since sides in conflict used widespread and systematic acts of persecution (murder, violence, detention, intimidation) against opposing populations creating a such coercive atmosphere, atmosphere of fear, that targeted population had no option but to flee or to be deported by force. These acts were carried out from at least August 1991. Croats and Bosniaks were expelled by Serbs, Serbs and Bosniaks by Croats, and even Bosniaks expelled the rival populations from their domains. The ethnic cleansing culminated in 1995 when entire population of Krajina was cleansed of its ancient population.

Mile Budak in WWII coined Croatian plan for purging Croatia of Serbs in genocide and ethnic cleansing, - by killing one third, expelling one third and assimilating the rest.

A Carnegie Endowment report on the Balkan Wars in 1914 points out that village-burning and ethnic cleansing have traditionally accompanied Balkan wars, regardless of ethnicities involved. In probably the earliest attestation of the term, Vuk Karadžić makes use of the word cleanse to describe what happened to the Turks in Belgrade when the city was captured by the Karadjordje's forces in 1806.[11] Konstantin Nenadović wrote in his biography of famous Serbian leader published in 1883 that after the fighting "the Serbs, in their bitterness (after 500 years of Turkish occupation), slit the throats of the Turks everywhere they found them, sparing neither the wounded, nor the woman, nor the Turkish children".[12]

Later attestation of the term cleansing can be found on 16 May 1941, during the Second World War, by one Viktor Gutić, a commander in the Croatian extremist faction, the Ustaše: Every Croat who today solicits for our enemies not only is not a good Croat, but also an opponent and disrupter of the prearranged, well-calculated plan for cleansing our Croatia of unwanted elements [...].[13][unreliable source?] The Ustaše carried out large-scale ethnic cleansing and genocide of Serbs in Croatia during the Second World War and sometimes used the term "cleansing" to describe it.[14].

Some time later, on 30 June 1941, Stevan Moljević, a lawyer from Banja Luka who was an ideologue of the Chetniks, published a booklet with the title On Our State and Its Borders. Moljević assessed the circumstances in the following manner: "One must take the opportunity of the war conditions and at a suitable moment take hold of the territory marked on the map, cleanse [očistiti] it before anybody notices and with strong battalions occupy the key places (...) and the territory surrounding these cities, freed of non-Serb elements. The guilty must be promptly punished and the others deported - the Croats to (significantly amputated) Croatia, the Muslims to Turkey or perhaps Albania - while the vacated territory is settled with Serb refugees now located in Serbia.[1

Bonnie,
you just successfully demonstrated your absolute lack of knowledge on this subject . You knew very little to nothing about the Balkan Wars and then you decided to quote a New York Times article in a vain hope its summary will adequately describe and justify the American act of aggression against a sovereign state. And here is how I know that you know nothing about it, because if you knew you would have not believed the very first sentence of the article you posted. In what sense was Milosevic a communist leader? What exactly does Serbian nationalism mean and how is it expressed? How does it relate to the emergence of other ethnic nationalisms in the area? What are the political, economical, and historical roots of the conflict and what were the mechanisms that set it off?

I don’t even want to go into the rest of the article because it is so poor. If I would have submitted this article as an essay in my university, I would have failed. There is a huge difference between sensationalist media and serious scholarship. The sensationalist media are designed in such way to quickly form a public opinion without going deep into the matter. To your New York Times article I respond by suggesting to read “Yugoslavia Unraveled: Sovereignty, Self-Determination, Intervention” published by Lexington Books and edited by a professor of international affairs. And to find out more about American foreign policy I suggest “Strategic Interests in the Middle East” by Covarrubias, “The Middle East and the United States” by David Lesch, or “The Ambiguous Legacy: U.S. Foreign Relations in the “American Century” by Hogan. This is proper academic literature and, in my opinion, it is the only way to learn and understand.

What is interesting to me, based on our short dialogue, is how you are prepared to defend something you know very little about. And I’m not having a go at you personally but I have experienced the same phenomenon in discussions with other Americans. There is an incredible lack of critical thinking and I was surprised that it is even prevalent amongst Adventists- because we are the one who study and examine and we don’t simply follow the masses. This is why we are keeping the Sabbath and not the Sunday, because we think and reason for ourselves. The overwhelming majority in the scientific world stands for the theory of evolution (cosmological, chemical, human evolution etc.), yet we don’t believe everything the say in the media, we study and find out for ourselves. But when it comes down to politics, you just swallow whatever your government tells you and believe whatever the media throws at you.

It was another war brought to us by those nice folks at CNN and kindly paid for by the American Taxpayers.

I spent a little time there in 92 or 93.

Just my opinion.

Forget those other wars... there's a war brewing on this thread now. :\

No it wasn't the first article I ran across. It was reflecting what I had already read of other accounts.

But you still have offered nothing except to say you are right and all others wrong

http://www.isg-fi.org.uk/spip.php?article373

Socialist Resistance : SR34 - April 2006


Obituary
Slobodan Milosevic- Butcher of the Balkans

Alan Thornett, Geoff Ryan





Slobodan Milosevic died during his trial at the UN’s International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague. He was 64. He stood accused of war crimes in Bosnia- Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo. Whatever the legitimacy of the victors justice represented by the Tribunal, a poor substitute for a true international court, there is no doubt of his guilt. The evidence is overwhelming. He was the butcher of the Balkans. Geoff Ryan and Alan Thornett look at his history in the Balkans.

Milosevic’s role remains controversial on the left; because it involves controversies about the role and nature of Stalinism, the causes of its collapse, and the right of selfdetermination of nations.

It also raises the issue of whether the unity of Yugoslavia could have been preserved and who was principally responsible for its destruction.

The obituary of Milosevic in Socialist Worker (18.3.06) raised such controversies. It makes no significant distinction between the role of Milosevic in the break up of Yugoslavia and that of Franjo Tudjman of Croatia and even Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia- Herzegovina.

It even makes no distinction between them in terms of war crimes - which in the case of Izetbegovic is scandalous.

Yugoslavia was a federation comprising six Federal Republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. There were two Autonomous Provinces, Vojvodina (majority Hungarian population) and Kosova (80 per cent Albanian) - both within the Serb Republic.

There was a history of both Serb and Croatian nationalism prior and during the world war two. This declined in the post-war period under Tito (a Croat) to the extent that many people thought of themselves as Yugoslav.

Milosevic came to prominence in the 1980s through the Communist Party ranks in Serbia and learned his politics in the Belgrade bureaucracy in the latter years of Tito’s rule.

He was pivotal in the breakup of Yugoslavia, and carries the principal responsibility for the carnage involved. He orchestrated the resurgence of Greater Serbian nationalism that led to slaughter on a mass scale.

The internal social and economic crisis that brought down Stalinism in the Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, existed in full force in Yugoslavia. This caused tensions between the Republics and forced Yugoslavia into damaging arrangements with the IMF. Milosevic dealt with the crisis like many of his top functionaries by turning to nationalism.

After Tito’s death in 1980, Yugoslavia could only be held together by a guarantee against the rise of Serbia into the dominant position it held in the pre-war period.

This meant strengthening, rather than weakening, the relatively progressive 1974 constitution - which had devolved power and autonomy to the constituent Republics.
Multinational state

It defined Yugoslavia as a multinational state in which no single nationality could claim a majority. This was the basis on which the Federation coexisted.

This coexistence, however, was soon to come under pressure from Serb nationalism. In the spring of 1981, Kosovar Albanian demonstrators in Pristina, campaigning for Kosova to be promoted to the status of a Federal Republic, were savagely attacked by Serbian police.

