|
Post by Novus Dis on Mar 28, 2008 17:58:18 GMT -5
They're traitors for not submitting their wealth and free will to a corrupt state? You just described the Serb rebellion against Bosnia under Izebegovic and Croatia under Tudjman. The difference between supporting Yugoslavia and Bosnia would be that if the majority of people in Croatia and Bosnia had supported Yugoslavia rather then their regional governments then there would have been no war thus no damaged property and no population shifts. Sure it would have been a corrupt regime but through gradual reform that corruption could have been contained and eventually dealt with. Though if you support Srpska Krajina or Republika Srpska (as they are the will of the people who did not wish to be controlled by a person who resurrected the Ustasha or an Islamic fundamentalist) then I agree with you completely. So your hero is one who has no regard for governments or their laws because all governments are corrupt on one level or another and to some degree?
|
|
|
Post by osmano on Mar 28, 2008 18:53:20 GMT -5
The main problem with these radicals is that they are targeting friends and allies of Bosnia instead of cetniks like Karadzic and Mladic. Friends and allies to Bosnia? Really? Do you simply forget there are millions in Bosnia that would disagree with you? Perhaps they might have been 'friends and allies' to the Bosnian government but certainly not the entire Bosnian population. The Bosnian government is attempting to secure Bosnia’s future by joining NATO. This way we the Bosniaks hope to minimize the risk of future genocides and any further territorial losses. Therefore it does not really matter what some individuals might think about NATO, point is that Bosnia’s NATO-membership will make Bosnia’s future more secure and that makes NATO Bosnia’s friend no matter what parts of the population might think.
|
|
stickinthemud
Membrum
Economist, Historian, Philosopher
Posts: 131
|
Post by stickinthemud on Mar 28, 2008 18:53:46 GMT -5
For me it makes no difference because it was merely switching support from one corrupt government to another corrupt government. The only thing I could possibly say thats better about the smaller successors of Yugoslavia is that they are smaller governments than the whole shebang. But it was obvious that it was just a change in authoritarian rule for different authoritarianism if you examine the governments that followed the break up.
I think reformism is was out of the question because you're options were to either stay in and be ruled by a despotic regime or break off and be ruled by smaller despotic regimes. Neither regime had any respect for property rights or natural rights of the people.
I don't see anything intrinsically better about the smaller para-states either. They were ruled by nationalistic despots and military police. They are no better than the government of Yugoslavia or the successor states that violated individual rights of the people. Sure, it was unjust for the Croat government to forcibly expel Serbs from their property but likewise it was also unjust for Serbs to do that to Croats or Bosnians living in their nationalistic mini-states.
If either of the states really respected natural rights then they would've respected the property rights of the people. IMO, secession should come down to the individual and his property. If Serb property owners do not wish to live under the authoritarian rule of Zagreb then I believe it is their natural right to keep their property and not come under that rule. Likewise, if Croats or Bosnians stuck in the Serb para-state do not desire to live under Serb authoritarian ( or any authoritarian) rule then they have the right to keep their property outside of the jurisdiction of any state.
Yeah that pretty much sums it up. A corrupt government has inherently corrupt 'laws.'
|
|
stickinthemud
Membrum
Economist, Historian, Philosopher
Posts: 131
|
Post by stickinthemud on Mar 28, 2008 19:01:28 GMT -5
Friends and allies to Bosnia? Really? Do you simply forget there are millions in Bosnia that would disagree with you? Perhaps they might have been 'friends and allies' to the Bosnian government but certainly not the entire Bosnian population. The Bosnian government is attempting to secure Bosnia’s future by joining NATO. This way we the Bosniaks hope to minimize the risk of future genocides and any further territorial losses. Therefore it does not really matter what some individuals might think about NATO, point is that Bosnia’s NATO-membership will make Bosnia’s future more secure and that makes NATO Bosnia’s friend no matter what parts of the population might think. I don't think NATO is such a wise move. If a force like NATO is required to coercively keep the peace in Bosnia then you know something is wrong with the state itself from the getgo. This is really no different than the U.S. having to stay in Iraq for god-knows how many years while squandering the wealth of productive American citizens just to keep up the Empire. NATO would also obligate Bosnia to finance or other wise subsidize conflict with any other NATO country in the alliance. Bosnia can't even sustain itself without coercion so I don't see how it can even contribute anything to NATO. Furthermore, NATO is at odds with several important countries which automatically pits Bosnia on a certain side in various conflicts. This hurts Bosnia's commerce and general prosperity. The supporters of NATO in Bosnia desire it because it functions as a foreign occupation force subsidized by foreign taxpayers ( against their will) just to maintain a country that can't hold together without massive coercion. Don't you see anything inherently wrong with this ? How can true peace ever be achieved with coercion and force? Its only making the situation worse.
