|
Post by spartacus on Aug 26, 2010 9:02:03 GMT -5
Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give, and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 25, 2010 7:52:37 GMT -5
Forcing the common people to accept this idea that men and women are exactly equal and that a child having a mom and dad isn't important is not what I consider a stable society.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 24, 2010 21:49:14 GMT -5
Making Gender Irrelevant By allowing same-sex marriage, we are declaring that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
by Dennis Prager:
The Left passionately supports the most remarkable and radical change in modern social history — the redefinition of marriage from male-female to include male-male and female-female.
Marriage is the building block of society; changing its nature will therefore change society. By allowing same-sex marriage, we are effectively saying that sex (now called “gender”) no longer matters for society’s most important institution; thus, it no longer matters in general. Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance — which is exactly what the cultural Left and the gay-rights movement advocate, even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting. Most Americans who support same-sex marriage feel (and “feel” is the crucial verb here, as the change to same-sex marriage is much more felt than thought through) that gays should have the right to marry a member of their own sex. It is perceived as unfair to gays that they cannot do so. And that is true. It is unfair to gays.
But the price paid for eliminating this unfairness is enormous: It is the end of marriage as every society has known it. It is also the end of any significance to gender. Men and women are now declared interchangeable. That is why, as I noted in a recent column, the “T” has been added to “GLB” — that is, “Transgendered” has been added to “Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual.” “T” does not represent transsexuals — people who choose to change their sex. No one is arguing against such people. “Transgendered” refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish publicly to act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women’s clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left’s primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both. Gender doesn’t matter.
That is why Judge Walker and his supporters dismiss the argument that, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a married man and woman than by two men or two women. If Judge Walker or GLBT activists and their supporters admitted that children need a mother and father, they would be affirming that there is great significance to the differences between men and women.
They reject that. Instead, they and Judge Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic studies are as unserious as all those studies of a generation ago that “proved” that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers.
These newer “studies” of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda presented in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: to deny male-female differences and to promote same-sex marriage. That many Americans believe these studies — studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers’ own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is — only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept “studies” in place of common sense.
Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give, and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?
One has to assume that most people — including supporters of same-sex marriage — would respond in the affirmative. How, then, can they support same-sex marriage? The Left’s trinity — compassion, fairness, and equality — is one reason. And “studies” and “facts” are another.
That is exactly how so many college graduates came to believe that boys would be happy with tea sets and girls would be happy with trucks — compassion, fairness, equality, and “studies.” That is also how many Americans, including a judge who overturned a state’s constitutional amendment, have come to believe that never having a mother or never having a father makes absolutely no difference to a child.
And if mothers and fathers are interchangeable, men as men and women as women lose their significance.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 20, 2010 14:53:59 GMT -5
The only ones who committed genocide were the Serbs.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 11, 2010 11:43:24 GMT -5
I doubt all of BiH would support annexation. I would support a referendum asking the people in several regions whether they support annexation, especially in the herceg-bosna region.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 10, 2010 20:55:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 4, 2010 23:24:46 GMT -5
Nobody can afford to go to a private school because government grants subsidies to public schools and makes public schools appear to be "free." Private schools cannot compete with government-run schools because private schools rely on performance and tuition to survive, whereas public schools just consume tax-payer money. Private schools lose a lot of students and need to raise tuition to cover the costs of operating. If there were no public schools, private schools would be competing with one another setting cheaper rates and better education.
But it doesn't make it right. Governments running the schools indoctrinate the youth into believing whatever the government chooses. This is why it is dangerous to ban private schools, which offer to only other relief from what the government is trying to teach. Government schools are already drugging our kids, telling kids that they don't have to tell their parents if they're pregnant, giving condoms to children, etc. These sorts of things are reserved for the parents to deal with, not the schools.
You don't have to preach a particular religion to people, but you also can't force people not to openly practice their belief's. Censoring religion in order to say "not everybody is of the same faith" favors the atheists who want religion eliminated.
You take up a loan from a bank or from investors. Government has no right to give you tax-payer money to run your own business. If you want to be successful, there will be risks.