In 1987, Milosevic, now Serbian party boss and increasingly a nationalist demagogue, addressed a rally of Serbs in Kosova and made his infamous "no one should dare to beat you" speech. He was lauded by the Serbs and came away as de facto Serb president in waiting.

Six months later Milosevic was indeed President of Serbia - and the direction he was taking was unmistakable. In 1989 even the limited autonomy enjoyed by Kosova and Voijvodina as Autonomous Provinces was abolished and they were annexed by Serbia.

The de facto absorption of Montenegro quickly followed. Milosevic had torn up the 1974 constitution and sought to replace it with a highly centralised state dominated by Serbia.

The consequences for the Federation were absolutely clear. The more dominant Serbia became the less other nationalities were prepared to stay within it.

Milosevic now launched his Greater Serbia project - the creation of a common mono-ethnic state for all the Serbs, then spread across the various Republics.

This concept was supported by all political parties in Serbia and could only be achieved by the break-up of Yugoslavia and the annexation of at least a third of Croatia and two thirds of Bosnia-Herzegovina - with the ethnic cleansing of non- Serbs from those territories.

Once Kosova, Voijvodina and Montenegro were swallowed up, resistance to the advance of Greater Serbia project fell to the newly elected governments of Slovenia and Croatia. They tried to negotiate acceptable terms to stay in the Federation; proposing that it take the form of "a free union of democratic states" - proposals which were supported by Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia.

Milosevic rejected this and all subsequent proposals along these lines.

In December 1990 Slovenia voted in a referendum to secede, though it did not act at that stage. Slovenia was increasingly dragging Croatia with it towards independence.

Franjo Tudjman was now President of Croatia. He was a Stalinist bureaucrat turned Croatian nationalist, later to have war crimes on his hands. In March 1991 the Serbs of the Krajina region of Croatia, in what was claimed to be a spontaneous uprising, took over the region and declared it an independent state. The uprising was led by Serb nationalist strongman Milan Babic. They named it the Autonomous Province of Krajina, later Republika Srpska Krajina.

The uprising had the full backing of Milosevic, and it was armed and supported by the Yugoslav National Army (JNA). Federal authority was collapsing and the JNA was already acting under Serbian control.

This was a body-blow to the unity of Yugoslavia and a massive challenge to Croatia - which was split wide open. Tudjman had no army to resist the JNA and sought to stabilise the situation by diplomacy.

In any case he had his own agenda for carving up theregion (i.e. Bosnia- Herzegovina) in favour of a Greater Croatia once he was pushed towards independence. Milosevic and Tudjman concluded that Yugoslavia was now effectively finished, and that three, or more, successor states would eventually emerge. The issue now was how they would each carve out their own ethnic states to the detriment of Bosnia.

European Community (EC) mediator Lord Carrington reported "When I first talked to Presidents Milosevic and Tudjman, it was quite clear that both of them had a solution which was mutually satisfactory, which was that they were going to carve up Bosnia between them".

In April Milosevic recognised the Krajina as a separate state. Ultra-nationalist Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, called for "an armed force of the Serbian People to be set up throughout the Serbs lands of Yugoslavia". He now articulated the Greater Serbian project even more clearly than his mentor Milosevic. Serbian forces were now occupying a quarter of Croatia, and expanding. It was undeclared war, although Tudjman was reluctant to recognise such reality given the military imbalance he faced. On May 3, he belatedly concluded that war was probably unavoidable.

On May 25, Slovenia and Croatia simultaneously declared independence. The EC opposed the declaration - which was Western policy at that stage. Two days later the JNA invaded Slovenia to prevent the implementation of the declaration.

The JNA were forced to abandon the invasion after 10 days by both international pressure and surprisingly strong Slovenian resistance. Ultimately Slovenia could not have defended itself, but Milosevic had limited interest in Slovenia since it had a negligible Serb population.
Ethnic cleansing

In August, Serb forces carried out the first ethnic cleansing of the war in the Krajina village of Kijevo - a pocket of Croat population surrounded by Serb-held territory. Soon after Babic announced that the Krajina Serb paramilitary forces had fused with the JNA.

In early September, the Croatian city of Vukovar (43 per cent Croat and 37 per cent Serb) was shelled by Serbian irregulars with heavyweapons supplied by the JNA. Tudjman responded by laying siege to JNA barracks across Croatia. On September 19, an JNA force, with tanks and heavy weapons, left Belgrade. Within days Vukovar was under siege.

On October 1, the JNA laid siege to the Croatian port of Dubrovnik - 82 per cent Croat and just 6 per cent Serb. Vukovar fell a month later. It was reduced to rubble after weeks of hand-to-hand fighting. Over 500 Croats were killed and nearly 2,000 wounded.

In November, the Bosnian Serbs, led by Radovan Karadzic, voted to secede from Bosnia and found their own state. Serb deputies had already walked out of the Bosnian Parliament and formed their own. Bosnia was now split apart in the way Croatia had been.

By the end of November, Serb forces had achieved most of their objectives. Milosevic now advocated a cease-fire and UN intervention, which would freeze current battle lines to his advantage. Borisav Jovic, Krajina Serb Interior Minister, put it this way: "At this point the war in Croatia was under control in the sense that all the Serb territories were under our control, all, that is except central Slavonia. Slobodan and I decided now was the time to get the UN troops into Croatia to protect the Serbs there. We saw the danger, when Croatia would be recognised, which we realised would happen; the JNA would be regarded as a foreign army invading another country. So we had better get the UN troops in early to protect the Serbs".

Croatia had lost a third of its territory to Serbian forces. There were thousands of dead and half a million Croatian refugees. Early in December, Tudjman visited Bonn to seek EC recognition. A week later Germany announced that if the EC did not recognise Croatia and Slovenia it would do so unilaterally.

Two weeks later Bosnia- Herzegovina and Macedonia decided to seek independence. The only other choice was being a part of Greater Serbia. On January 17 1992, the EC agreed to recognise Croatia and Slovenia but not Bosnia-Herzegovina or Macedonia.
Assault on Bosnia

On March 1 the assault on Bosnia started when Serb paramilitaries erected barricades in Sarajavo, dividing the city. Bosnia was torn apart by Serbian and Croatian forces for three years. Cities were bombed to rubble and their inhabitants starved out. Europe saw its first genocide, since world war two. Bosnian Muslims faced massacre, rape, and terror. In Srebrenica 7,000 Muslim men and boys were killed in the course of a few days. Thousands of Bosnian women were raped as part of a policy of terror. Three quarters of Bosnia?s territory was occupied by either Serbian or Croatian forces.

There are many legitimate criticisms of the Bosnian regime. But it is preposterous to suggest it was no different to those of Milosevic or Tudjman. Bosnia was by far the most multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Yugoslav Republic. Bosnia fought a war of survival in defense of a multiethnic society.

That multi-ethnicity mostly survived throughout the war. There were Serbs and Croats at every level of the Bosnian state and military. 10 per cent of the army were Serb or Croat, and there were 50,000 Serbs and 30,000 Croats in Bosnian Sarajavo throughout the siege.

The war ended in 1995 after Bosnia had at last turned the tide on the battlefield and began take back parts of its territory. Suddenly Milosevic, the architect of the conflict, became the West’s negotiating partner in Dayton Peace Treaty - which he signed on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs who he had drawn into the conflict. A divided Bosnia was turned into a UN protectorate and left to pick up the pieces.

