It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Kretenoid
reply to post by seaside sky
philosophical view of a country. Vedas come to my mind.
Resolving of our situation could have been done much better, without the bloodshed.
We could have divided into independent countries and afterward organize a Balkan Union. Something like EU.
Why, because when Yugoslavia was rebuilt after WW2, every country in Yugoslavia was specialized in a different economical branch. Different type of strategic business. Therefore, they where interdependent economically speaking.
the war has not brought any good for anyone from this region. Our development went 20 years back.
Centralized government, never! This is the reason why we wanted our independence.
Try to read between the lines. Why did Yugoslavian army fought for Serbia when constitutionally it was a army from all the countries in Yugoslavia. We all payed for that army, however the army took sides. From there on it is not hard to conclude that Serbians where dominant in Yugoslavia.
The majority of high ranking army officers like generals where Serbians. Those this fact lead to a conclusion?
In January 1990, the extraordinary 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was convened. For most of the time, the Slovenian and Serbian delegations were arguing over the future of the League of Communists and Yugoslavia. The Serbian delegation, led by Milošević, insisted on a policy of "one person, one vote", which would empower the plurality population, the Serbs. In turn, the Slovenes, supported by Croats, sought to reform Yugoslavia by devolving even more power to republics, but were voted down. As a result, the Slovenian, and eventually Croatian delegation left the Congress, and the all-Yugoslav Communist party was dissolved.
Following the fall of communism in the rest of Eastern Europe, each of the republics held multi-party elections in 1990. Slovenia and Croatia held the elections in April since their communist parties chose to cede power peacefully. Other Yugoslav republics — especially Serbia — were more or less dissatisfied with the democratization in two of the republics and proposed different sanctions (e.g. Serbian "customs tax" for Slovenian products) against the two of the union but as the year passed other republics communist parties saw the inevitability of the democratization process and in December as the last member of the federation — Serbia held parliamentary elections which confirmed (former) communists rule in this republic.
Originally posted by Kretenoid
reply to post by Nikola014
No I am not crazy. It seems you misunderstood me. I was talking about prewar period. Instead to go to war we could have separated in a peaceful manner! Hope that clears up my thoughts!
I was not talking about a another Yugoslavia. Please read again what I said.
Since you already came out with your comments, please tell me have you asked every Serbian citizen about their opinion.
See, I travel regularly into Serbia because my company has some projects there. I have met many Serbians that share my opinion.
The war was not needed for both sides! If you understand the basics of economy you would understand why I said Balkan union.
Are you aware that we have a signed contract Croatia - Serbia under CEFTA for economical cooperation.
Do you know that some of our industries (companies) compete on international markets together in order to be competitive?
Please read upon CEFTA and you are going to see that we already are establishing old partner/trade ties!
Do you know which is the largest Croatian export market?
PS: also please do not speak in the name of our children when you say never Croatia, they should not be indoctrinated by old farts with one leg in the grave by neither side, they did not chose war
Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Ah the Balkans, that part of The Continent that the rest of us here in Europe really wishes was somewhere else...
Well, you have ethnic groups with political, social and religious divisions, even within themselves. They hate each other passionately and each one feels victimized by another one.
Since the area is predominantly Slavic, the Russians are usually the country to come in and untangle any issue that develops, however in the 1990s, Russia was busy putting itself back together after the fall of the Soviet Union and dealing with their own issues in Chechnya. So the issues of genocide, war and oppression came under the eye of the West instead.
We nations in the major NATO powers decided that the Serbs were at fault this time, and doing some rather horrible things, so we got UN approval and got to that applying force thing. So we, the NATO nations, bombed first in the mid-90s then again in 1999 and put 50,000 boots on the ground as peacekeepers in a force called KFOR.
The European Union has decided to try to make this more their mission and started up their own mission called EULEX, which is still of debatable competency.
In the end, to reiterate, the Balkans are a place of great ethnic strife, where the groups really do not get and like to kill each other. In the 1990s the area lit up again, Russia was busy, and the Serbs were giving a hell of a lot worse than they were getting, so they were the "bad guys" that time. NATO got in the mix, and now it's the EU's problem.
Originally posted by seaside sky
--- do you think there was any similarity between the modern political/economic empires and the older religious ones? Is there any meaning at all in comparing these things? And the responses of the people living in the region? If so, is there anything we might learn or predict from the historic comparison?
You're clearly both a philosopher and a person with personal experience of this subject. What do you think?
(If my ideas are totally wrong and naive, please do set me straight.) --- Sky