Stupidity - the single reason why democracies never work

Well, Sarmatian and Aemilius, all I can say is, that if you are incensed by my description of Russia or Serbia, just wait and relax with the prospect of Seamus returning to this thread to find his political beliefs described as borderline fascist.

Or, in other words, I have no axe to grind with either Serbia or Russia. You get the same treatment Peasant Phil and Andres get about Belgium, Adrian and Frags about the Netherlands, Rabbit and Don Corleone over the US, HoreTore over Norway, perenially hard-done by Furunculus over the UK, etc. I just barge in and take painstaking care not to mind my own business.

@Aemilius: Yes, I deal in generalizations. As you say, generalizations can serve a justified purpose. In this case, it served to hide my lack of true insight while still allowing for the grand pompous statement. :book:

I don't care whether Russia is a great power or a humiliated power or a future power. All I care about is for ordinary Russians to have a life of peace, dignity, and a tasty chicken in the pot. And central heating if at all possible.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

But, unfortunately, there's some truth in your words. Can't say for Russia (although I do believe there is similarity), but definitely for Serbia.

---

Hah!

Quote:

---

You mean Biden's visit to Serbia? Or something involving Russia?

---

I thought that Obama went to Moscow, hoping to 'push the reset button' for US-Russia relations. Maybe the phrase derived from a visit by H. Clinton. Or from a mistranslation. I dunno.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert..._b_236604.html (Much abridged version of article):

Quote:

---

After Obama Visit, Russia Resets to Default


For all the talk of "reset button diplomacy," by the time Obama left the continent, Russia had rebooted to default, exhibiting some of the most regrettable conduct and tragic events it has become known for over the past decade.


Obama seems like he has good intentions and fewer illusions about Russia, but let's face it: it is a high cost, low reward diplomatic problem. Given the current route being pursued in Washington, we are not likely to see any eye-opening changes following this latest murder. To Russia's delight, the Obama administration has found itself cornered into a guilty position, willing to apologize for anything and everything. Washington currently suffers from some very unreal assumptions based on groupthink - repeating like a mantra, we must respect Russia to work with Russia . The same goes for Europe. A high-ranking German official recently commented to me, "Whenever Russia behaves outrageously, everyone in Germany starts asking what we did to cause it."

When we subscribe to this victim narrative, measuring our words about Russia's human rights problem while journalists go down before the firing squads, who exactly do we think we are helping?

Anna Akhmatova may have nailed it back when she wrote, "She loves, loves blood, this Russian earth." But with the spilling of Estemirova's, it is high time we realize that it is on our hands too.

---

Carry on Louis. “Mords lui l’oreille”…:karate:

It is not because Serbia refused to participate in NATO’s manoeuvre in Georgia that they celebrate the Russian victory by the way…:sweatdrop:

Generalisations are there to find some gold nuggets in tones of … mud.

Can we add in the Russian – Serbian axe Chavez? Please?
Because it reminds me a Serbian saying about the Ever Hodza’s Albania: We (Albanian) are with the Chinese one Billion…:bucktooth:

And because I am in Serbian Saying: God, protect as from the Russian friendship….
:beam:

Putin is working against corruption....?

Putin is the very reason there is corruption in Russia.

@Louis: You're giving me a hard time about Norway...? You'll have more luck trying that one on Sigurd or Viking, as I can assure you, if there is some Norway-bashing going on, I'll be the first to join in ~;)



just don't mock Vålerenga IF or Mjøndalen IF.... then you're dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Putin is working against corruption....?

Putin is the very reason there is corruption in Russia.

---

Right. Which is why corruption was rampant in the USSR, namely the late period, and which is why corruptocracy blended with a kleptocracy was the dominant form of government under Yeltsin. Corruption is deeply rooted in Russia, as in any eastern European country. That is our greatest problem and weakness. Our people are simply lack the deceny of the Westerners, as a tougher lifestyle tends to take that away, along with the national mentality, which is not making it any better. In US, people leave house- and car- doors open in my town of 56,000 people. People are generally courteous and honest. But I guarantee if you put them in Russia, their grandchildren will be no different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Well, Sarmatian and Aemilius, all I can say is, that if you are incensed by my description of Russia or Serbia

---

No, if you read my post carefully, as contradictory it was, I actually liked your description. Of course, it failed to mention any positive sides, but honestly, I would not have expected you to read about any of those.

