|
|
Post by majmun on Oct 13, 2009 3:55:20 GMT -5
^^ Are you talking to me  Even in a monoethnic country it would be rather easy to make the people kill each other. But I do think that during Yugo times, most just went with the flow. But I think only 1/3 were genuinely anti-nationalists. Anyways, it would take 50 years of intermixing to have "harmony" in Bosnia, and that was what was going on in the SFRJ, but in all, the only other "solution" is well, genocides of some sort. If the propaganda is sufficient and there are irrational seeds of nationalism planted within the populace , then probably it would be easy but not as easy. You would have a hard time going to Japan and convincing them to fight other Japanese for reasons of nationalism unless they were taught they themselves or their perceived enemies work against their interests and are 'not Japanese' in this context. What you call 'going with the flow' is probably more complicated yet brutally simple. It probably had something to do with the fact that when Tito ruled he was intolerant to any ideologues that would challenge his power. It had the effect of putting ethnic conflict on hold but it doesn't mean that the brutality Tito could use , if he wanted to, ( and did a few times) was good. I don't think 50 years of intermixing is the solution either. Because clearly not enough people were assimilated into a Yugoslav consciousness and the same kind of bloody brutality resumed in 1991 as it was in 1941. Also , you have the question of how do you achieve intermixing if most people prefer not to? Should a state force people to intermix? I do not think that it should "force" them to intermarry. But I do think that it should "force" firms, schools, sports teams etc to have a number from each ethnic group. After a while, and if nationalism was suppressed, they would intermix, for the simple reason that people want to get laid. the SFRJ "had" to fall, it was no way it could make it in a world dominated by one superpower. But if we have had 20 more years of intermixing in BiH, I think that large a part of the population would have been "Yugoslavs" that no new ethnic war would be possible. I know that many people from bigger cities that are from/are in tzv. "mjesani brakovi". Look, I'm not one of those Bosniaks that think we should make some new Bosnian identity, where muslims are on top, and catholics and orthodox are beneath. If there was "mixing" the Bosniak identity would be the one that disappeared the most, because the religious influences on this continent do not favor the religion we base our ethnicity on, whilst even in a strictly secular society with the majority being non-religious there would be influence from the religion that is predominant on this continent, now if these people refereed to them selfs as Bosnians or Yugoslavs, it does not matter. But if we want any future, and thats not just Bosnia, but the other south Slavs as well, we need to put this tribal mentality behind us. Where would the Brits be if they broke up their country into Scotland, England and Wales. in theory |
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 13, 2009 4:27:08 GMT -5
I wonder why you use force in quotations? You don't believe the government is an entity that uses force to achieve its ends? Anyway I think forcing ethnic quotas in education and commerce is a bad idea and its rate of success isn't stellar. The incentive is no longer to provide the best possible education or the best items on the market by skilled teachers and workers but rather to avoid persecution from the state for not meeting absurd requirements. If anything it just lends credence to ethnic discrimination since it would be a policy put into law for people to discriminate. I could be a very talented Croat worker applying for a job in Bosnia and my skills will no longer be taken into account if the company has already met its quota of Croat workers. Using the state to suppress nationalism actually achieves the opposite intended effect. It does not eliminate it. In fact, it promotes nationalism into a position of reverence. Such a state would jail and punish people trying to enact nationalist measures and such people would be praised since they are being 'put down.' This was the case with Alija Izetbegovic and Franjo Tudjman if you recall. They served time in jail for espousing their religious/nationalistic views only to return as heroes at a later point in history. My point being that if irrational ideas of nationalism are to be phased out , history and logic teaches us that an entity based on overwhelming force , like the state , does not only fail to achieve this goal but ultimately exacerbates it. Natural and voluntary evolution of human ideas are required to castrate nationalism. Even though there are still many religious people today few people would seriously want the Catholic Church to assume authority over matters of science and education again. We understand the world is not flat and the earth is much older than the Bible predicts and any opposition to those irrefutable facts are not taken seriously or given much intellectual attention. And why would they all this sudden intermix? If you're saying the state should have no place in determining who people have sexual relations with then why wouldn't most Serbs still continue to hook up with Serbs? Unless you are indeed implying the state should have a say in people's personal relationships as well. I don't understand your premise here. I don't know what would be so magical about the next 20 years if the first 50 didn't change a whole lot. Again , the brutality of nationalism was the identical in 91 as it was in 41. Intermixing was more frequent in larger cities , this is true , but by no means was the dominate of all marriages in the same cities. And I'm one of those Croats ( technically a Bosnian Croat) that really doesn't give a damn about nationalism or religion. In fact , I am rather hostile to those ideologies and motives. I'm not sure I understand exactly the rest of what you wrote but it sounds like you see clearly that religion played a huge factor in dividing people and tribalism is destructive behavior. I fully agree with this  |
|
|
|
Post by majmun on Oct 13, 2009 4:46:24 GMT -5
there were some stats about how large a percentage of the population were "Yugoslavs" in SRBiH, so I think that in an other 20 years they would become the most "dominant" group, acting as a sort of glue between the other three communities.