In nearly 5 years of warfare in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia not a single military action had taken place on the soil of Serbia. In all three cases, war had been waged by forces receiving orders from Belgrade, aided by irregulars trained and equipped by the JNA. As a result quarter of a million died, mainly civilians, half a million wounded, and three million made refugees. All ideas of "equal responsibility" for this should be rejected. We should not equate the aggressor with the victim.

Milosevic was the prime mover of these wars, Tudjman was a second string dictator with regional ambitions and plenty of blood on his hands. Izetbegovic was the leader of the principle victim of these wars.

After the Bosnian war finished Milosevic was already developing another - his ethnic war against the Kosova Albanians. During the next four years 350,000 ethnic Albanians were driven out of the country to become refugees.

In 1998 the Kosovan Albanians mounted mass protests against Serbian rule, police troops were sent in to suppress them. In 1999 an escalating refugee crisis was used by NATO to launch an unprecedented bombing campaign against Serbia, which went on for 78 days.

The US dominated Alliance had found a role for itself in the post Soviet era, an opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of it weaponry, and as a means of extending its influence to the East.

In Britain a campaign was launched against the war in the form of The Committee for Peace in the Balkans. The role of Milosevic remained controversial The Committee itself was silent on his role. The SWP strongly opposed the bombing but underplayed Milosevic’s campaign against Kosova. Socialist Action (SA) was influential in the Committee at the time, saw Milosevic as some kind of representative of actually existing socialism and described Serbia as "the chief obstacle to the capitalist break-up of Yugoslavia.

Such politics influenced the shape, and unfortunately the size, of the anti-war mobilisations - since it gave them a strong pro-Serb flavour. Most potential supporters of the movement beyond the ranks of the organised left, started from strongly opposing the ethnic cleansing of the Kosova Albanians, and stayed away once they perceived the pro-Serb bias of the movement - even those who did not see NATO as a solution.

The issue of independence for Kosova, which we advocated as the only lasting solution, was not taken up by the SWP. We argued that there were two wars taking place: one waged by Milosevic against Kosova and another against Serbia by NATO - and we were opposed to both. We called for NATO out of the region and Serbia out of Kosovo. We were part of a coordination within the Committee of those groups supporting this position.

Many on the left (particularly SA but including Tony Benn and other anti-war MPs) insisted that Yugoslavia had been broken up not by Milosevic’s project but by imperialist intervention. They pointed the decision of Germany and the EC to recognise Slovenia and Croatia (the richest Republics) as independent states. Once Slovenia and Croatia had gained independence, they argued, it was "natural" for Serb minorities within Croatia and Bosnia to "rebel" and the scene was set for war.

However, as explained above, German and EC recognition of Croatia and Slovenia came almost a year after the start of war in the region. It came a long time after the invasion of Slovenia and Croatia by Serbian forces: i.e. well after the dye was cast on the unity of Yugoslavia. Imperialism, particularly Germany, did seek to intervene, of course, but this was not decisive.

The bombing of Serbia ended when a compromise was found acceptable to both NATO and Milosevic. Key for Milosevic was that Kosova remained part of Serbia and that the multi-national force moving in to occupy Kosova was under UN (rather than NATO) control.

Previously unacceptable conditions, such as the right of NATO to access to any part of Serbia were dropped. A similar deal could probably have been struck with Milosevic without the bombing. The national rights of the Kosovars were set aside in all this and remain unresolved. Yet again the lesson has not been learned that the problem of the Balkans cannot be resolved without the right of self-determination for all the peoples of the region being respected.

Fittingly Milosevic’s final undoing did not come at the hands of imperialism. In October 2000 a mass uprising of Serbian workers, a general strike, mass demonstrations and the storming of the parliament over a disputed election result, drove him and his corrupt clique from office. Six months later he was arrested and taken to The Hague.

The Hague Tribunal has been selective as to whom it pursues. Radovan Karadzic and his military chief Ratko Mladic never been brought to book for Srebrenica.

Neither have the likes of Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and General Wesley Clark - who bombarded Serbia for 78 days killing thousands of people - they also go unpunished. The use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs, the targeting of a civilian passenger train, the Chinese embassy and Radio Serbia - killing 16 media workers - seem to be of no consequence in The Hague.

The imperialist war-mongers can rest a bit easier now. Milosevic’s attempt to bring them to Hague as witnesses to expose their crimes has come to an end with his passing.

To read all...

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/jaffor/Milosevic150306.htm



Milosevic—the butcher of the Balkans—dies at 64

A.H. Jaffor Ullah

Published on April 02, 2006

Bright and early on March 11, 2006, we learned that the prime architect of genocide in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, Slobodan Milosevic, passed away in custody while a trail was being conducted by the tribunal at The Hague since 2002. The charges were serious. In a few months time, Milosevic could have received a verdict of guilty for committing crime against humanity. But that did not happen. The ex-president of Serbia was chronically ill with heart ailment and hypertension. His family asked the tribunal to send him to Russia for treatment but the request was declined. Consequently, before a judgment could be handed down to him, he passed away. And along with it, a dark chapter of human history will remain closed at least for the time being.

Why should the world be so concerned with the news of his passing away now that the condemned Serbian politician awaited a trail at The Hague? Lest we forget, Slobodan Milosevic was the villain whose meteoric rise to power in Serbia in late 1980s and early 1990s had changed the course of history of Balkans as Russian Empire in Eastern Europe came crumbling down at that time. Influenced by the rhetoric from Serbian president, Milosevic, Bosnian Serbs planned to massacre Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995. Under the growing world opinion against the Bosnian genocide, the NATO ordered air strikes against Bosnian Serbs; only then did Milosevic join the presidents of Bosnia and Croatia in peace agreement at US-sponsored talks at Dayton, Ohio.

Milosevic was no ordinary Serbian politician. Yugoslavia broke up into 7 smaller nations, namely, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, when he was at the helm in Belgrade. It was a difficult and turbulent time for the people Balkans. Add to this misery, the genocide against Kosovo’s Albanians and Bosnia’s Muslims. You get the picture—an ugly one. Many political observers at the time thought that Serbians did the killing in Kosovo and Bosnia while Russians tacitly approved the killing. Moscow could have exerted its influence by telling Milosevic to stop the genocide. However, that did not happen. Because of the negligence of the West and Russia many innocent lives were lost in the hands of Serbian soldiers. Should Milosevic be blamed for all the killings? Let the experts speak on the issue.

EDITORIAL: The Butcher of the Balkans.(Editorial)
Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL) | March 13, 2006

Mar. 13--The treacherous Balkan wars of the 1990s had no single patron, but only one of that era's leaders earned the nickname "Butcher of the Balkans." Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic exploited ethnic tensions with remarkable efficiency. After his death Saturday in a Dutch prison cell at age 64, a U.S. State Department spokesman neatly summed up Milosevic's life achievements: He said Milosevic "was the principal figure responsible for the violent dismemberment of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, including the outbreak of two horrific wars in Bosnia and Kosovo."

Milosevic ... really sounds like a misunderstood hero to me

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O126-KosovoCrisis1999.html


Kosovo Crisis (1999). In spring 1999, a major crisis erupted over Kosovo, the southernmost province of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, with the forces of Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic escalating a terrorist campaign to drive out the ethnic Albanian Muslim majority and ensure dominance of the historic region by the Serbian Orthodox Christian minority. When Milosevic had earlier revoked the province's semi‐autonomous status and begun the persecution, ethnic Albanians had protested, then formed a rebel terrorist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army, seeking independence. In early 1999, NATO sponsored talks between Kosovo Albanians and Serbs in Rambouillet, France, but although the Kosovo Albanians grudgingly accepted a proposed settlement for broad autonomy for the province for three years (with possible independence afterwards) and 28,000 NATO troops in Kosovo and Serbia to enforce it, the Serbs rejected it.