No bank will loan you money if you don't have anything to prove that you are a good investment. But the banker is risking his own money when giving out the loan. If you lend a guy $50 and he never pays you back, are going to loan him another $100? This is one of the reason why there is a financial crisis. Government believed everybody has a right to own a home, they forced banks to give loans to people who had a poor credit history. Once these people couldn't afford to pay off the loan, the housing crisis came about.
Any business would prefer paying their workers less just as any human being would. If some guy charged you $50 to fix your computer, you would prefer if he charged only $1. But that doesn't happen. The market will make the adjustments and prevent firms from paying very low wages. If government said all people who repair computers can only charge $1, there would be no computer repairers. If a firm making light bulbs offered to pay their workers $1 a day, nobody would work for them. People would go into other professions. So the light bulb firm will have to bump up the wages.
Most of the monopolies we see today are here because of government. The medicine industry is in bed with government. That is why we can't get newer, better medicines into the market because the big pharmaceutical company's are going to lose to the competition. Government forbidding competitors from entering the industry contribute to these monopolies.
In farming, the US has the Department of Agriculture. The government requires farmers to meet certain so called "health standards" managed by the FDA. These standards are so expensive to enforce because the government mandated safety equipment costs a lot of money. The small family farms can't afford these costs and they lose. The big farms love government intervention, because they can squeeze out their smaller competitors.
Capitalism does not benefit the rich. It benefits everyone because the products meet the demands of the consumers. In the USSR there were shortages of bread but the shops had plenty of equipment that nobody wanted in stock. Government running the economy is a recipe for disaster because government agents do not respond to consumer demand. It is better to be poor in a capitalist country than a socialist country. Capitalist countries even have less poor people than socialist countries do. It is because Capitalism prospers.
You cannot have both. It's like saying you're pregnant or you're not. You either are or you're not. The US currently has a bit of both, and its prosperity has declined from what it once was.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 4, 2010 22:59:43 GMT -5
Company's don't have to be nice. Entrepreneurs don't have to be nice guys. There are many who are generous and donate much of what they earn to charity, however with modern media they are often blacklisted. But we assume that company's are rational. The key is that everybody is rational and firms operate with rational behavior.
A firm cannot pay its employees wages below market level because its competitor, who is operating rationally to improve its business, will offer a better deal to the workers. Workers who are experienced and been working for that employer for a while develop a much higher value. A rational owner will pay its employees market value, perhaps more to the more skilled employees, because a laborer who contributes a lot to the firm is difficult to replace.
Even if a firm is still stubborn for some reason and doesn't pay market wages, unions can step in. Unions were once good because they formed a block of workers who just wanted market wages and safety. However, recently unions have become the corrupt lobbying bullies that they are today.
Having minimum wage laws do not prevent people from becoming poor, they contribute to poverty! Minimum wage is basically forcing an owner to place a value on his employees. If the min wage is $10, he might not see a lot of his workers worth $10 and fire them. The people who lose out are pretty much the unskilled and poor. They once had a job where they could try to rise on top of the ladder and now they have no job.
If we think that the solution is to simply force employers to pay more money to their workers, why stop at $8 an hour? Why not have employers pay their workers $20 and hour? $50 or $100 an hour?
Nobody is going to work for free, but also nobody is going to operate a business if they are losing money. On many occasions, minimum wage increases a firms average costs that profits don't make up for, resulting in firms shutting down.
Workers are important, but without investors and owners, their will be no auto industry, farmers market, ipods, computers, barber shops etc.
No, a corporation should not exploit its workers but the market is what will prevent that. Government intervention is what exploits people. Favoring special firms, stopping other people from competing with the favored firms, printing more money to finance the national debt, taking a workers wages for the income tax is what is exploiting people.
Government has tried to decrease prices with price ceilings, but they haven't worked. The US has forced landlords not to raise prices for apartments so tenants can afford them. This causes housing shortages, and landlords cannot keep up with the rising cost of living without raising their own prices. This is the reason why many rent controlled houses are never repaired or fixed because the landlord has no incentive in improving his apartments if there is a housing shortage.
You cannot force people to lower prices because the result will be a shortage. And if producers see that prices are too low, they won't even bother producing the good.