well, if they lived next to each other they would intermix, after the second world war people did intermix all of a sudden, and to all the ethnic groups that war was a lot more brutal then the recent one we just had.
I agree with you here, and you are right, in what you are saying. But as of today chances are far greater that you as a talented Croat worker would not get hired at all by firms where the management was run by Bosniaks or Serbs.
Anyways, this doesn't matter, it is unlikely that Bosnia will ever turn normal, as this in unlikely for the whole Balkans, but it is better to hope that a change for the better comes, rather then making new plans that will inevitably lead to another ethnic based conflict. The irony is, I honestly think the majority of people in the Balkans, even if nationalist, do not see them selfs as nationalists, but defending the "just" cause, and the "injustices" done upon "their" people.
As for Alija and Franjo, their place was in jail, only bad things was that Slobo wasn't their with them. But their nationalism should have been "debated" more openly and ridiculed instead of just locking it away.
What I mean about the last bit is that I am not one of those Bosniaks that talks about a "unified BiH" where Bosniaks would dominate the others, and that I would just as much approve of the intermixing/cooperation what ever, of the entire former Yugoslavia as I would of Bosnia.
|
|
|
|
Post by tito on Oct 13, 2009 5:09:07 GMT -5
Among other things Dayton prevents one peoples being dominated by the other which is the real objective here, Lie all you like about equality and Democracy for all the people, when it really is about equality and democracy your way...forget it, it aint going to happen. You say Cetniks still have the power well we all know that Balije hold it also, so there aint a real solution other than strong guarantees which Dayton gives. The solution is to get another 3 probosnian MP from the smaller entity at the elections next year, that way the cetniks wont be able to block the democratization any more and the probosnian majority will be able to form new national laws without an approval from the cetniks. Bosnia has a democracy or none of the current representatives in Bosnia can be considered legitimate according to a typical democratic system. Why do people still vote in Bosnia? Is this some kind of sham? Do you think that a simple majority is wise on the grounds that they are a majority? Does their majority status somehow prevent them from making bad decisions and make them good people? Hypothetical question for you : If Bosnia had a Serb majority, would you still be in favor of democracy? Rule of the majority? Would you trust the majority to make good decisions for everyone and do you expect the minority to concede that the majority is wise? It works just fine for the Bosniaks in Montenegro so it will work in Bosnia too. |
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 13, 2009 5:25:56 GMT -5
It wasn't that large. Even at its largest point , less than 10% of BiH's total population before the 80s , it was still fairly small. After 81 , the Yugoslav population dropped even more dramatically. By 1990 the population of Yugoslavs was even lower. By all indications, following the trend , the Yugoslavian identity probably would've evaporated in the next 20 years.
Even at the 'hay day' of Yugoslav declaration within the whole of Yugoslavia (60s-70s), it was Croatia , not Bosnia , that had the highest percentage of Yugoslavs which was only about 8% of that republics total population of over 4 million.
Well there is that possibility but they already did live next to each other and as soon as the Tito government faded , Yugoslav identity was in decline as I stated above.
Maybe you are not also taking into account that of all the mixed marriages how many children claim one side or the other and not necessarily Yugoslav? It would seem quite a bit to the point of being significantly more than those which claim Yugoslav. I don't believe mixed parents automatically = Yugoslavian children by consciousness. The evidence would probably weigh in favor of the opposite tbh.
