© the eyeranian

Saddam would be safe if the unilateralist USA would turn him over to some UN-sanctioned international court. But they won't; Saddam will face justice from his own people.

Murderous dictators are only safe when responsibility for their ouster is turned over to the non-unilateralists like the UN.

And Khameni won't be safe from the Unilateralist Hegemon if he keeps on fooling with nuclear weapons.

Who forgot to lock the gates and let the animals in the house again????

Historian Michel Parrenti has written a book about the Kosovo conflict-I believe it is called "To Kill a Nation," and it is a somewhat shocking account of U.S./N.A.T.O. aims in dividing Yugoslavia. Among other things the book presents is a speech given by Miloslovic calling for the country to keep its socialist economy, and to retain unity among the various peoples of Yugoslavia. Apparently there were mass graves and murders, but some of these were commited by N.A.T.O. allies as well as its enemies. Milosovic appears to have been a murderous leader, but this has been an image the media has attempted to cultivate. He deserves due process in a trial, and the public should hold skepticism particularly when the media attempts to demonize a person so thoroughly. The evidence for his "ethnic cleansing," or his being culpable in ethnic cleansing that occured might be suspect, and quite unlike the clear responsibility for mass murder which could be laid at the feet of Saddam Hussein and the Council of Guardians in Iran.

I went to school with Serbians and sated a Serbain just before Yugoslavia busted into pieces. The Serbs I knew had old propoganda magazines that lookes as if they had been saved from years ago and passed down.

Thier mentality was all about how Germany would conspire with the Croates. The serbs I knew catagorically hated moslems in what I described as white hot bigotry. They saw the world through a prism where everyone was conspiring against Serbia. I forget all the details but it was a web of conspiracy theories rooted in very old rivalries.

Within a year watched as the Serbs then proceeded to create thier own self fulfilling prophecies, as they slaughtered thier way accross the old YugoSlavia. Milosevic broke the Dayton accords, refused to aknowledge the elections, and turned himself into a mini Hitler.

I was hearing about the 'elaborate scheme of western nations to divide Yugoslavia' before the war ever started.

We will never know if there was any truth to it, because the Serbs themselves became butchers and brought thier own demise upon themselves.

Well the problem is that there is no verifiable and immediate link between Milosevic and any atrocities in either Bosnia or Kosovo - which doesn't mean there aren't any such links, but that they're very difficult to prove in a court of law.

I've always been amazed at the way the Yugoslav conflict was described in Western media. This was a civil war, in which no side can claim innocence: as always in our part of the world, the strongest side commits the most crimes, and certainly the Serbs committed proportionally more crimes because they had better opportunity and means to do so. This in no way however means that the Serbs were the only culprits. This was a clash of awakened nationalisms, due in no small part to German meddling.
I strongly recommend Misha Glenny's excellent book "The fall of Yugoslavia" to anyone interested in the events surrounding the dissolution of a once relatively prosperous country.
Let me also remind people that, although a vicious and power-hungry maniac, Milosevic was, more or less, *fairly* elected President (and a lot of other offices) many times (except the last one) mainly due to a weak and ineffectual opposition, as corrupt, if not more corrupt that Milosevic himself... Despite his brutality there is simply no way that he can be compared to Saddam. There was an active and loud opposition in Serbia (some of it virulently nationalist) during his "reign".
I had posted some interesting testimonies from his trial at my weblog which I think shed some light on the true nature of the man and his regime:

Ante Markovic:
http://histologion.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_histologion_archive.html#106794795722327802

Lord Owen:
http://histologion.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_histologion_archive.html#106795023090999165

Milosevic should have been tried in Serbia for his crimes - and there are many which *could have been* proven in such a trial.

But NATO needed a show trial. Now the only way to condemn him is to ignore the embarassing lack of evidence. They would look very silly if they did that.

Chalk up another grand victory for the U.N. and international law.

Joe,
Are you now officially questioning the international law? What are replacing it with? US law? Rumsfeld's law? Wolfovitz's law? What are replacing it with?

To disappoint you and your opportunistic comment, UN still is more credible than the US. Whether we like it or not, the case against Milosivic has to be proven otherwise, there is no case. We are not talking about laws of gungle (the laws giverning US policies), are we? What would you do if you had power? Would you execute whoever you THOUGHT was guilty without proving the guilt?

What did non-involvment of the UN bring to the world? 600 people in the cages for over 2 years without any charges against them. If you want to have credibility in criticizing the UN, first you have to criticize the US. Otherwise, I agree, UN has failed badly in many areas; look at Sharon; a war criminal who still continues killing people, and UN has done nothing about him.

khamenei and alike will either be taken care of inside the country or pursued anywhere they go in this world...the same way the jews have pursued the nazis for years and brought them to justice, we will do the same with the mullahs...

no matter what you do to those savage faces, they will still be recognizable !!!! is there a bunch more revolting than the members of our parliament ???!!!

I think Azita khanoom needs to take a chil pill. Where all that hate comes from?!?!?!?

Milosevic was not a fairly elected president. When an election came along that ousted him from office, he simply chose to ignore it. So yes he was elected, but lost an subsequent election and refused to honor it.