Posted on 03/30/2002 2:37:53 AM PST by vooch
You say, "Yugoslavia was created....... by the people of Yugoslavia." Well I don’t think there was any referendum, or vote on it by the people at large. It was a deal done by the powers that be. The name says it all, Yugoslavia....all Slavs. What about the Croats, Montenegrins, Bosnian Muslims, and Albanian Kosovars, did they vote for it? I don’t think so.
You say, quite rightly, that Yugoslavia was a leader of the "non-aligned movement", as if that indicated some measure of neutrality.
But surely a group which includes Communist Vietnam, Egypt under Nasser, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, every tinpot African dictatorship etc, could not, in the real world, be considered neutral in the struggle between western democracy, and communist dictatorship.
By the way Mr Gael, is that Gael as in Gaelistan the well know neutral Irish Republic from the second world war?
You are so ignorant, and really, you don't know even basic facts about people who lived in Yugoslavia.
Croats, Montenegrins, Bosnian Muslims (also reffered in the mainstream press as Muslim Slavs), Macedonians are all Slavs.
True Albaninas and Hungarians are not Slavs, but Albania is called Albania even though there is considerable population of Greeks, Macedonians, Montenegrins; Hungary is called Hungary even though there are Serbs, Croats, Romaninas living there.. What's your point?
The important thing is that the Yugoslav Constitution granted equal rights regardless of ethnicities.
Your ignorance just tells us that you are here to provoke and not honestly discuss things, otherwise you would be more informed on the subject.
So ABrit The Welsh, Irish, and Scots after their free elections, are falling over themselves to rejoin Greater England so they can enjoy "equal rights regardless of ethnicities". No, of course they're not, but you obviously prefer the way things were.
The Roman Empire was divided in 395. Later the Croats entered the Western Roman Empire. The historical border between the Eastern and Western Roman Empire was the river Drina. It flows between present Serbia and Bosnia, and in the past it divided in political and cultural sense, two very different civilizations, which had been separated until the penetration of the Turks in the 16th century. Later in 1054 this division also defined the border of the two Churches, one under Byzantium (Constantinople) and the other under Rome. Let us mention that Montenegro and Albania belonged to the Western Church. In 1184 the Serbian Orthodox Church penetrated by military expansion to Montenegro. Until that time the territory of Montenegro was a part of Red Croatia. Serbia, and later Montenegro, developed on the heritage of the Eastern Roman Empire (or Byzantine Empire).
I think we are at cross purposes.
I said Yugoslavia was Communist, and armed by the Soviets and I don't think that can be disputed.(You didn't take the point about why the Soviets would want to arm their enemy).
As far as independence for Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Croatia, Kosovo, Slovenia, Bosnia, (even the USA), I am all for it, as long as it represents the freely expressed will of the people.
Oh, I get it now... You are no Brit.. You are either an Albanian, or self-hating Croatian who is ashamed of his Slav heritage, or one of those Montenegrines who also thinks that without Serbs Montenegro will be quickly accepted in EU (ha,ha..). Your anti-Serb attitude is so obvious and revealing..
And, BTW, what was the point of this post anyway?
FYI, Serbs also fluctuated between West Roman Empire and Bysantine Empire, depending what their interests were. In the end they opted for Byzantine Empire, so what? What does it have to do with anything on this thread?
Interested to check him out?
If you want to argue about what genetic strain you are, then I would point out that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.
I am in fact British, and have a Passport to prove it.
Whats your passport say? Chetnik?
Citizen of United States of America.
Chetnik?
You are not British, period.
regarding your post on where we came from--- you lack sense. sorry, but you do.
I guess you mean the kind of objectivity Clinton and NATO exhibited in the Balkans the last 10 years or so, and lets not forget the media.
Your point about the Select commitee report is taken, and it may well be that the Nato actions in the Balkans were "illegal".
However my point is not whether security council veto by Russia, China, and (I think it was Sudan), makes something legal, or illegal.
My question is, faced with the choice, should one do the legal thing, or the right thing.
I think the right thing every time, especially in the circumstances at the time in the Balkans.
Your problem with a written constitution is that it is inflexible. Supposing something comes up which has not been forseen, then you are rendered helpless.
Suppose someone, on behalf of some foreign state, detonates a small nuclear device in New York. From intercepts your people know who did it, but from a legal point of view, the evidence is ruled out by some judge under some constitutionally provided loophole. Your lawyers can’t prove it, and Russia and China veto action in the security council.
See what I mean. Your Constitution, and UN approval is a double edged sword.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.