People have been 'intermixing' in Bosnia for a long time, long before WW2 even began. This was no new phenomenon introduced by the Second Yugoslavia. From a personal standpoint I find the term 'intermixing' ludicrous since genetically speaking they are similar anyway. What you're really intermixing is peoples' indoctrinated concepts of themselves ( ethnic Serb , Croat , Bosniak , otherwise) and nothing material. ( Sorry, small rant).
I don't think any one will deny that there was a higher body count in WW2 than the recent war but the level of brutality wasn't much different. It would be pretty hard to convince a surviving rape victim from Vukovar otherwise or a survivor from Jasenovac the same thing.
The only difference really was that the entirety of Europe , and even the world , was not at war but rather this isolated region. The war mongers were also promoting their ideas of democracy vs the previous mongers' ideas of fascism. We still see concentration camps and wholesale slaughters of entire regions.
Perhaps but a policy of forced integration doesn't achieve much either. If anything it builds resentment. Serbs, Bosniaks , or indeed , other Croats might look at me at some company and question whether I got hired for my record of talent or simply because of the fact some official paper trials declare me Croatian?
Such a company discriminating would lose business in the long run anyway. Deliberately rejecting talent on irrational reasons of ethnicity only allows another company to capitalize on that talent and eventually just do a better damn job than the racist/nationalist competitor.
There is always a cost to discrimination. The market , in reality , is rather unforgiving.
On top of that I wouldn't want to market my talents to a company I know willingly discriminates.
Well if the Balkans continues to be polluted with ever increasing statism then yeah , I don't see a bright future either. I think the irony you pointed out is very astute and probably a bigger issues than even you realize. People don't recognize some of the ideologies they hold as potentially evil but rather exactly the opposite , they consider them good !
Just like the Nazis didn't consider themselves evil but actually good. It proves one thing, most people will not do or believe things that they know are evil. If what they believe/do is truly evil , then something is wrong with them psychologically to be able to rationalize to themselves that murder or rape can ever be good or 'necessary' for the 'greater good.' Maybe an ample example would be that forcing thousands of people at the point of a gun out of their homes and looting their property is 'necessary' for 'collective justice' and the 'greater good' of X people. Using weird rationalizations to excuse normally immoral human behavior. It's certainly a psychological illness.
|
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 13, 2009 5:29:17 GMT -5
How do you know?
Any majority , by vitue of being a majority, is right and wise?
Btw so I am assuming that you would promote democracy in Bosnia if the majority was , in fact , Serbian or at the very least espoused very 'pro-Serb' views?
PS: I hope you do understand there are significant differences between Bosnia and Montenegro?
|
|
|
|
Post by tito on Oct 13, 2009 6:04:51 GMT -5
How do you know? Any majority , by vitue of being a majority, is right and wise? The pro-Bosnian majority in BiH, much like the pro-Montenegrin majority in Montenegro bases it’s political programs on EU:s democratic standards. The pro-Montenegrin majority has given the serb minority equal rights even though the serb minority opposed the independence of that state, same goes for the pro-Bosnian majority that has nothing against the serb minority in BiH and has no intention of damaging Bosnia’s road to EU and NATO by not giving the serb minority at least as much rights as they have in Montenegro. Btw so I am assuming that you would promote democracy in Bosnia if the majority was , in fact , Serbian or at the very least espoused very 'pro-Serb' views? As I said it before: It works just fine for the Bosniaks in Montenegro so it will work in Bosnia too. PS: I hope you do understand there are significant differences between Bosnia and Montenegro? The negative differences that exist where forced upon Bosnia and will be minimized by the pro-Bosnian majority as times goes by and Bosnia becomes more democratic. |
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 13, 2009 6:21:55 GMT -5
How do you know? Any majority , by vitue of being a majority, is right and wise? This really fails to answer my question unless you are making legitimacy of majority rule situational. ( Based on X group?) Of course, I understand the underlying philosophy of democracy may be beyond your knowledge at the moment. This is what I was asking you about. This doesn't even get into the question of what EU standards you speak of or whether they are even good in general or good for Bosnians. What are those negative differences? Again , do you fundamentally even agree with the principles of democracy or is it dependent on ethno-nationalist persuasion? |
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 13, 2009 6:43:25 GMT -5
Basically it breaks down to this , tito:
You advocate democracy for Bosnia which is basically recognition of national majorities and minorities ( vs the current system of equality not based on majorities and minorities).