Milosevic increased his forces in Kosovo and began mass terrorism of the ethnic Albanian population, killing some inhabitants to frighten the rest and burning entire villages. NATO had already authorized the use of force, and on 23 March 1999, President Bill Clinton declared that military means were necessary to halt the Serbian aggression. The next day, NATO forces began an extensive air assault on targets in Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo, the majority of cruise missiles and bombs delivered from American planes and ships. It was the biggest allied military assault in Europe since World War II and NATO's first actual combat, but Serbian forces quickly continued to drive ethnic Albanian refugees—ultimately a million of them—from their homes into neighboring Macedonia, Montenegro, and Albania, as the Kosovo Crisis threatened to spread throughout the Balkans.

In the next ten weeks, NATO waged an escalating air war against military and other targets in Serbia and Kosovo, flying 35,000 missions, including 10,000 in which 23,000 bombs or missiles were dropped. Hampered by bad weather and political fears in the alliance, the air campaign started slowly and ineffectively, but over time, more aggressive bombing and the use of precision‐guided munitions enabled NATO to destroy numerous military targets as well as targets in the urban infrastructure, including ultimately electricity grids and water supplies. NATO estimated that at least 5,000 Yugoslavian soldiers and police were killed (Serbia said 600); in addition, perhaps 1,200 civilians died as a result of mistaken bombings of trains, hospitals, and most prominently, the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. NATO lost only two aircraft, one of them a Stealth fighter, but both American pilots were rescued. By the end of May, a ground offensive along the Kosovo borders by the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army dislodged many Serbian forces out of their hiding places, allowing NATO aircraft to destroy them. The civilian population in the Serbian cities was suffering deprivation from the bombings. Although the British government pressed for a ground attack, political opposition to the war grew within Italy, Greece, and Germany, and the resolve of the NATO alliance showed signs of weakening.

On 3 June 1999, responding to the deteriorating situation and pressed by Russian and Finnish envoys, Milosevic declared that he accepted an international peace plan aimed at ending the Kosovo conflict and allowing the ethnic Albanian refugees to return to what remained of their homes in Kosovo. Under its terms, all of the 40,000 Serbian military and police forces would withdraw rapidly from Kosovo which they did beginning 10 June, following another week of bombing, and some 50,000 foreign troops all under a United Nations flag—many of them, including an estimated 7,000 U.S. forces, from NATO and under NATO command—would move in to police the province. Independence for Kosovo was not part of the new proposal, instead there would be “substantial autonomy” to be decided by the UN Security Council. The sixteen‐member NATO alliance had held together long enough to force Milosevic to let the Kosovar refugees return, but what remained uncertain was the ultimate future of Kosovo as well as the long‐term use of NATO military forces in such wars and peacekeeping operations in the twenty‐first century.

I'm proud of the US Military. My ancestors fought in the American Revolution and in every war since then. And if Avinoam has a problem with patriotism being shown on this forum, then that's his problem.

I would think with the very dramatic opening post against the US more could be offered than it is to complex to explain,or that CNN is somehow responsible.
I think most americans are already aware that any war fought is funded by the taxpayer but that seems somehow to be surprising.

I have a great deal of respect for those in the military and what they are asked to give up.

While Iam not a great fan of CNN I guess I would like to see the role CNN had in creating the conflict.

I think most rational people understand that no country has always conducted itself to a perfect standard.Irrational people demand the US be the one perfect country.Ridiculing the US because they are not the one country to conduct itself to another countries idea of perfectionism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_koso.htm

It really doesn't sound like CNN had much to do with this,

NATO bombing:

NATO attacked Yugoslavia with air power in an attempt to force the Yugoslav government to accept the agreement. By early 1999-APR, the goal of NATO appeared to shift to the attaining of full independence for Kosovo. Widespread assaults, ethnic cleansing, rapes and murders of ethnic Albanian civilians by the Serbian army and militia, which had started long before NATO bombing began, accelerated. Hundreds of thousands were forced to flee the province to prevent being exterminated. It probably became impossible for the Muslim population of Kosovo to accept any form of future association with the Yugoslavian government. Full independence was the only feasible ultimate option.

Did the Serbs commit genocide?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_koso.htm

Civilian populations are increasingly being targeted during recent civil wars. However, atrocities must match certain specific criteria before they are considered genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as:

"... certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. The proscribed acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring its children to another group, or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part." 4

Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia during the mid 1990s started as mass expulsions of civilians. It escalated to include internment in concentration camps, mass executions, rapes, etc. There was a clear policy by the Serbs "to exterminate Muslim Bosnians as a group..." 4 Their actions were generally considered to be genocide. There is a general consensus that widespread atrocities were also committed by the Muslims and the Croats (largely Roman Catholic). But the level of their war crimes did not reach genocidal proportions.

There have been allegations that the Serbs were also engaged in genocide in Kosovo before and during the NATO bombing. Media correspondents and human rights investigators conducted large-scale interviews of Kosovar refugees. The data collected show that the Geneva Conventions concerning civilians had been ignored and that extremely serious war crimes were perpetrated by the Yugoslavian army, police and militias. There appeared to be a consensus of human rights investigators that the quantity and type of documented atrocities proved that genocide had been committed by the Yugoslavian government against the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. This belief was confirmed as the NATO forces occupied Kosovo. Mass graves were located and were systematically examined by forensic specialists. Ethnic Albainians came out of hiding with horrendous stories to tell. In excess of 11,000 murders were reported to authorities. According to a report by the U.N.'s chief prosecutor in Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, on 1999-NOV-10, 2,108 complete corpses and an unknown but large number of incomplete bodies were found.

There certainly were mass crimes against humanity in Kosovo. Whether the situation would qualify for the term "genocide" depends on one's precise definition of the term.

Please excuse me for butting in here; but I think that "9-11" should also be classed as war too.

I do appreciate your points re doing the homework and seeing what was involved on all sides in a given conflict. War never looks right, no matter what way we look at it. Sometimes the US is "wrong" sometimes they are not. They have done a lot to serve and protect many other countries besides their own, As a Canadian; I am quite grateful for how they have tried to make the world a better place, including Canada.

It is my suggestion that we could say the same things about any other country in the world, that some of us tend to say about the US. I used to have a Tee Shirt in high school that said: "STOMP OUT VIOLENCE!" Many governments have taken that way too seriously.

Bonnie, no need to show every new poster how toxic you can be.

I'm sorry. I really thought this rude and toxic that began the whole thing.......

Why would you post this on a Christian forum is beyond me. Those 'heroes' have invaded countries, occupied, and murdered on a large scale. Those 'heroes' bombed my country for 3 months in order to support terrorists and the same 'heroes' did nothing when Christian churches and monasteries were burned down and destroyed. These guys are not heroes, they are nothing but a forces of destruction in the service of various neo-colonialist, murdering U.S. administrations.

Maybe it is best to accuse instead of adding historical accounts as it seems you consider those toxic

I don't think Bonnie was being "toxic" in her posts. She was responding to the very rude remark from someone who obviously has a grudge against the United States. She was giving historical data to contradict the accusations of the poster.



That's offensive to me and my country.

I agree,it was an act of war,but not one we knew we were having.Deliberate attacks on as many innocents as possible is not the typical definition of war tho.