|
|
|
Post by osmano on Mar 28, 2008 19:23:57 GMT -5
The Bosnian government is attempting to secure Bosnia’s future by joining NATO. This way we the Bosniaks hope to minimize the risk of future genocides and any further territorial losses. Therefore it does not really matter what some individuals might think about NATO, point is that Bosnia’s NATO-membership will make Bosnia’s future more secure and that makes NATO Bosnia’s friend no matter what parts of the population might think. I don't think NATO is such a wise move. If a force like NATO is required to coercively keep the peace in Bosnia then you know something is wrong with the state itself from the getgo. Who said anything about foreign NATO-troops staying in Bosnia? NATO would also obligate Bosnia to finance or other wise subsidize conflict with any other NATO country in the alliance. For the past 60-years such operations have only been aimed against cetniks, I don’t mind that at all. Seriously, Bosnia needs allies like USA, Turkey and naturally also Croatia. We the Bosniaks must never again allow ourselves to be helpless like in 1992. Furthermore, NATO is at odds with several important countries which automatically pits Bosnia on a certain side in various conflicts. This hurts Bosnia's commerce and general prosperity. The top investor countries (1994 - 2007) in Bosnia and Herzegovina are:Austria (1,294 million €) - EU/pro-Nato Croatia (434 million €) - NATO Slovenia (427 million €) - NATO Switzerland (337 million €) - pro-Nato Germany (270 million €) - NATO Italy (94,29 million €) - NATO Netherlands (63,52 million €) - NATO United Arab Emirates (56,70 million €) - pro-USA/NATO Turkey (54,81 million €) - NATO
|
|
stickinthemud
Membrum
Economist, Historian, Philosopher
Posts: 131
|
Post by stickinthemud on Mar 28, 2008 19:40:39 GMT -5
It appeared to me that this is what you were suggesting. I believe you wrote that NATO would somehow prevent genocide in Bosnia, I naturally understood this as military intervention. It also appeared to me that you suggested that it doesn't matter what a considerable portion of the Bosnian people thought ( presumably other ethnic groups in Bosnia) the government should act without their consent or only with the consent of a particular portion of the Bosnian population. That doesn't sound very representative or responsible of 'public servants' to me and I think it furthers antagonisms i.e. damaging the country even more.
Is SFOR still active in Bosnia?
NATO has been involved with much more than just Bosnia. It was the West's version of the Warsaw Pact. I agree that Bosnia would be much better off if it had sound commercial relations with people of all nations. I think this would increase Bosnia's prosperity overall and perhaps give it a real chance as workable country. But there is a difference between free trade contracts and trade managed by governments , or even worse, military alliances. Military alliances obligate Bosnia to support imperialism such as NATO and can sour relations with Bosnia and China , or Bosnia and Russia, key countries that can do much to help Bosnia's lack of capital investment. What I'm saying is Bosnia would be best if it didn't take sides in conflicts especially when it can't even resolve its own internal conflicts.
I don't believe large armies and military expansion help prevent wars. I believe they actually help instigate them. Bosnia greatest danger of falling into war isn't within its military strength, but rather within its corrupt politicians. Small armies don't cause wars, politicians do.
|
|
stickinthemud
Membrum
Economist, Historian, Philosopher
Posts: 131
|
Post by stickinthemud on Mar 28, 2008 19:46:56 GMT -5
What kinds of investments are these? Private capital investment for industry or government to government debt? If its the latter its actually damaging to Bosnia.
I know for a fact that a lot of investors are turned away from the Bosnian markets because the Bosnian government itself 'owns' at least 50% of many companies. I know Bosnia's largest exporting company called Aluminay is owned 44% by the government and another 44% by mostly government employees which makes a whopping 88% which drives away real capital investment.
|
|
|
Post by osmano on Mar 28, 2008 19:49:23 GMT -5
It appeared to me that this is what you were suggesting. I believe you wrote that NATO would somehow prevent genocide in Bosnia Bosnia’s membership in NATO. It also appeared to me that you suggested that it doesn't matter what a considerable portion of the Bosnian people thought ( presumably other ethnic groups in Bosnia) the government should act without their consent or only with the consent of a particular portion of the Bosnian population. That doesn't sound very representative or responsible of 'public servants' to me and I think it furthers antagonisms i.e. damaging the country even more. You are obviously misinformed, all 3 sides in Bosnia have agreed to work towards Bosnia’s membership in NATO. Is SFOR still active in Bosnia? Not any more, only some EU-police officers. NATO has been involved with much more than just Bosnia. [/quote] All Nato-fighting for the past 60 years has been against the cetniks. That is what we where talking about.
|
|
|
Post by osmano on Mar 28, 2008 20:01:28 GMT -5
Military alliances obligate Bosnia to support imperialism such as NATO and can sour relations with Bosnia and China , or Bosnia and Russia, key countries that can do much to help Bosnia's lack of capital investment. What I'm saying is Bosnia would be best if it didn't take sides in conflicts especially when it can't even resolve its own internal conflicts. You cant be serious, RUSSIA and China support the cetniks, Not Bosniaks, they invest in Serbia and will support Serbia once again if it ever comes to war and genocides against Bosniaks. NATO is what Bosnia needs in order to defend it self from the sick minds in Belgrade. Russia and China will not provide that kind of protection. I hope you understand that we are dealing with sick maniacs who consider it their national goal to exterminate us and steal our lands. So frankly all potential economic losses will be a small price to pay if it means that our biological existence and the territorial integrity of Bosnia will be secured by our NATO membership. I don't believe large armies and military expansion help prevent wars. I believe they actually help instigate them. Bosnia greatest danger of falling into war isn't within its military strength, but rather within its corrupt politicians. Small armies don't cause wars, politicians do. In Bosnia cetniks cause wars, and only a Bosnia with strong NATO-allies can prevent them from doing it again. What kinds of investments are these? Private capital investment for industry or government to government debt? If its the latter its actually damaging to Bosnia. The point remains that the investors in Bosnia are NATO nations. Bosnia’s future is in NATO.