If you would , in theory ,still support democracy in Bosnia even if it has a Serb majority then you are at least consistent with your support for democracy. At the core ,this would be regardless of what agenda the majority sought , you would still respect their democratic majority and those who disagree have the option to leave, right?
However , if you would not support a hypothetical Serb majority because their policies might not be considered 'pro-Bosnian' or some policy you support then you really are not for democracy but rather arbitrary majority rule based on X policies and whatever group supports those policies. I highly doubt you would promote living in a state with Serb majority rule ( like Yugoslavia without Croatia and Slovenia).
Also , how can there be true equality in democracy? That never made sense to me. Maybe you have some insight I am missing?
Also , you cannot have a Federated State that practices democracy because internally its politics would be contradictory. For example why would democracy be supported on a federal level but not on a local one? What I mean is if some community , lets call it majority Serb , had the majority decide on X policy , yet the minority of Bosniaks disagree , why would it be wrong if the same principles of democracy promoted on a grander level utterly fail at a local level? The only difference is land mass and area which is arbitrary and democracy contradicts itself.
Lets say in a Serb region , the relevant residents of that region want a policy that effects that region, its like internal regional politics, yet the Bosniak minority does not want it and the Bosniak majority if the entire country is not for it. Technically both are practicing democracy but which one is more relevant? Wouldn't you say the local democracy? I mean , what does a person living in Sarajevo have to do with the local politics of someone living in Banja Luka. The Sarajevan is not nearly effected as much as the Banja Lukan.
But then you would say , the national democracy is supreme. Well now , in reality its just difference of geographical rule. Why does the democratic will of the majority for Bosnia stop at Bosnia's borders? No seriously , think about this. Whats so magical about a political border that it makes democracy wrong 1 cm of grass beyond the Drina? Why can't Croatia and Serbia participate , democratically , in decisions about people ranging from Croatia , through Bosnia , and to Serbia? Why can't Europeans collectively and democratically participate in the future decisions of the whole region ( i.e. Polish citizen ultimately voting for the representatives of the Croats too.) ? Oh wait , we have something like that , its called the EU. We've just came around full circle.
I don't think you're going to grasp what I'm actually conveying to you. You might simply be to ignorant to think beyond your petty Bosnian issues and enter a larger plane of thinking. We exist in the same reality and I don't think the rules of logic ought to break down at Bosnia's political borders or are somehow radically opposite or different. I believe logic is logic precisely because of its consistency that transcends politics and personal beliefs.
But I don't expect you to keep up with this conversation. I welcome other peoples' inputs though.
|
|
|
|
Post by tito on Oct 13, 2009 6:46:15 GMT -5
This doesn't even get into the question of what EU standards you speak of or whether they are even good in general or good for Bosnians. The majority of Bosnian citizens would not prefer the democratic standards of EU instead of the anti-democratic standards of Dayton if they didn’t consider them good for Bosnians. The negative differences are all those aspects of the current Bosnian constitution that make Bosnia a less functional state then Montenegro. Also , you cannot have a Federated State that practices democracy.. Don’t worry about it, Montenegro is not a federal state and the pro-Bosnian majority in BiH opposes such cetnik ideas too. Democratic Bosnia will be a decentralized state based on the economic regions that have been proposed by EU but not a federal state. |
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 13, 2009 7:01:02 GMT -5
"The majority of Bosnian citizens would not prefer the democratic standards of EU instead of the anti-democratic standards of Dayton if they didn’t consider them good for Bosnians. "
Watch this, I am going to use the same democratic principles you are speaking of , just on a slightly different geographic land mass:
Ready? Here it goes:
Most of the Srpska citizens would prefer the current establishment than those preferred by others in the geographic area known as the Bosnian Federation.
On top of that , if you analyze this logically , I think the Srpska case is stronger, this is why:
They are keeping their majority preference restricted to their local area , they do not wish to impose this on another neighboring region of equal status ( the Federation).
However , the majority of the Federation not only express their desire for constitutional reform as regards themselves but they wish to also impose it upon others who do not share that desire in another region of equal status.