The US has been wrong at times,sometimes misguided but wrong and I suspect at times those in control have deliberately been wrong for their own aims.
The US is the only country that is held to the standard of perfection.The exception I think may be Israel. Surrounded by nations that have the one wish to exterminate them are also held to that standard of perfection and when the US or Israel fails there is great glee in condemnation



The difference from what you say is the US is not allowed to make bad decisions and every other country is.

I always was proud of this country when it went to the aid of others but the last few years I could resent my tax dollar going to those that do nothing but condemn and then hold their hand out for the evil US to come help.
I am not a fan of Obama.But the US should just flat out pull out of Haiti and let those so free to condemn even our aid there take over and do it better.Sadly that would make a lot of innocents pay and bring another round of "Why aren't you doing it better"

Toxic must have a new meaning....... historical data

My replies are in blue font

[quote=bonnie]
quote]It is my suggestion that we could say the same things about any other country in the world, that some of us tend to say about the US. I used to have a Tee Shirt in high school that said: "STOMP OUT VIOLENCE!" Many governments have taken that way too seriously.

The difference from what you say is the US is not allowed to make bad decisions and every other country is.

I always was proud of this country when it went to the aid of others but the last few years I could resent my tax dollar going to those that do nothing but condemn and then hold their hand out for the evil US to come help.

Well; "the evil Canada" assists the USA in many of these ventures. The USA is not the only country "not allowed" to make "bad decisions."

I am not a fan of Obama.But the US should just flat out pull out of Haiti and let those so free to condemn even our aid there take over and do it better.Sadly that would make a lot of innocents pay and bring another round of "Why aren't you doing it better" /quote]

There were people in there helping before the US got there.

I am not so sure that they were "rude remarks." I can certainly understand how you would find some of it "offensive" but if we listen closely to what Avincam has been saying; they are saying that they have some personal experience with something that the US actually did do. This poster's conclusions about the US based on same may or may not be accurate; but it is important to recognize the deep level of pain and suffering such people have gone through. War hurts, and any country involved in war will hurt others. We should recognize this fact with more respect; even if it was our country that did the hurting.

The US is the only country I know that was quite freely condemned. There were many from the US there with schools,missions,clinics etc prior to the earthquake

Well your opinion is fair enough. I am just thinking that Canada has been quite freely condemned in this and many other international matters too. We could go on and on with the comparisons; but I think that for the US or it's citizens to go "O poor me" because of criticisms and concerns is a bit of a stretch here.

The poster who spoke of US bombs decimating their city, and US military wreaking havoc with their family, all the pain, the injury, the death, the terrible trappings of war, its not something to just sweep under the rug because of what we call "criticism." There are cases where the US "just war doctrines" are clearly unjust.

I felt badly when the above poster talked about the terrible ordeal they went through. It reminded me of what has happened with some of my family members over in Poland during the war. I find myself wondering if you would be inclined to say the same kinds of things about me should I tell you about my wife's great Grandma who was forced at gunpoint by the Polish military to dig her own grave, with her bare hands, along with 80 others of this small town's women? Would I go down in your books as "freely criticising Poland" for telling that story to the world?

The pain and suffering of the victims of war is real; we cannot make it go away with "the right answer." IMHO

Is a war just when innocent Christians are hurt?

Only if the US is fighting it. :\

A tag on.....

Wars of any kind are terrible. There is nothing 'heroic' about them. People can be heroic, but not the war. Our soldiers are doing the job their country assigned them to do. As long as it, the war, follows the 'rules of conflict' and the Geneva convention the soldiers should not be held responsible for their acts. Civilians will always be casualties, regardless of religion or politics. The war is fought in their 'neighborhood', not some mystical place.

War is evil, but the alternative could be even more evil.

If I remember right Canada has been quite free in it's anti- american sentiments as well.I am not familiar with condemnation of Canada. Everyone is entitled to their opinion or so most seem to think.The new poster was very direct in his opinion condemning the person posting the tribute to the military and in leveling accusations.Is this where he is the only one that can? He was asked for specifics and refused.

You have defined it as "O poor me". It is more disgust.As Stan rightly pointed out it is the "american taxpayer" that pays.Pays many times with life and resources to the very ones slapping with one hand while holding the other out to get as much as possible.
For me personally,if I have that type of contempt and criticisms of someone I do not lean on them in bad times.I leave them alone and do not want help from those whose values are completely opposed to mine.






The poster provided nothing but condemnation .Asked for specifics he couldn't be bothered.War is not pretty,fun,or glamorous.Far to many innocents lose their lives,homes and everything they hold dear. As for "sweeping under the rug" that was my thoughts on a refusal to offer anything except more accusations. Clearly this region has had numerous long standing problems. Nor do the accounts present a clean,pristine image of the kindness and gentleness of the Serbian people.I would assume there were acts of uncalled for violence by more than one side over the years.What I did find in their behalf was provided by communist and socialist accounts. I don't put a whole lot of faith in anyone with that ideology



If you refused to provide any information on a incident that information was available I would be skeptical.I don't doubt what you say or that people in those times in those countries did just that. War does that. I often wonder if those that could force a fellow human to do that had anything that made them human themselves.
If this was standard behaviour for Poland and that is who they were,there should be more than criticisms




Usually in war, for those that are innocent and get caught in the crossfire there is no right answer.Never has been since the wars and battles of the OT.

Is your concern just for innocent christians or any innocent that is hurt or kiled?

Maybe you should go back to OT times and see if those wars fought by the direction of God managed somehow to only kill the bad guys.

I find this to be 'toxic'. JMHO

Did Avinoam ever stop to think that if the US hadn't bombed his country, he and his family might be D E A D today.. I'm sorry, but I get tired of people criticizing the United States military. We are not perfect, but if someone in the world is in trouble, who do they look to for help? My opinion, not that it's worth anything in this forum, is that people just shut up about criticizing our troops and start supporting them. They aren't in a foreign country because they *want* to be. They'd much rather be home.

I would have voted for this to be classified toxic but.....

Why would you post this on a Christian forum is beyond me. Those 'heroes' have invaded countries, occupied, and murdered on a large scale. Those 'heroes' bombed my country for 3 months in order to support terrorists and the same 'heroes' did nothing when Christian churches and monasteries were burned down and destroyed. These guys are not heroes, they are nothing but a forces of destruction in the service of various neo-colonialist, murdering U.S. administrations.

I was going to just say "innocent", but I didn't want anyone to start talking about how so-and-so isn't really innocent anyway. But I can't possibly imagine why Christians would fight against Christians, so I added that word.

Well... God told them to destroy the wicked. I imagine that means that those they killed were... wicked.

No innocent babies or children?

War is a fact of life. People have been killing each other since Cain smacked Abel upside the head with a rock. In this world war will not be avoided. The very nature of war means that innocent people will be hurt and die.
As to what has been said here,I really doubt the US deliberately targeted innocent civilians.
From the various accounts provided it is pretty clear serbians did and that "Butcher of the Balkans" was a pretty accurate term.
That region seemed quite proficient in bloody conduct prior to the US bombing in 1999.
How much thought was given to all the innocents that died leading up to that

It is interesting to see how you cant see that it happens elsewhere too.

I am thinking you would likely change your tune if you were in the posters family's place of having suffered through 3 months of bombing in your city. As I mentioned; the poster's "condemnation" is understandable; however, your condemnation of the poster is not so easy to understand. I have read through all your posts in this topic, and to be quite honest; I am having a lot of trouble figuring out your main point.

I also have to wonder when people say "support our troops;" do they mean support the war, or support the troops?

To me; "A Tribute To Our Military" should include much more than guns, planes, and military might.

That is not possible for us to know, but I think that the children, growing up in an evil society, would have been just as evil as their parents. I don't think God would have instructed His people to kill innocents.