Some businesses will be successful others will not. That is freedom. But you cannot reward firms for being unsuccessful with bail out money. If a company knows that if they make big mistakes, the government will bail them out, they are going to become careless with their decisions.
Government does not to play a role in safety equipment. A business will naturally protect their investments and provide their own safety. If an airline company is threatened with terrorism, they will definitely take up safety precautions to protect their investments. If you have a lot of money at stake, you are going to do everything you can to protect that investment.
The reason why things such as 9/11 happened was because government is simply incapable of being efficient. Government laws don't allow airline pilots to have a gun. If the airline company were allowed to make their own decisions, they would arm their pilots to protect their passengers. Same with airport security. Airlines would manage it much better than any government.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 4, 2010 15:28:33 GMT -5
Socialized education does not work fine. Why are educational institutions always out of money when they are government run? Why is there always a budget crisis? Europeans are better educated now than American's because Europeans allow choice. This is one thing they have right. Americans must follow the district system, meaning if you live within a certain area you have to go to that school no matter what. In Belgium on the other hand, parents get to choose which school they want to send their kids. This forces schools to be more productive and do a better job, because if they do not, parents will send their kids somewhere else.
With the Federal Dept of Education, schools have no incentive to improve because they are getting subsidies anyway. Whoever has better lobbyists in Washington gets the most funding.
If you support government running our schools, you are supporting something the Nazis did. They had government run schools where they were teaching kids that Hitler was a demi-god. Why not allow private schools to decide what they can teach and the students with their parents can decide which school to go to? Allowing government the power to run education is allowing them to indoctrinate our youth.
Textbooks are teaching left-wing propaganda. Have you ever heard of Howard Zinn? He was a self-proclaimed Socialist and we read his textbooks in my history classes. The universities and schools are flocked with baby-boomer hippies who grew up in an environment where they got everything they wanted from the government.
Why should schools be forced to preach atheism in the classroom?
America did not really save the world from WWII. They contributed, but come on now, the Russians bared the brunt of the burden.
And it's just funny how you now mentioned Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the US". I had to read that book and it is anything but fair. Zinn was a Socialist and you can even tell by the title "A Peoples History." People should be reading more Thomas Jefferson, Mises, Freidman, The Constitution, Locke, and not Liberal-Fascism.
I am not a fan of Newt Gingrich. The majority of Republicans call themselves low-government conservatives when they are not. Read Andrew Napalitano, Ron Paul, or John Stossel instead of what you watch off a Bill Maher movie or MSNBC.
And the academia is doing a great job indoctrinating the youth like you have just demonstrated. It is because teaching kids about the founding fathers, small government, libertarian philosophy, and natural law is something that can get a teacher fired in today's culture. I ask you to watch
Yea, Reagan was right. The so called "Progressives" believed that it's nobodys fault if they commit a crime, the problem is the society. The same people who believed the state should take children away from their parents if they believe the parents are raising them the "wrong way."
Capitalism does give everyone the same opportunity. You are confusing equality and opportunity. Everyone has a right to start their own business, to invent, and keep what they earn. Everyone has a right to succeed and a right to fail. But nobody ever has a right to "equal stuff." You are equal before the law, but you cannot take what belongs to someone and give it to another. That is theft.
You still haven't explained the World Cup problem. How would have you fixed the problem? What goes on in China is not the fault of Capitalism, it's their current government policies that cause people to remain unskilled. You should be blaming Socialism, which punishes people from becoming self-sufficient, inventive, or intuitive.
Yea, if you don't want big government you hate minorities. Many minorities don't like big government either. You have a stupid argument that the far left always uses in a desperate attempt to explain why we need more government when it has already caused this recession. Using the race-card is not so popular anymore.
The Catholic Church does not support the death penalty. Please don't make false accusations because it makes you look a bit uneducated. Jesus never said that the government should take stuff from someone and give it to others. He wanted us to be charitable. And charity is not socialism. Charity is when you give to those less fortunate out of your own free will. Socialism is taking your property by force, against your will, and giving it to someone else. That is called theft! People become less charitable in societies where Socialism exists because they depend on government to fix everything. You don't see people starving on the streets or in bread lines in Capitalist countries. The so-called Socialism, savior of the poor, doesn't treat their poor very well.