If you support democracy , democracy is in practice on the sub-regional level of Bosnia. Why must you sacrifice that democracy to achieve the same kind of democracy on the national level? The current constitution basically allows for democracy on a more local level with a couple provisos but , probably rightfully and contradictorily, opposes it on a larger level involving the larger political land mass ( all of BiH under a central govt).
In other words , if this sounds absurd , it is. That is part of the madness so prevalent there.
|
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 13, 2009 7:09:54 GMT -5
How little and pathetic your mind really is. WOW, lol. If I understood this correctly you are suggesting that a Federated state is specifically a 'Cetnik' idea? Hahaha. I should end this conversation at this point but I can entertain this nonsense.
Couple points:
1. Logically , you cannot have a decentralized state that is democratic. Just doesn't work in theory and in practice , it might be called ' democratic,' but really , its not. Its not the minute there are provisos which negate the majority on any policy.
2. Did you know the United States is a Federated Union? Did you know that Switzerland is much the same? Are these really Cetniks?
3. The rules of logic do not break down at Bosnia's borders.
|
|
|
|
Post by tito on Oct 13, 2009 7:36:51 GMT -5
Most of the Srpska citizens would prefer the current establishment than those preferred by others in the geographic area known as the Bosnian Federation. There is no such thing as "Srpska" or "Bosnian Federation". If you support democracy , democracy is in practice on the sub-regional level of Bosnia. Why must you sacrifice that democracy to achieve the same kind of democracy on the national level? The current constitution basically allows for democracy on a more local levelAs in preventing non-serb citizens to be elected ;D If I understood this correctly you are suggesting that a Federated state is specifically a 'Cetnik' idea? Yes in Bosnia only the cetnik minority wants Bosnia to be a federal state, they expect the non-serb majority to keep awarding their genocide and aggression which would contradict the basic values of the pro-Bosnian majority that knows that Bosnia as an UN member has an obligation to minimize the effects of the aggression and genocide. |
|
|
|
Post by majmun on Oct 13, 2009 8:14:43 GMT -5
I think what occamsrazor is trying to say is this. How many Bosniaks, if BiH had remained in quasi-Yugoslavia without Croatia and Slovenia would want a system where 1 person = 1 vote, if the numerically dominant ethnic group in this state had a voting habit of voting for Serbian "patriotic" parties.
There might be an X amount of Serbs who would be in favor of having a Bosnia where we lived together, unlike now. But they would not want this Bosnia. It is the same as that there might be an X amount of Bosniaks who would be in favor of having Yugoslavia, but no Bosniak would be in favor of a Yugoslavia where there was a one person = vote system, with Serb "patriotic" parties winning all the time. By giving Serbs the choice between the RS, and a "untied" Bosnia where Bosniaks dominate, one is doing the same mistake Milosevic did, where he gave the others a choice between Serb-Dominated Yugoslavia, or the attempt to create their own nation-states.
A "democratic" Bosnia would need to have a total ban on nationalism, and have a more secular society then France has.