And war hurting innocent people is okay then? Because war is a "fact of life"?

You took just a little liberty with what I said. I did not say it didn't happen elsewhere.I said I was unaware of it being directed at Canada


Point,if you are going to label the US as some type of murdering thugs,give some details.Don't refuse by saying it is to complicated.I would probably be a little more angry at the years preceding those three months.

It was not a calm peacful area where all lived in safety and then the US shows up.


I am not sure how you can support the troops and not a war.




Maybe you need to rewatch the video. Seems there was more than guns and planes being displayed
The military is guns,planes and military might. They are not a Red Cross unit.They are often used in other area's but first and foremost they are fighting men and women.

Can you please show me where I said hurting innocent people is alright? Must be a typo I should find and correct.

Saying something is a fact of life is not saying it is okay or should happen.
Innocent people are often caught in the crossfire. In war it is inevitable and unavoidable.Just as war is in this world

I am not sure how you can support the troops and not a war.


I would apologize if I could agree that I did take a little liberty on that note, but the fact remains, as posted by you, that whenever I tried to say something about Canada; you took the stance that wanted to debate that. If that is not saying so I don't know what is.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound accusatory. So you are against wars in which innocent people are hurt? Good! :)

There has never been a war that did not kill innocent people. I would much rather no one be killed or die.I would much rather never hear of another war being fought.That is not likely
In practical terms I know as long as this world lasts it will always be the same.
Our family is not a stranger to innocents dying as many are not.

If saying I was unaware of criticism of Canada is wanting to debate it,so be it.
I am unaware of that happening.

I have to agree with Bonnie on this. Have not heard of any other country being condemned for anything but the USA. And also agree with Pam that if not for the USA many, many more would've died in the struggles of all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. And besides that we did not just come in there are bomb without being asked.

pk

No criticism of Canada, eh? Your's or Bonnie's statements re the US being the only ones criticized, is only a personal opinion; which does not make it fact.

I'm sorry overaged. I have to disagree with you on this one. If they say that haven't heard criticism ... then I believe them that they have not heard criticism. Why would they lie. Therefore their statement is a fact and correct.

You could be right overaged, I'm not stating a fact just an observation over some 40 years. Have seen where Canada, Australia, Germany, etc, have all critized the USA for one reason or another. And probably diserved in some instance's, I wont argue that. I do believe if people want to critize the US they should critize the government. The soldiers of any country only do what they are told. They are all hero's to there countries and should be honored for there service.

pk

You are still making what was actually said into what you wanted it to have been.
Neither PK or I said "It is a fact Canada has not been criticized".Rather we were unaware of that happening.It was not stated as a personal opinion but rather "WE HAD NOT HEARD THAT AND WERE UNAWARE IT HAD"

You are right,IT IS A FACT I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT REGARDING CANADA.
I have heard Canada very critical of the US tho.

OK.

What is that supposed to mean? Im not sure if Im following any longer. The American bombs put the lives of mu family in danger, they didnt save them! That was the whoe point!

Don't be "sorry," in my eyes you have done nothing wrong!

Bonnie,

you said I didnt offer any specifics but just condemned the poster who posted that link. Well that's simply not true. I was amazed how an Adventist can post something like this because I thought it is inconsiderate to other Adventists who have suffered a great deal from the same military machine my American Adventist brother is praising and glorifying! In this context I'd rather have NO Adventists ever praising anything that's got to do with war, war-ships, guns, and bombs, etc.

Secondly, about your specifics. This may sound arrogant but I could not believe YOU as an American are asking me for specifics? I was wondering if you do not know what YOUR country is doing and for what reasons? And then I realized that you really dont know anything about it! You have based your opinion on one of the most complex historical issues on some newspaper articles scrambled all over the internet. I simply dont know how to respond to this, I wouldnt even know where to begin! I have studied this subject and the subject of American foreign policy for nearly ten years, half of them on academic-university level. I don't have the time to educate you on an internet forum, there are universities that offer whole modules on Eastern European history, this is how much time is required to properly understand it. Now, of course, it would be stupid to require this level of education in order to participate in a casual debate in this forum, however, you have to understand that there is a possibility that you may be wrong in your opinion and willing to learn!

When I talk about war I talk about something real that I have experienced. I'm talking about losing half of my school friends who were tortured and shot dead. I'm talking about my cousin whose ears and nose were cut off and whom my uncle carried wrapped up in a garbage bag to bury him. I'm talking about my uncle who was tortured, beaten and walked like a dog, which eventually drove him mad and he died soon after the war. I'm talking about my house which was burned down, my house, my street, my entire town!

And in all this I see the American complicity. This complicity was expressed on so many different levels, it is documented, it is recorded, and it would take me weeks to fully explain this to you. The American government had lied and manipulated and there is overwhelming evidence that they did not want a peaceful solution but that they wanted to start the war! And this is where education starts! If you are interested I can provide literature on this, but please, in the name of our saviour Jesus, quit talking about being 'proud of our troops' and 'proud of our heroes'. Those heroes have brought unimaginable pain to so many people in the world. If there is anything we should glorify it should be Jesus and not guns and bombs, and not some army of humans!

Yes; it must have been so exciting when they bombed your country for such a "good" reason. I sure hope they come and bomb us soon too to "save" my family.

Your opening post blasted a poster who posted the military tribute.
You may consider it inconsiderate,the good thing is you do not have to read the military tribute.

I don't doubt adventists have been caught in the acts of war. Were those acts of war targeting and singling out adventists? I rather doubt that.










Do you think an american remembers and focuses on every conflict.It has been quite some time since I had really paid attention to that area. Many things have happened since to draw attention away from that.








Every article I have read so far,with the exception of the communist and socialist websites have said pretty much the same thing.






And the american military did this?? I am sorry you had to go thru that but I have read where the other side made the same claims.










What you claim to see and what others writing about it claim are opposites. Atrocities by the "Butcher of the Balkans" rivals and many times far exceeds the atrocities from the other side.
You blame americans,that is your right. It is my right as well as others to not accept what you are saying as fact.
I am proud of our troops. You do not have to agree,but a little backup for your accusations would be nice

Yes, this whole exchange demonstrates in vivid contrast the supremely arrogant ignorance we Americans seem to have regarding how the rest of the world views us and our foreign policies and the "help" we bring to them.

I'm all for getting out of other countries and letting them fight their own battles without American involvement, militarily and monetarily.. But I am proud of our American troops. Not so much of the American foreign policies....but the troops deserve more than derision.

Did you honestly believe that the above is what rudywoofs said/meant or just deliberately exaggerating to make it look like that?

Do you honestly believe what I posted was directed at "rudywoofs?" Do you honestly believe that I sincerely meant every word of that post literally? You use your words here like guns. Guess thats why the warning in your signature about that "gun" you are keeping? BTW I don't want "the change."

I asked a question regarding your post rather than assume.
Your replied with her quote and it seemed like in a mocking way
If asking you a question is like using a gun I guess that will have to be.
It seems you had a gun when responding to PK and I. Something we did not say and you insisted more than once we did.

Of course.

And do you know what would happen Pam? All those countries would than cry as to why we are not doing anything to help them from there invading neighbors. This has always been the problem. I don't think the USA wants to be in all these countries either. Its that they all look to us to help, and when we don't they just wonder why we don't care. So I agree Pam we should get out and leave them all to themselves, and I'd put money on this one, (and I don't gamble period, because I know that there's no way you can win) but this is a sure winner, within no time they'd be asking us back.

pk

Yep

So do Canadians. Anti-Canadian rhetoric and hatred is rife in America; and for posters here to suggest otherwise is plain denial of reality.