And from what I got from Sarmatian's post, he too was somewhat ambivalent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Right. Which is why corruption was rampant in the USSR, namely the late period, and which is why corruptocracy blended with a kleptocracy was the dominant form of government under Yeltsin. Corruption is deeply rooted in Russia, as in any eastern European country. That is our greatest problem and weakness. Our people are simply lack the deceny of the Westerners, as a tougher lifestyle tends to take that away, along with the national mentality, which is not making it any better. In US, people leave house- and car- doors open in my town of 56,000 people. People are generally courteous and honest. But I guarantee if you put them in Russia, their grandchildren will be no different.

---

Of course.

But Putin is still the high protector of every corrupt individual living in Russia today. He doesn't fight corruption - he furthers it.

For proof, well... Let's have a bet on whether that last journalist murder will be solved, shall we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But Putin is still the high protector of every corrupt individual living in Russia today. He doesn't fight corruption - he furthers it.

---

He does further it, true, on the high levels. But on the mid- and lower levels, he fights it. All in his own interest of course, but at least he is better than anything else Russia was unfortunate to get. Low-level corruption decreases the efficiency of his own programmes while the high-level corruption, or political favours, is to his benefit and usually to the government's. Of course, some businesses thus get an unfair advantage, which is the main problem.

In reality, this is no or little different from the lobbies in US though. It is my suspicion the lobbies are much more active than the high-level corruption in Russia, as lobbies are so active and powerful in US, that is Putin was to equal them, he would have to make corrupt deals 24/7.


If you wish to know some lobbies that affected my town, in a dishonest way, I would be glad to share them, just for the sake of illustration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Let's have a bet on whether that last journalist murder will be solved, shall we?

---

Sadly, there are so many journalists regularly disposed of in Russia, that is possible to confuse them :no:. I assume you are speaking of that lady who worked in Chechnya, and supposedly the Chechens got. And no, of course I will not bet, as you will win, supposing you bet on what I presume you will. If the "getting rid of" was sanctioned by the government, then it will never be solved. And if the Chechens really did it, it would be difficult anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

A way to do that? Well you could turn fascist. Failing that, you could vote the next best thing, Republican.

Maybe poor Americans who have the nerve to long to be free and equal citizens can emigrate elsewhere? Perhaps in search of a place that accepts the poor, the huddled masses, a country that is a home of the free?

---

I'll skip the fascism, thanks. Private ownership but government control isn't all that much more appealing to me than is outright government ownership, and demonizing some "enemy" to deflect criticism is politics at its tackiest. Besides, I can't really grow a proper chaplinesque mustache.

You are going right to the heart of my concern Louis. Yes, I believe we would be better off with a suffrage that is restricted to those who will give a **** and apply a little long-term thinking to their selections of representatives and the like -- who won't just react to which one is taller or has the most salacious pornographic films (gotta love Italian voters....).

But all of the previous restriction metrics: wealth, birth, ethnicity, sex, have all been abjectly unfair. I DO want somebody who sees themselves as a having a "stake" in the long-term success of the society. I just haven't figured out a way to do it without resorting to something that is worse in terms of individual liberty than the current system.

Our system may be broken (or at least dinged about), but it isn't completely non-functional. Therefore, it is incumbent to come up with a better idea before trashing the current one. I have yet to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

He does further it, true, on the high levels. But on the mid- and lower levels, he fights it. All in his own interest of course, but at least he is better than anything else Russia was unfortunate to get. Low-level corruption decreases the efficiency of his own programmes while the high-level corruption, or political favours, is to his benefit and usually to the government's. Of course, some businesses thus get an unfair advantage, which is the main problem.

