Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

The difference between the Dutchies on the one side and the 'Yugoslavs' (so Croatians, Serbians, Bosniaks, ...) on the other side is this: the Netherlands are not proud of what the Dutch army (under NATO flag) did. Croatians still defend Croatian inhumanity (ethnic cleansing) during the war, just like the Serbs. Why is it that hard for them to admit their army also made mistakes? (I'm not saying the Croatians had to accept what the Serbs said. I'm saying they shouldn't have made the mistake by doing the same.)

I agree that the whole game was set up completely wrong and that their rules of engagement were big part of the problem. But still, read the testimonies. What were the thoughts of the soldier who saw the child decapitated in mother's lap? "Should I pull my gun? Oh no, my life is not in danger. Sorry lady, can't do anything about it. Here's a copy of my rules of engagement. I am sure you will understand. After all, rules are rules. We have to keep it civilized, you know. We are not savages like you people here."

There was no ethnic cleansing in Croatia. The Serbs ran away because they were loyal to Serbia (Yugoslavia at that point). They thought that their homeland will manage to retain the territory where they were a majority with the help of 3rd military force in Europe at that point. The official slogan of Serbian politicians was "Wherever there are Serbs, there is Serbia!". The Serbian Academy of Science and Arts had an official document (Memorandum SANU) with ideas and goals of how to make Great Serbia. Serbs didn't want to turn from a majority in their own country to a minority in another nation's country. The Russians in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania or the Czech in Slovakia didn't seem to have a problem with that sufficiently to start a war. If they did and if they chose to run away after losing this war, would that also be ethnic cleansing?
The Serbs were also afraid both of their own army who organized their exodus and of (what they considered) foreign army that was coming to retain its own territory so their choice to leave was unfortunately rather expected. And yes, there were incidents of killed civilians performed by irresponsible individuals but this was an army of amateur volunteers and our generals were certainly not responsible for these random acts of war crimes. Our young country was responsible for not prosecuting these crimes afterwards and so the blame fell on our generals' shoulders.
Croatians certainly didn't want to start their independence by war. We didn't even have any arms when it started with Serbs blocking the roads. Gotovina was one of our rare officers with serious military education and experience.

NATO flag? Sure you didn't mean UN blue helmets?

I'm not even gonna start discussing whether ethnic cleansing happened or not in Croatia. The facts are there. Period.

(I remember discussing in another topic with Serbs, I'm not doing that again with Croats.)

Edit:

explain why they also did not turn their heads the other way but instead defended their homeland

Remember the logical fallacies? This is one: false choice. You insinuate that there were only two choices: 1) doing what they actually did or 2) not defending the homeland.
(editado)

You get the point didnt you ?

rumpil,
why do go down a narrative that has no logic?

Oil is a fungible commodity. One does not need an army to aquire oil, only money.

You talk of US involvement in middle east wars as an means of obtaining oil. Why the hell would we spend 11 years in Afghanistan? A country that has NO oil production?

Afghanistan was a bridgehead towards Iraq. The fact is that US has never got involved in any conflict without interest. Which is normal, i guess, but i hope you're not trying to tell us that US is simply a peacekeeper, because he's not.

the United States got involved in Afghanistan to take down the Taliban government which harbored Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
sadly, this mutated into a war in Iraq that was useless ( in this forum I have never defended the war in Iraq ).
The fact is that US has never got involved in any conflict without interest. Which is normal, i guess,
does ANY country go to war without a some self interest?
but i hope you're not trying to tell us that US is simply a peacekeeper
what role, if any, do you think that the US had in the demise of the Iron Curtain?
or keeping West Berlin a free city?

Do you see Snowden as an hero or an traitor to the motherland ?

Snowden gives the American people Obama's promised transparency.

He certainly is not a hero. Traitor is a tough word. law breaker, yes.

tough call, that one. There are 'whistle blower' provisions where he could have testified, with immunity, before congressional committees and told of what he thought was illegal activities going on in our government. As I understand, as part of his employment he took a vow NOT to disclose information that he came across as part of his job. He chose to disclose this information the way he did, via the the press and not Congressional oversight committees. In my mind, any government can not allow individuals to decide what and how information is released. Without the threat of prison there is little to deter these individuals.

Spying is about as old as governments. Report that the NSA had obtained info on 60 million Europeans was big news for a couple of days. Then it was revealed that the NSA has obtained this information from European governments.

I am pleased (not the right word, but can not think of a better word) that this information about the NSA has come to light, and that maybe Big Brother will get a little smaller, I still can not gather any empathy for Snowden.

what role, if any, do you think that the US had in the demise of the Iron Curtain?
or keeping West Berlin a free city?

It's an impossible debate, obviously you'd always agree and protect US's foreign interests and policy, it's perfectly normal since your a US citizen, and i respect that. But what do you want to suggest with the fall of the Iron Curtain? Of course US had a major role in it, but you think they did it because some czech, polish, romanian or hungarian blokes were suppressed by the soviets?

the United States got involved in Afghanistan to take down the Taliban government which harbored Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Again, this is your opinion, i respect that, but i beg to differ.

Report that the NSA had obtained info on 60 million Europeans was big news for a couple of days. Then it was revealed that the NSA has obtained this information from European governments.

So both the American and the European governments are trying to be Big Brother. So what? Does that mean the American government is less responsible for its actions? This once again shows that there is no free world. Jefferson's dream has not been realized. Ayn Rand was wrong when describing America as different. The USA is just as socialist as Europe. It's a total disgrace. Every American who is aware of its history will acknowledge that.

I am pleased (not the right word, but can not think of a better word) that this information about the NSA has come to light, and that maybe Big Brother will get a little smaller, I still can not gather any empathy for Snowden.

True Americans don't want a smaller Big Brother. They don't want no Big Brother at all. Apparently, you're not a true American. You're probably Canadian.

(The last sentence is a joke, if you wouldn't get it.)
(editado)

you think that Afghanistan was a bridge to Iran? if that is the case, then WHY would we get our troops out of Iraq in August 2010 yet and stay in Afghanistan? does this make any sense? if Afghanistan was simply to get to Iraq, then hwy the heck would be still be there?

Of course US had a major role in it, but you think they did it because some czech, polish, romanian or hungarian blokes were suppressed by the soviets?
we 'fought' the Cold War to help keep Western Europe from coming under the influence of the Soviets. NOT the free those who were already under the Soviets control.

The USA is just as socialist as Europe.
first, define 'socialism' and 'socialist'. Some people here in the US say that Obama is a 'socialist' and I ask them what he has done that is 'socialist'.

It's a total disgrace. Every American who is aware of its history will acknowledge that.
ummm. not sure WHAT about my country I am suppose to think is disgraceful.

Please, tell me the merits of Belgium over the USA.