Canada Should Be Part Of 'Axis Of Evil?' This is one of many possible examples. The point being is that there IS just as much hatred towards us coming out of America, as there is 'criticism' of the US military machine; coming out of Canada.

Criticising a miltary and their objectives/agendas is not the same as criticising the troops themselves. No one who knows anything would try to blame the soldiers personally; in fact many of the soldiers; US or otherwise, do not support certain wars, including some of the current ones.

The original point of the OP here is properly questioned, by other posters, and is based upon many factors that are not made up. I would rather brag about the people, the troops instead of all the guns and the planes and the ships. I have a very good friend in the army here and have often pointed to him as an example for my kids. But I point to the person; not his guns and his specialized training in how to kill. This kind of bragging about the US military is just bad taste - poor choice, considering the sentiments of the average individual here.

Tell me what is so hard about understanding that what was said was not a denial of any fact. Unaware means unaware of what you were saying,nothing more,nothing less.


Are you serious that this is an example of hatred towards Canada by the US? ......As I read the headline in the paper, it suddenly came together for me. The frigid air that had settled over Brooklyn and much of the Northeast, the biting winds scouring my fingers and ears raw: where had they come from? Why, the paper proclaimed… Canada! "Canadian Air Mass Settles over Northeast," it said.

It was the final piece of the puzzle. When we had suffered through the major blackout of last summer, wasn't there immediate speculation that it was a Canadian power company that was to blame? When Mad Cow disease was found in the US, didn't some point the finger at Canadian cows?



This seems to be blaming the troops themselves......Those 'heroes' have invaded countries, occupied, and murdered on a large scale. Those 'heroes' bombed my country for 3 months in order to support terrorists and the same 'heroes' did nothing when Christian churches and monasteries were burned down and destroyed.If this was not actions taken by the troops what was it?







Soldiers have a tough time being soldiers without the guns and planes and ships.

I am not sure you have the right to determine for americans where and when positive comments are made concerning our military.
Some even considered the blast and accusations made was in bad taste.

Actually I do if I am Canadian and we are being accused.

I pretty well figured you would say what you have said above; but the fact remains that any American who thinks we should be a part of the 'Axis of Evil' which is what all the current conflict that both our military forces are invloved in, needs a good dose of reality, and so does anyone excusing it away.

Well, call me in denial then, because in all my born years I haven't heard ANY anti-Canadian rhetoric or hatred here in America. The worst thing I ever heard was the word "Cannuck" and that was from my Canadian roommate at college. At the very worst, I thought Canadians were friends of Americans. Guess I was wrong, eh?

I am trying to point out that this thing where no one can critisize the US military, or they're guilty of....whatever, and of saying that the Americans are "the only ones EVER critisized" is wrong. No one has proved me wrong yet; except to deny it.

As far as I know, most Americans are our friends; but there is that other side...

No,you may claim that right but I doubt if any that choose to give a tribute to our troops will be suitably impressed enough to be silent.


The link you gave is hardly credible evidence of claiming Canada should be part of "the axis of evil"

Call it excusing it away but have never heard anyone with the IQ of an egg plant consider cold air from canada as proof of that

You just can't be taking this seriously as a accusation that canada should be part of the axis of evil

So, I say we need to add Canada to the axis of evil. What did Saddam Hussein ever do to the US that can compare with this list of Canadian outrages? It's high time we correct the mistake we made in the War of 1812, and march all the way to Ottawa.

Well, of course it's not "credible evidence" because you say so. I forgot - sorry. But you have missed the point.

I certainly did.If this is what you call anti-canadian sentiment it is no wonder I forgot it.
I would have taken it as a joke much like the jokes between the states of Mn and Wisc.
Never in my wildest imagination would I have ever consdiered this is what you were referring to

And as for Avinoam who stated:


I hope he never feels the need to come to the United States or use any products or manufactured goods, or services from the U.S. As far as I'm concerned, to be very blunt, he's not welcome here.

Yes and no to everything you say. Thankyou and good day to you.

I personally would not be that harsh to any American who criticised us. And I also know some American Christians who would welcome Avinoam with open arms.

well, bully for you. You and your nice *Christian* friends can ..... do what you please. He would not be welcome in my house, nor in the homes of a lot of other Americans who hear and read that kind of abuse of our troops.

SO, what kind of I'm-a-better-Christian-than-you-are remark are you going to make to me now, eh?

LOL

DON'T LAUGH AT ME.

Let's all try to love each other on here. So no laughing at each other, no name calling, please. This is not a war. We are family.

Well; I have decided that there is nothing to say here. I am not laughing at anyone, I am laughing at something they said.

To be treated like a dunce, and with obvious venom and hatred just because of having a problem with the US military is not right either. If one could listen to the pain behind the problem with the military in your country; one would not see the hatred against opposers to same, as I have been seeing in this thread as soon as someone voiced contempt for all those shiny weapons of war that "help" us so much. Of course, some day they may come to "help" us too. Hopefully I can still post here from the bomb shelter to tell you what it's really like, just as Avinoam has tried to do. If what you are doing, if what the US military is doing, is so right; why do some of you need to treat him the the way you have?

This thread began as a Tribute to the American Military. It turned into a contemptuous thread via Avinoam. You sided with Avinoam. I sided with Bonnie and patriotism for America. You turned it into some kind of weird idea about Canada vs the USA. I spoke my opinion that Avinoam could be dead right now if not for some of the military procedures that occurred. Bonnie tore apart your claim of Canada vs. the USA. I said I did not want Avinoam in the USA. You laughed at me after telling me your "Christian" friends would welcome him with open arms.

And you misquoted me.

Do not ever, and I mean EVER laugh at me again. Do you understand me? As God is my Witness, I do not take the denigration of American troops without a fight. Got it? Good.

I laughed at the phrase "bully for you." It's something that we used to use as kids, and I found it funny. Still do. Some appear to want things in black and white so I can see how my responses could be seen as siding with Avinoam. What I am saying is that this "contempt" as you and others have chosen to see it means something, and we need to see past the offensiveness we feel to where the other person is at. The US military doesn't need you or Bonnie to "defend" them; they are quite able to do that themselves. I am not the one who turned this into "contempt."

Bonnie didn't tear apart my claim of Canada vs the US at all. That's not what I claimed. She is the one who made it an us vs them mentality by saying "only the US gets this kind of criticism." I still differ with that; and there's no amount of of tough talk that is going to change my mind. Bonnie has provided no evidence of anything here; only strong opinions and innuendos concocted from who knows where.

Maybe I won't "laugh" as much if you promise not to use those little apostrophies in reference to my "Christian" friends. That means something too. No comparison of my christians friends with your's or anyone elses was intended. It could have been "muslim" friends and still made the same point; atleast in my mind.

I guess in the end; as I am presuming you and Bonnie will fire back at me a little more, this boils down to where you are saying "this guy hurt us so we will hurt him, and anyone who sides with him." That's really all that I see here.

In other words, you don't give a flying flip that you hurt me. Real "Christian", that..

I am sorry I hurt you; but I am not sorry for the way I think. If that is "Christian" to you, then I am not sure what else to do.

I am not the one that should have been required to provide evidence.Prior to the outburst concerning our "murderous troops"everything was fine.
But as to strong opinions and innuendos you are again not quite accurate.
I provided you with the links to many articles that did not back up the claims that had been made.
What you provided was a ridiculous link claiming the US wanting to make Canada part of the axis of evil.
You may choose not to believe the links but for me it is quite a stretch to believe each and everyone lied and told the very same lies.