In reality, this is no or little different from the lobbies in US though. It is my suspicion the lobbies are much more active than the high-level corruption in Russia, as lobbies are so active and powerful in US, that is Putin was to equal them, he would have to make corrupt deals 24/7.

---

Some businesses "get an unfair advantage"...? What?

Look, a method used on several occasions by the oligarks(every single one of them Putin's friends, or former friends):

First, find a suitable profitable factory, government-owned or private. Then grab one of your judges, and have him make a verdict declaring you as the rightful owner of the factory. Then grab the towns local police force, and have them occupy said factory, force the previous owner to relinquish his ownership and then remove them. Then loot and pillage what you can, take up a gazillion loans, remove your personal stakes in it, declare bankruptcy and finally pocket the money you've stolen.

And no, this is nothing like what the US lobbies are doing. Not even close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Sadly, there are so many journalists regularly disposed of in Russia, that is possible to confuse them :no:. I assume you are speaking of that lady who worked in Chechnya, and supposedly the Chechens got. And no, of course I will not bet, as you will win, supposing you bet on what I presume you will. If the "getting rid of" was sanctioned by the government, then it will never be solved. And if the Chechens really did it, it would be difficult anyway.

---

The chechens got her, that's what the propaganda is telling people these days...?

Look, the body was taken through a border controlled by the russian army. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that a car driven by chechens would get through one of those checkpoints without a full search of the vehicle, and that would've found the body. No, she was killed by russians, there is no other alternative. And it won't be solved, because the ones responsible are protected by Putin. Indeed, if it was to be solved, it would likely expose Putin's own corruption, and we can't have any of that, now can we? The Great Leader's reputation cannot be stained, can it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

First, find a suitable profitable factory, government-owned or private. Then grab one of your judges, and have him make a verdict declaring you as the rightful owner of the factory. Then grab the towns local police force, and have them occupy said factory, force the previous owner to relinquish his ownership and then remove them. Then loot and pillage what you can, take up a gazillion loans, remove your personal stakes in it, declare bankruptcy and finally pocket the money you've stolen.

---

That is not a common method which I was certainly not referring to. Of course it is not anything close to what the lobbies do. I was referring to the "favours" and not these Yukos-style debacles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

That is not a common method which I was certainly not referring to. Of course it is not anything close to what the lobbies do. I was referring to the "favours" and not these Yukos-style debacles.

---

Common? Define common.

They've certainly happened more than they should've. And lookie, it's happening again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And lookie, it's happening again.

---

Yes, I know, the Economist ran an article on it too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Well, Sarmatian and Aemilius, all I can say is, that if you are incensed by my description of Russia or Serbia, just wait and relax with the prospect of Seamus returning to this thread to find his political beliefs described as borderline fascist.

Or, in other words, I have no axe to grind with either Serbia or Russia. You get the same treatment Peasant Phil and Andres get about Belgium, Adrian and Frags about the Netherlands, Rabbit and Don Corleone over the US, HoreTore over Norway, perenially hard-done by Furunculus over the UK, etc. I just barge in and take painstaking care not to mind my own business.

---

I understand I'm a bit touchy when the issue arises but you have to understand something. For you everything about Yugoslavia was what you read in the papers. For me, it was a bit more personal and a bit more real. That's why I feel somewhat insulted when you speak so nonchalantly about it. I shouldn't, I know, but the dark side of the force is strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I thought that Obama went to Moscow, hoping to 'push the reset button' for US-Russia relations.

---

I wasn't sure which one were you talking about, because you've mentioned both Russia and Serbia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

just don't mock Vålerenga IF or Mjøndalen IF.... then you're dead.

---

Let it be known that with Sarmatian at the helm, Valerenga won the UEFA Cup and got the semis of CL in Football Manager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

And from what I got from Sarmatian's post, he too was somewhat ambivalent.