|
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Oct 13, 2009 8:25:43 GMT -5
I think what occamsrazor is trying to say is this. How many Bosniaks, if BiH had remained in quasi-Yugoslavia without Croatia and Slovenia would want a system where 1 person = 1 vote, if the numerically dominant ethnic group in this state had a voting habit of voting for Serbian "patriotic" parties. There might be an X amount of Serbs who would be in favor of having a Bosnia where we lived together, unlike now. But they would not want this Bosnia. It is the same as that there might be an X amount of Bosniaks who would be in favor of having Yugoslavia, but no Bosniak would be in favor of a Yugoslavia where there was a one person = vote system, with Serb "patriotic" parties winning all the time. By giving Serbs the choice between the RS, and a "untied" Bosnia where Bosniaks dominate, one is doing the same mistake Milosevic did, where he gave the others a choice between Serb-Dominated Yugoslavia, or the attempt to create their own nation-states. A "democratic" Bosnia would need to have a total ban on nationalism, and have a more secular society then France has. Yes , I knew you would understand, however, I am not at all surprised that tito missed the boat. Republika Srpska i Federacija BiH? Or have you not been keeping up? Croats? I find it hard to believe you speak for every Bosniak also. You dug your own hole here and I somehow knew that you would. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You cannot expect to push policies based on the current Bosnian demographic ( majority - minority nonsense) and in the same breath complain about about the current post war demographic as regards the Serbs. If you want to undo the current demographics then you have to accept the pre-war demographic when pushing policies in which Bosniaks were not a majority. In fact , collectively , the Croats+Serbs made up the majority of Bosnia's prewar population. Of course, I don't think you would be all too enthusiastic about democracy with that configuration. |
|
|
|
Post by tito on Oct 13, 2009 8:58:11 GMT -5
By giving Serbs the choice between the RS, and a "untied" Bosnia where Bosniaks dominate, one is doing the same mistake Milosevic did, where he gave the others a choice between Serb-Dominated Yugoslavia, or the attempt to create their own nation-states. As far as I remember Milosevic(or more correctly the Serb expansionists) attempted to control a federation of states in which serbs where a minority. Bosnia and Montenegro unlike Yugoslavia have a patriotic majority that wants a democratic citizens state and not some ethnocracy in which the cetnik minority will be allowed to block the functionality and the democratization of the state and it’s ongoing integrations with EU and NATO. A "democratic" Bosnia would need to have a total ban on nationalism, and have a more secular society then France has. The pro-Bosnian majority has prepared new laws against fascist organizations and genocide but the cetniks keep blocking them in the parliament, hopefully the cetniks will lose their current control over the RS veto-power at elections next year. |
|
|
|
Post by tito on Oct 13, 2009 9:23:44 GMT -5
Croats? I find it hard to believe you speak for every Bosniak also. Instead of speculating about what individual voters might think I speak about what the representatives of the voters are saying. Croats in the BiH parliament unlike the cetniks don’t waste time on absurd demands that everyone knows are totally unacceptable to both the Bosniak as well as the pro-Bosnian majority. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You cannot expect to push policies based on the current Bosnian demographic ( majority - minority nonsense) and in the same breath complain about about the current post war demographic as regards the Serbs. What makes you think that? If you want to undo the current demographics then you have to accept the pre-war demographic when pushing policies in which Bosniaks were not a majority. In fact , collectively , the Croats+Serbs made up the majority of Bosnia's prewar population. LOL 1991 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina:Serbs: 1,366,104 (31.21%) Croats: 760,852 (17.38%) Not that it really matters since I already explained like 4 times that both Bosniaks and serbs are doing just fine in a true democracy like Montenegro even if non of them is allowed to block the democratic process of that country. |
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Oct 13, 2009 13:23:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tito on Oct 13, 2009 21:07:21 GMT -5
Anyway the serbs have now agreed to support changes in the current election laws so that citizens of BiH no longer will be discriminated based on ethnicity or which entity they are from. This will allow voters from both entities to vote for all 3 ethnic BH-presidency candidates but also non-serbs to candidate them self’s for entity president in RS. 13.10.2009 Dodik je dodao da je za RS prihvatljivo da bude uveden predsjednik Predsjedništva BiH i dva potpredsjednika sa rotacijom svakih osam mjeseci. www.nezavisne.com/dogadjaji/vijesti/47427/Entitetsko-glasanje-nije-dovedeno-u-pitanje.html2 small changes after one week of negotiations and still 7 days to go before the EU and US representatives return to Sarajevo. |
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Oct 13, 2009 21:16:50 GMT -5
Anyway the serbs have now agreed to support changes in the current election laws so that citizens of BiH no longer will be discriminated based on ethnicity or which entity they are from. This will allow voters from both entities to vote for all 3 ethnic BH-presidency candidates but also non-serbs to candidate them self’s for entity president in RS. 13.10.2009 Dodik je dodao da je za RS prihvatljivo da bude uveden predsjednik Predsjedništva BiH i dva potpredsjednika sa rotacijom svakih osam mjeseci. www.nezavisne.com/dogadjaji/vijesti/47427/Entitetsko-glasanje-nije-dovedeno-u-pitanje.html2 small changes after one week of negotiations and still 7 days to go before the EU and US representatives return to Sarajevo. lol reminds me of Yugoslavia & the presidential rotation policy which if I'm not mistaken was every 5 years. |
|