I think Socialism and Marxism were disproved long time ago and Capitalism proves why government is never the answer. Looking at the current financial crisis, government run economies don't work.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 4, 2010 11:50:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 4, 2010 11:37:46 GMT -5
Spartacus seems to be very ignorant because he thinks it is left wing and it is communism if fair business practices were to put into place and laws and government legislations in ensuring that businesses practice fair business practices and minimum wages laws are strictly enforced to ensure that a company or a corporation isn't using cheap labour and paying it's workers little to nothing in which it is known as the 21st centuary slavery. Spartacus if according to your logic, the economy should be run like that because according to you it is right wing, your parents would be working their arses of and be lucky to even earn 5 dollars a day. You would then be living in the streets as a homeless hobbo. First of all minimum wage is not what the US Constitution allows. The government doesn't have the power to tell a private firm how much to pay their workers. If you hire some people to repair your roof and offer them $500, I assume you wouldn't want the government coming in saying "I want you to pay them $700". You might say no, and the workers who were once well off with getting $500 are out of a job. You seem to think that "hey, if government forces firms to pay more than the market value, everyone is happy." Have you ever considered the people who lose? If a company has to pay more money than they can afford, they will lay off some workers and be reluctant to hire more workers. Unemployment will increase and this is assuming the firm stays in business! If a firm has to pay more money, they look for a way to maintain profits to stay in business. They will have to raise their prices to cover these costs. People won't buy their products if they can but them somewhere else for cheaper. So a firm can go out of business, and even those workers who the minimum wage was supposed to protect are now out of a job. This is what happens when you try to manipulate the market. These government regulations are in no way fair. They benefit some corporate firms and exclude other businesses. Small businesses are now forced to pay for some useless safety equipment that is too expensive for them to stay in business, this is good news for the corporations who maintain their government backed monopoly. My parents would not be making $5 a day because they would work for the firm which gives them the best offer. And the so-called $5 may sound cheap today, but it used to buy a lot before the government started printing more money to finance their debt and social-welfare programs.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 4, 2010 11:26:38 GMT -5
I'm not even going to respond to the Ronald Reagan accusations because that is just absurd.
Government inside schools has caused the US educational system to deteriorate. What once was the best educational system in the world is now the laughing stock. So you want government deciding what our kids can and cannot learn? Wow. There were men named Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin that believed government should decide how to indoctrinate their youth, that didn't work out too well. 2 Trillion dollars of tax payer money has just been eaten by the bureaucrats and the educational system is a mess. Reagan was right in wanting to get the government out of our schools.
Rocketfeller said in his own words that oil should be cheap for every American family. If we did not have men like Rocketfeller or Carnegie, we would still be living in huts. We would not be working long hours because firms will have to make their workers happy otherwise they will work for their competitors. Unions are not a bad thing per-say, only the moment they try to use government force and beat up people who try to work in their place, while they are out striking is what I call messed up.
You tell a private firm what to do, you might as well allow government to tell a private household what to do. Corporations and monopolies result because of government favoritism. If government gives subsidies to certaine firms and forbids competitors from entering the market, that is not Capitalism. That is government intervention which creates corporatism.
George Washington freed his slaves upon his death and even paid for them to be educated.
The South thought that they could win the war on cotton, but that proved a failure. Cotton was no longer king at the time. With the Missouri Compromise, slavery was already on its death bed. Guys like Lincoln simply wanted to wait out for slavery to die on its own. The South could no longer expand slavery into the other states, the slave trade was banned, and slavery was no longer economically efficient. Slavery was on its way of dying and many of the slave states were already on their way to ban slavery, such as Missouri and Kentucky before the Civil War started.
This is called comparative advantage. Countries like China who have low-skilled labor rely on producing more raw materials because they find that if they specialize on these products, they will produce more money than if they focused on something like making ipods or electronics.
They tried the same thing in World Cup 98, Fifa stopped buying the soccer balls from the middle east because the kids were working in sweat shops making them. But since these kids no longer had a job anymore, they were working in ditches under much worse conditions because they had no other job to fall back on. So no, messing with the market does not help.