---

That's because Louis and I have had discussions before. (He was completely trounced of course, but he won't admit it :laugh4:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

First, find a suitable profitable factory, government-owned or private. Then grab one of your judges, and have him make a verdict declaring you as the rightful owner of the factory. Then grab the towns local police force, and have them occupy said factory, force the previous owner to relinquish his ownership and then remove them. Then loot and pillage what you can, take up a gazillion loans, remove your personal stakes in it, declare bankruptcy and finally pocket the money you've stolen.

---

That's not really how it works. Go back to the 90's, Yeltsin times. Huge political and economic crisis in Russia. Someone yells "democracy" and you have state owned companies privatised. Some shares are kept by the government, some distributed to the workers. Those workers go out of the factory holding a piece of paper in their hands. Someone outside the factory offers them 200 dollars for it. Crisis is severe. they need to feed and clothe their children, they need to pay the gas bill, the electric bill and many other things and they need to pay it NOW. They can't say ok we won't eat this month but we will eat twice as much the next. So they sell it for 200 dollars. Some don't actually know how valuable is the piece of paper they hold in their hands, they exchange it for a bottle of vodka. They can't afford to wait for months, to get themselves organised, to hire an expert. They have no money and no time and there's no expert. Then there's a problem with finding someone else to sell it to. Foreign companies are reluctant to invest during a crisis and only people with money are mobsters or "controversial businessmen". In the true spirit of free market, where "everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for", those oligarchs got factories and companies worth hundreds of millions, even billions for a few cases of vodka. The trouble is, it is hard to prove that there was anything against the law in it. Is it your fault if someone sold you something worth a 1000 dollars for 10 dollars?

Similar stuff happened in other countries going through transition. After 2000, Serbian government tried to deal with it by introducing special tax for extreme profit retroactively. Unfortunately, due to corruption, a very small percentage of the money was collected. In fact, you could say almost none of it was collected.

That's often the problem when you try to change political, social and economic system overnight. You can't just install free market economy in a country not ready for it. When Milosevic lost in the 2000, pretty much everything that was sold or privatised was done below the real value. The steel industry in Serbia, worth more than 200 millions, was sold to US Steel for 2 millions. When the economy was stabilised, when certain laws were enacted, the situation got much better. For example, Telenor bought the cell phone company for 1.3 billions, Carlsberg bought a brewery for more than 600 million, Interbrew bought another for 900 millions.

Even with US Steel paying a lot less than it was worth, it's still not that bad. It's US Steel, you know they will invest some fresh capital, try to make it work again. Unfortunately, most of the foreign investments were actually domestic through phantom firms set up in Cayman Islands or wherever. Then it often ended in the scenario you mentioned, like taking loans, selling them off or just closing them down to eliminate competition. Not all, to be fair, but most of it

The pattern was more or less the same in all transitional countries... Some fared better than the others but none was immune to it...

Hmm, let's see. In the past 20 years Russia has gone from a reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny to a.... reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny. Quite sad, really. Still, as far as tyrants go, Putin is a genius. He didn't *destroy* the opposition. Oh, no, that would be too cliche and archaic. He merely marginalized it to the point of irrelevance, and now the opposition is a convenient way for him to point his finger and say to everybody: "hey, look, we do have opposition, they simply aren't popular." Same thing with the media: you can find a couple of independent newspapers that do not toot the official party line, but at the same time the TV is completely under Putin's control. In short, pure genius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Hmm, let's see. In the past 20 years Russia has gone from a reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny to a.... reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny. Quite sad, really. Still, as far as tyrants go, Putin is a genius. He didn't *destroy* the opposition. Oh, no, that would be too cliche and archaic. He merely marginalized it to the point of irrelevance, and now the opposition is a convenient way for him to point his finger and say to everybody: "hey, look, we do have opposition, they simply aren't popular." Same thing with the media: you can find a couple of independent newspapers that do not toot the official party line, but at the same time the TV is completely under Putin's control. In short, pure genius.

---

I am sorry you have such a point of view, as it is inaccurate. And ignorant, no offense to you personally. But I am sure you were ignorant on purpose, or more accurately, you were making a litotes when saying In the past 20 years Russia has gone from a reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny to a.... reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny Because in reality, much has changed, and while you may generalise all you wish, it is clear you have not lived in Russia nor read a *great* deal about it, which is normal for a non-Russian due to all the mayhem in my country. Changes are not as noticeable as the breakup of USSR, but they are there.

