American Engagement [in Bosnia]

".......at the center of a volatile region that had launched two world wars"

Ummm, didn't the 2nd WW start in Poland?

The so-called anti-bureacratic revolution and the "yogurt revolution" (in Voyvodina) were not attempts to gain control over the federal Presidency but to make it more equitable. Your sources are grossly distorted.

It doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure out what the math was when it came to this so-called "Collective Presidency" made possible by Tito's anti-Yugoslav, anti-Serb, 1974 Constitution.

In the Yugoslav federation up to that point there were "constitutional peoples" (South Slavic nations, whether real or invented by Communists) who represented Yugoslav sovereignty. Non-South Slavic minorities (called "nationalities" or "little nations") did not possess the sovereignty but shared in equal rights and responsibilities. Thus, only the "constitutional" peoples could ask for secession -- in theory. In reality, they "used up" that right when they voted (under duress) in 1945 to remain in Yugoslavia.

The only republic which had "autonomous regions" and later "autonomous provinces" was Serbia. The large (12.5% Serb minority in Croatia were considered "constitutional people" along with their Croatian counterparts and therefore could not be a minority in "their own" Republic). Serbia's Hungarian minority in the North and Albanian minority in the South were then in 1974 given a semi-constitutional status by elevating the provinces to "constitutional entities." It's commie-talk for undermining Serbia's authority on its own territory. As a result of that, Serbia lost juridical and jurisdictional control over its own territorial units (BTW there was no such thing as "annexation" of Kosovo, the province was always considered part of Serbia and any other suggestion contrary to that is pure BS).

Macedonia, for instances, with a very large Albanian population was never forced to give its minorities any autonomy. Atonomy was purely designed to weaken and fracture Serbia alone.

By elevating them to the "constitutional entities" the newly formed "Collective Presidency" consisted of the representatives of each "constitutional Republic" and two autonomous "constitutional entities." These were: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, along with the two (officially) Serbian autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina (or Voyvodina, correctly transliterated into English). A total of eight units.

Serbian people made up 1/2 of the former Yugoslav population, yet their representation in the collective presidency was reduced to 1/8 of available votes!

The United States demands more than a "fair share" of influence in the United Nations, because it is the biggest provider of financial support for that organization and no one sees anything wrong with such a setup. Yet when it comes to Serbs, lopsided and perverse political disadvantage is seen -- apparently even by some "experts" and certainly by some pro-Soros Serbian traitors -- as perfectly fair and acceptable!

Vasil Tupurkovski, Macedonia's presidential representative in the Collective Presidency even openly admitted that there was an "anti-principled coalition" in this setup -- meaning that the Presidency was skewed against Serbia's interest and certainly underrepresented Serbias contribution and size in the Federation.

The subject you so lightly and incompletely touched upon regarding the two "revolutions" was therefore intended -- not to greate "Greater Serbia" -- but to bring Montenegro, a sister Serb republic, and the two "autonomous constitutional entities" back into the Serbian jurisdictional fold where they belonged politically, legally and geographically. All the sane Serbs understand and understood then that no such entity as autnomous provinces should exist unless other Republics with large minorities (i.e. Croatia and Macedonia) were to adopt the same principle of granting autonomy and sovereignty to its minorities. There was nothing in the all too frequently misquoted Memorandum to suggest otherwise.

The "revolutions" simply brought into Serbia's fold the other Serb Republic, Montenegro, Voyvodina and eventually Kosovo, giving Serbian people in the Yugoslav Federation a more equitable representation in the Collective Presidency.

Apparently, this was more than any of the non-Serbs in the Federation could bear! The "insolence" of the Serbs was simply an "act of war" and the only thing that would satisfy their wounded pride was an irrevocable and unilateral divorce -- no matter how unconstitutional it was.

So, before you spout some self-defacing Sorors apologists, or the anti-principled coalition mindset, research your material from both sides, understand the cultural and parallel examples and how they would apply to another country, especially the U.S. and then come to conclusions.

The Territorial Defence (TO) administration was under the Federal Peoples' Yugoslav Army (YNA). The TO commanders were subordinate to regional YNA Commanders. Croatian and Slovenian TO separatist commanders obtained those weapons without the approval or knowedge of the YNA Command.

The purpose for the TO units (active reserves) was economic, not political. The Yugoslav Army was one of the largest standing armies in Europe and -- consequently -- very much a burden on the economy. The TO was seen as a way of maintainng readily activated units (the way Israelis do) without maintaining such a large and costly standing army.

And for those who missed the thank you that the Muhammedans sent us on 9/11, the evidence of terror operations in Bosnia grows daily.

Lol. You dumb.