|
|
stickinthemud
Membrum
Economist, Historian, Philosopher
Posts: 131
|
Post by stickinthemud on Mar 28, 2008 20:40:42 GMT -5
It appeared to me that this is what you were suggesting. I believe you wrote that NATO would somehow prevent genocide in Bosnia Bosnia’s membership in NATO. All Nato-fighting for the past 60 years has been against the cetniks. That is what we where talking about. I find it remarkable that the Bosnian Serbs would agree to such an arrangement but if that is the case, who am I to talk? I still think its a bad idea for both political and economic reasons. It appeared like you wrote something to the effect of who cares if some people in Bosnia don't like it, thats what I was mainly responding to. All NATO operations haven't been designated to the Balkans only. NATO operations are also conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and militarization of the Med and countries surrounding the Russian Federation. NATO also indiscriminately killed innocence in the pointless bombing of Serbia which rightfully raised Serbian ire toward NATO. If the goal is to have less hostile relations with Serbia NATO will make the situation worse. Russia and China oppose unilateral NATO actions more than they care about Serbia which is another reason I think Bosnian entry into NATO will have unintended consequences. I understand you are a Bosniak and look at it from a particular point of view, thats to be expected. I'm just trying to urge you to think of the bigger picture for a second. If anything will bring down Bosnia faster than war, thats a poor economy. When you have a poorly performing economy Bosniak people in Bosnia suffer as well due to government (mis)management of the economy. Perhaps. But now-a-days it appears that the Bosnian Serbs are no longer interested in usurping the Sarajevo government but, rather, they seek to disassociate themselves from it. If the concern is Serbia why antagonize Serbia by having Bosnia join NATO. The point is NOT to go to war with Serbia which is constructively done with better relations. NATO in Bosnia distances Serbia and creates a more likely scenario of Serbia/Bosnia conflict yet NATO, according to you, is there precisely to prevent Serbian aggression. See how absurd that sounds. NATO, I believe, has other plans for Bosnia that the Bosnian people will have to go along with because their own government serves other interests. Well I know countries like the Netherlands invest into Bosnia by printing Bosnia's own currency and then charging Bosnians interest for it. The investments in Bosnia mean nothing if they are government to government debt and will eventually be repaid through the long term savings of Bosnians. Government to government debt creates no real growth. I've already looked around a bit for REAL capital investment into Bosnia and its not all bad. At least some German automakers are investing into Aluminum manufacturing but not nearly enough ( in fact , some German investors cite they are uncomfortable with the government management of Bosnian markets.) Real capital growth and savings is what Bosnia needs. Things like gov to gov debt harm savings and take down the capital value of most of Bosnia's markets making industry amazingly sluggish and reflect on the high unemployment in the country. Military build-up is the last thing Bosnia needs.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Mar 28, 2008 21:57:40 GMT -5
For me it makes no difference because it was merely switching support from one corrupt government to another corrupt government. The only thing I could possibly say thats better about the smaller successors of Yugoslavia is that they are smaller governments than the whole shebang. But it was obvious that it was just a change in authoritarian rule for different authoritarianism if you examine the governments that followed the break up. I think reformism is was out of the question because you're options were to either stay in and be ruled by a despotic regime or break off and be ruled by smaller despotic regimes. Neither regime had any respect for property rights or natural rights of the people. I don't see anything intrinsically better about the smaller para-states either. They were ruled by nationalistic despots and military police. They are no better than the government of Yugoslavia or the successor states that violated individual rights of the people. Sure, it was unjust for the Croat government to forcibly expel Serbs from their property but likewise it was also unjust for Serbs to do that to Croats or Bosnians living in their nationalistic mini-states. If either of the states really respected natural rights then they would've respected the property rights of the people. IMO, secession should come down to the individual and his property. If Serb property owners do not wish to live under the authoritarian rule of Zagreb then I believe it is their natural right to keep their property and not come under that rule. Likewise, if Croats or Bosnians stuck in the Serb para-state do not desire to live under Serb authoritarian ( or any authoritarian) rule then they have the right to keep their property outside of the jurisdiction of any state. Yeah that pretty much sums it up. A corrupt government has inherently corrupt 'laws.' Unilateral secessions always leads to violence. People of common goals bind together and thus government and its laws cannot be disregarded because even if you get rid of the current government and laws, a new government will spring up and with it will come new laws (usually but not always) based on the old laws.
|
|