Look, Russia is still a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny", you are absolutely correct. So is China. Are we to say China never changed since October 1st, 1949? Because it still is technically a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". Or heck, China was always a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". What were the Emperors if not that? Emperors were always reactionary to the extreme, forsaking all change in a conservatism worthy of the Ancient Egypt; they were also dogmatic, absolute rulers with no other parties present, save for rebellions. So are we to say that it never changed since its almost prehistoric beginning?? See my point?

Describing Russia as that is not even a generalisation. It is the omission of facts or ignorance. It seems in your case as the former, as you know more about Russia than that, I am certain, but do not mention it for the sake of the argument. Not that I blame you - an argument must be effective, and if some facts have to be dropped, then so be it.

Is there anything in particular in my description of Russia, that is inaccurate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Let it be known that with Sarmatian at the helm, Valerenga won the UEFA Cup and got the semis of CL in Football Manager.

---

See my new siggy. I now proclaim you my God.

As for your rebuttal to my post, that's another situation. Sometimes things happened like you described, sometimes it happened like I described. Like in the latest example, the Telenor case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Is there anything in particular in my description of Russia, that is inaccurate?

---

*picardfacepalm*. Either you did not read my post more carefully or you did not get the point. I stated:

Look, Russia is still a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny", you are absolutely correct. So is China. Are we to say China never changed since October 1st, 1949? Because it still is technically a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". Or heck, China was always a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". What were the Emperors if not that? Emperors were always reactionary to the extreme, forsaking all change in a conservatism worthy of the Ancient Egypt; they were also dogmatic, absolute rulers with no other parties present, save for rebellions. So are we to say that it never changed since its almost prehistoric beginning?? See my point?

The point is, you are incorrect in your omission. They say the greatest lies are told in silence. You only mentioned the most basic well known fact, one that applies to countless countries other than Russia. How am I supposed to reply to the statement that "Russia sucks", for instance. In comparison to US in many factors, it is true, but what is the point of making that statement? One says nothing new, nothing detailed, nothing that can be debated, such is the simplicity and irrelevancy of the declaration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

See my new siggy. I now proclaim you my God.

---

Hey! I am his greatest fanboy! You cannot take that away from me!! :clown: See his profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

*picardfacepalm*. Either you did not read my post more carefully or you did not get the point. I stated:

Look, Russia is still a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny", you are absolutely correct. So is China. Are we to say China never changed since October 1st, 1949? Because it still is technically a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". Or heck, China was always a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". What were the Emperors if not that? Emperors were always reactionary to the extreme, forsaking all change in a conservatism worthy of the Ancient Egypt; they were also dogmatic, absolute rulers with no other parties present, save for rebellions. So are we to say that it never changed since its almost prehistoric beginning?? See my point?



Hey! I am his greatest fanboy! You cannot take that away from me!! :clown: See his profile.

---

You described my assessment of Russia as incorrect and possibly ignorant. I would like to know what I got wrong. If by your admittance Russia indeed is a tyranny, then where did I make a mistake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Hey! I am his greatest fanboy! You cannot take that away from me!! :clown: See his profile.

---

Nonsense.

I'm Norwegian. We Norwegians, among other diseases, suffer from a chronic feeling of unworthiness. As such, our wieners grow a few inches every time our nation is mentioned by someone from another country, however passing the comment may be.

And I'm no ordinary Norwegian either; I'm a Norwegian from a small town. That means I feel small even among Norwegians from other, bigger towns, and my wiener grows an inch every time my town is mentioned by other Norwegians, or even just to have other humans know that my town even exists.

So, to have a Serb, a continental european, know about my favourite football team.... You cannot even begin to image how big my penis is just now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You cannot even begin to image how big my penis is just now.