You cannot tell a private firm how much to pay their workers. You let the market decide. If walmart is underpaying their employees, their competitors will offer them a better deal if they come work for them. Paying workers really bad wages is not as easy as you think it is. There are many consequences which with a free market, would be resolved.
This is a basic concept called comparative advantage. Countries with low-skilled labor benefit more from trade if they specialize in one area of production. The middle east cannot suddenly start making computer chips, because they will lose a lot of resources and time once dedicated to making raw materials. It's not economically beneficial for them.
And tt is not Capitalism that causes countries to become poor. Why is it that capitalist countries are the ones who are better off than the other big-government countries? Socialism doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 4, 2010 10:59:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 4, 2010 10:58:45 GMT -5
There were not even 600,000 Serbs living in Croatia at the time. The Jasenovac website listed my grandparents who died in 1999 and 2000 as victims of Jasenovac. I know for a fact that Jasenovac is used for political purposes and a propaganda tool. But again, Jasenovac does not even have anything to do with Oluja, it's a non-sequitor.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 3, 2010 10:55:44 GMT -5
Croatia criticized on exodus anniversary 2 August 2010 | 15:42 | Source: FoNet BELGRADE -- Refugee organizations says that nothing has been done to help the return of Serbs to Croatia, 15 years after they were forced to leave. An estimated quarter of a million ethnic Serbs left Croatia in the summer of 1995, during that country's military-police onslaught against the Serb regions, known as Operation Storm. Reports cite the figure of between 60,000 and 80,000 Serbs who have returned to Croatia in the past 15 years. Refugee association officials, who spoke to reporters ahead of the 15th anniversary of the operation, said its crimes did not end with the military action, but continued in other ways, regardless of the improvements in relations between Serbia and Croatia. The promises coming from the Croatian side are a campaign to facilitate their joining the European Union and fulfilling obligations in the human rights field, the President of the Association of Refugees from Croatia Miljko Budimir said. He told a news conference in Belgrade on Monday that in the last two years, there had been more Serb returnees "returning again to Serbia, than those returning to their homes in Croatia". President of the Association of the Families of the Missing and Victims from Krajina and Croatia Èedomir Mariæ warned that the slow pace of the exhumation of bodies of victims from was unacceptable, adding that there were more than 1,352 victims who are yet to be exhumed, and were not buried in mass graves of the 2,100 that were reported missing. “Speed up the process, do not hurt us even more with postponing the solving of the fate of our loved ones, and especially do not hide the locations,” Mariæ said, addressing the Croatian government. President of the Serbian Government’s Missing Persons Commission, Veljko Odaloviæ, said that he expressed his disappointment at the dynamics of the exhumations in a meeting with Croatian officials, especially considering that there were more than 400 known burial locations. Why doesn't Serbia rebuild Vukovar and pay for the houses they stole from Croatian's in krajina? And why doesn't Serbia pay compensation to the victims of Srebenica?