As to this.......concocted from who knows where go back and check,you must have missed the links the first time around. It tells you from where

"The Case of the Missing Links"





Sounds like a "Brains Benton" mystery.

Good thing I dont depend on your hospitality, my Adventist brother. And anyway, I certainly do not need any of your U.S. products or services because there are still plenty of other economies. Btw, the rest of the world has managed to survive just fine even before 1776.

Bonnie,

I am doing my PhD in American Foreign Policy. I will be teaching this subject at university level in a couple of years. You are more than welcomed to enrol. Until then my only advice to you is: be humble, read broadly, research, THINK CRITICALLY, and learn. I chuckle every time when I see you mentioning some articles and websites. If you want to understand what is going on in a certain conflict area and what the economical, political, cultural, and historical implications are, you need to do extensive research. You can't just Google things and throw it in here as if it would mean something! Phrases like "Butcher of the Balkans" have been invented by the yellow press in order to explain very complex issues to people who cannot read longer than 5 minutes per day. They are aimed at simple-minded people who refuse to think for themselves. They polarise. They stir emotions on the most primitive level. They do not provide a sufficient depth of analysis of any issues in question because that is not their purpose.

The problem is I cannot debate with you because my knowledge in American politics supersedes yours by far. Do you understand what I mean? Talking to you is like explaining mechanical systems to a five-year old. Please don't take this as an insult but rather a stimulus to find out more about it.

PS. If reading it too hard, try this, for a starter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs

Well if that is the case then I can only conclude you don't have a library in your town, or any form of media access. The governments of all European countries which are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan are being condemned for their participation in the war. Condemned by the public, by various organisations, by political parties, etc. Israel is being condemned on regular basis for its military operation in Gaza and WB. Iraq was condemned for invading Kuwait, the U.S. for invading Iraq, Iran and Syria for aiding financial help to the Hizballah, etc etc the list goes on.

Evidence suggests that if it were not for the USA policy towards Yugoslavia in the 1970s and 1980s and a subsequent joined U.S.-German policy in the early 1990s, the conflict would have never even taken place. There is also overwhelming evidence that if it weren’t for Clinton, Albright, Clark, Walker, and Holbrook, just a name a few, the conflict in 1999 would have never occurred.

And lastly, you were not asked to drop bombed on any sovereign state. You did so because it was in your interest. You did so because it is part of your policy. Only in recent history you have manipulated the public several times, first in Rambouillet and then prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I don't care to enter into this fray ... BUT:

It used to be acceptable to call our president a murderer ... then entered Obama. Since he has been president it has been against the rules of this forum to state such things.

I hope a word to the wise is sufficient.

Your view of history may be impressive to you but you sound a lot like the immigrants from the former Soviet Union that I worked for.
They were also very well educated in their home country.Their reverence and hero worship of Lenin was a result of that education.Any and all negative concerning Lenin was disregarded as deliberately false.







Hate to disillusion you but much of what I have looked up on this subject takes far more than five minutes. I have found articles that speak favorably of "the Butcher of the Balkans" but they come from communist and socialist websites and writings.I don't spend a lot of time with those endorsing that ideology.





Read something almost word for word as to what you have posted.All coming from communist or socialist ideology


Again the common theme I have been reading in the communist propaganda is the "common man" really can't understand.Looks like your "education" has been complete



There is a common theme on this forum to wring hands over sarcastic or toxic posts. Interesting the new standards that are acceptable for some and condemned in poor taste for others.
But to respond to your sarcastic and toxic posts,yes I am capable of reading.
Because we disagree on what information means you are doing a fine job of rising to the new standard.

I did check out your very informative you tube link and many off of that.
What I found is someone that is of the "progressive ideology"
I don't subscribe to that as it is a sanitary term for socialist/communist/marxist leanings.

Bonnie,

I live in the United Kingdom. I have my bachelor and magister artium from British universities and I am doing my PhD in United Kingdom.

Most of the literature I quote is from academic American, European, and other authors. You would not pass one single module in your first year of university if you use the internet as your main source of information. If you accuse me again of some weird communist/socialist leaning, I will again just copy and paste what I have already written in this post. Here's the summary:

1.) Websites/articles/blogs as reference: No. Not allowed. It will not be marked.

2.) Peer reviewed journals, university press, universally accepted academic literature: Yes. Allowed. Use it.


P.S. How ironical that you are talking about 'hero-worship' considering I am arguing AGAINST YOUR worship of America and American military troops. In contrast I have not spoken once in favour of any political leaders at all.

Again my advice to you: educate yourself.

Your summary and list of what can and cannot be posted really does not mean a lot. The youtube you posted featuring Michael Parenti says about all that needs to be said about your political leanings.
He is a progressive and that is code word for at least socialism


You do not have the power or suthority to "allow me or anyone else" to do anything.


As in Michael Parenti? Get down off your high horse and thinking you can say what is or is not allowed



No,this started with a tribute to our military. Giving our military a tribute is not hero worship.You don't like the american military,that really is unfortunate. Your use of allow as to what can be posted explains your offensive first post on this topic.

The military men and women give many time the ultimate price.They will be honored with or without you "allowing" it.
As for worship of america,I firmly believe that God had his hand in the settling of this land.I believe the writing of our constitution reflected God's influence on those men. For it's time it was way ahead of time by more than 200 years.
Was or is it always right? NOPE,Does it always do everything for the best of reasons? I don't think so.
What you have spoken of is a scathing condemntaion and denouncing everything that disagrees with a progressive as Michael Parenti.
Offering nothing except what you see as your superior education and intelligence.
Actually going so far as to announce what you will and will not allow.




Again my advice to you: educate yourself.

[/quote]

I am *not* your Adventist brother. And you certainly seemed to have managed just fine in the UK. Good thing nothing you use comes from the US.

And it's good to know that the world was not a bloodbath before 1776, and no wars had ever been fought and people lived in harmony with each other.

If you think is PhD quality thinking, then I don't put a penny's worth of value into your dissertation. You might try some on-line Universities that sell PhD's. Save you some money. .... Oh..my mistake. You seem to have quite a bit of money and live quite well now.

And BTW, if we hadn't bombed Germany and nuked Hiroshima, we would all, includiing YOU, would be speaking German today.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your comment was not only rude but narcissistic as hell; you don't know *what* Bonnie, nor I for that matter, know about American politics. But I have no interest whatsoever in debating American politics with you.

This thread was begun as a Tribute to the American Military. If you do not like it, don't watch it. But please don't turn it into a histrionic vendetta against the United States.

Yes, please educate yourself better.

Haha, brilliant. Thank you for saving my life and providing the opportunity to speak English! My Adventist brother.

It's not a 'historic vendetta', whatever that means, it's a critical examination of the American foregin policy since 1945.

Bonnie, the gloomy years of McCarthyism are over. The Cold War is over. The 'communist threat' doesn't exist anymore. Labelling political spectrums as communist/socialist/marxist is not only extremely outdated but quite simplistic. As is you world view. And btw, what's wrong with being progressive? Progressive in what context?

How can you say what you are writing is not a histrionic vendetta when you don't even know what it means? i.e. Avinoam: "These guys are not heroes, they are nothing but a forces of destruction in the service of various neo-colonialist, murdering U.S. administrations." If you don't know what a word means, then look it up. Dictionary.com is very useful.

I know what vendetta means, I just coulnd't figure out what 'historic' vendetta means. Forgive me for being so pedantic.

Pedantic. Hehehe. She said histrionic.