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 3, 2010 10:52:42 GMT -5
No it doesn't Stanko. Communists and Greater-Serbs have used one tragedy and milked it over and over for political reasons. Jasenovac does not justify Bleiburg. So your actually denying Jasenovac and denying that 650,000 innocent people were slaughtered and killed in Jasenovac?? LOL Jasenovac still haunts you from this day on. No I am not denying it, although I think 600,000 is a little bit extreme. Where did you get these numbers from? And it was not just Serbs who died there. Why was Belgrade the first European city to be judenfrei? Why don't you mention that as much as you do Jasenovac? Again, Jasenovac has nothing to do with Oluja. It does not justify Bleiburg, Vukovar, Srebenica, Siroki Brijeg massacre, etc. Jasenovac has become a tool for Communists and Cetniks to use in order to justify what they are doing. It's similar to Israel using the Holocaust as an excuse to invade Palestine.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 2, 2010 23:22:50 GMT -5
No it doesn't Stanko. Communists and Greater-Serbs have used one tragedy and milked it over and over for political reasons. Jasenovac does not justify Bleiburg.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 2, 2010 19:01:52 GMT -5
I've read my fair share of books, but I believe what you have read are left-wing propaganda pieces. FDR brought the country into a deeper crisis in 1937, the Supreme Court was considering putting him on trial for trampling the Constitution until he bullied his way to get what he wanted. WWII brought prosperity to the arms industry, people were living on rations under FDR. Capitalism is freedom because you can start any business you want and make deals with anyone you want without the government on your backs. You are watching too many Michael Moore movies that you are confusing Corporatism with Capitalism. Capitalism is not big monopolies keeping competitors out with government regulations. People wouldn't be working 14 hrs a day because in a competetive market, another business is going to take workers away from you the moment you decide to exploit them. The reason why the few control so much is not because of Capitalism, but because of government intrusion, politicians making side deals with big businesses. Capitalism forbids any government involvement and forbids any special interest group. A man who didn't want government to run our schools and indoctrinate our youth, rather leave education up to the families and teachers is just some racist right? A man who cut taxes and brought prosperity to the country is an evil white racist right? Blacks were enslaved by European governments long before America was even an idea. Your so called Progressive heroes such as Woodrow Wilson were former KKK members. Margaret Sanger of the Progressive movement said that Catholics, blacks, and Jews should all be sterlized. Do I need to go on about eugenics and the liberal movement? This liberal propaganda you read has gotten to the point that it's just laughable. Thomas Jefferson called for the abolition of slavery in his original Declaration of Independence. Ben Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, all were very vocal about ending slavery. These men basically created a government out of enlightenment principles. so I guess those philosophers were a bunch of white racists as well There is evidence from an economic standpoint. Capitalism even showed that slavery doesn't work. The North was industrializing and employing free men working for wages, who were motivated and more productive, while the South was still using slaves who had no incentive to try and become more productive since they had nothing to gain from it. Slavery was already banned in the Northern states and it was only a few southern states that still practiced it. Slavery would have died on its own. The Civil War was a result of other factors, not slavery. That's not Capitalism. That sir is Corporatism, crony capitalism, Keynesian-ism. Capitalism does not allow government to get involved in the economy. There would be no business groups making friends with politicians, this happens when you allow government to interfere. Companys make products cheaper and better by researching technology and more efficient ways to produce those products. Look at computers, they used to cost thousands of dollars to make until technology and research made it cheaper. Walmart is a success because it gets cheaper products to its consumers. As long as Walmart continues to meet the needs of the consumers, it will stay in business. The key is that the consumers are in control. Walmart cannot charge high prices once they kick out their competitors, because competition will enter the market once wal-mart charges more. Government has intervened in the American economy for over 100 years! There was no progress! Government intervention is what makes an economy suffer, they are good for only the few lobbyists who pay politicians to vote their way. Government is like fire, it can be an obedient servant or a fearful master. So you're saying Communism is the way to go? Having peasants work on government owned farms, without the right to their labor or property, is better than a free market? Please just take a basic economics course before you become a Che Guavaro revolutionary.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 2, 2010 18:33:05 GMT -5
At least he's done something right for once. A lot better than the time he said those wearing Red Star hats are wearing nice hats.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 2, 2010 18:28:05 GMT -5
I don't understand how Serbs always have the tendency to go back to WWII when discussing the war in 1991. Jasenovac happened 50 years before oluja, most of the people who lived in the 1940's are dead, in no way does that justify Serbs kicking Croats out of their houses, blockading streets and provoking a conflict, committing genocide, trying to destroy a democratically elected government, and refusing to obey even Yugoslavian law which passed the federal presidency to Croatia that year!!
The Serbs in Krajina were offered autonomy by Tudjman!! Tudjman said "hey, you could have your own krajina state with its own police force, government, and currency, just stop stealing more Croatian territory." But that was not enough for the extremist leaders who wanted to carve out the entire country!
And Tudjman even announced in Oluja that there would be no harm committed to any Serbian civilians, but all rights would be respected. And I would doubt this was just a ploy considering how Belgrade propaganda was calling Croatians fleeing their homes Ustase. Belgrade tells the krajina serbs to leave so their propaganda machine can say "Ustase kick Serbs out"
Serbs leaving Krajina is nothing compared to Vukovar, Srebenica, or Otacac.
|
|