---

Umm, yeah, sure, I doubt I will try to imagine that... *coughs**clears my throat* :sweatdrop::sweatdrop::no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Of course, it failed to mention any positive sides, but honestly, I would not have expected you to read about any of those.

---

Plenty of positives are reported on, are widely available.
Lake Baikal is beautiful in spring. The small towns in North Carolina are full of great people. On the .org however, we discuss Putin and Bush. If it doesn't involve bombs falling, it is not discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That's because Louis and I have had discussions before. (He was completely trounced of course, but he won't admit it )

---

In your dreams. I just got bored with the subject.
I maintain that Serbia was a major force behind the tragedy that raged in Yugoslavia for a decade. You maintain that Serbia was a poor victim and that America/the West needs to apologise to Serbia and pay reparations.
(Brenus for his part emphasises a more holistic view)

We can argue 'till we are blue in the face. But I'll leave it for the next round. Rest assured we'll have even more victims of mass murder dug up and identified from their mass graves. That I can use to smite you and Brenus with. Maybe Serbia will even have been forced to hand over more of those mass murderers it is still shielding.

I too understand that the situation in Yugoslavia was very real, involving real people. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus

Private ownership but government control isn't all that much more appealing to me than is outright government ownership

---

There is no private ownership outside of ownership protected by the state. Laws decide what is ownership, and government control protects ownership.

Monkeys don't have ownership. They sit in trees that they protect against other monkeys. That is ownership without government.

Ownership as we know it, on the other hand, exists because the law designates it ownership. All that you can do, is to work within the system, or work the government, to protect and enlarge your share.


Currently, the government works for you, and protects your share. This is under threat. So in a defensive move you work the government:

Quote:

---

You are going right to the heart of my concern Louis. Yes, I believe we would be better off with a suffrage that is restricted
[...]
I DO want somebody who sees themselves as a having a "stake" in the long-term success of the society. I just haven't figured out a way to do it without resorting to something that is worse in terms of individual liberty than the current system.

---

I would say that one can start by pondering better means of giving everybody a stake in society. Instead of further disenfranchising those who already are.
Never change the electorate when policies don't work out. Change the politicians and the policies.

The heart of my concern, in turn, is that the US has gone, within a few generations, from a country of possibilities to a closed shop. It is divided between haves and have-nots, to an extent not witnessed in the West since 19th century Europe.

And all I hear from the haves is talk about 'leechers', who consequently need to be stripped even of their right to be acknowledged as a citizen. The haves are turning into the landlords their ancestors fled from last century. Making America Ireland, 1845.


Two more unrelated comments:
Of course, in my heart of hearts, I wish you would succeed. That those who can not apply long-term thinking were stripped of their vote. That the more uneducated part of society would stop voting itself out of existence. That they would not swap their livelyhood and their healthcare for a prayer and a flagpin anymore.

Lastly, Europe, too, is quickly losing its social-democracy. I blame the importation of a vast and permanent underclass. Solidarity is stretched to the limit. Socialism has dug its own grave with its insistence of endlessly extending solidarity outwards. In twenty years time, I'll agree with you. As for now, I'll scold you. Such is the perennial fate of the American talking to a European. :wink:

“I maintain that Serbia was a major force behind the tragedy that raged in Yugoslavia for a decade.”
No problem with this as your analyse based on information given to you, provided I would say Milosevic.
Then you have to accept that Milosevic did exploit a situation he didn’t create…
SERBIA / MILOSEVIC didn’t initiate the first blood, to paraphrase Rambo (1st one).

In my one theory, Milosevic and Tudjman were accomplice in murdering Yugoslavia.
But I agree it is another subject.:sweatdrop:

“Rest assured we'll have even more victims of mass murder dug up and identified from their mass graves. That I can use to smite you and Brenus with. Maybe Serbia will even have been forced to hand over more of those mass murderers it is still shielding.”
Probably. :beam:
Can’t wait that after 15 years we will finally find them, and to see the satellite pictures and the proofs of horse shoes operation and the systematic campaign of rapes and….
Sorry to be cynic.

But you won’t have to answer for the mass murder made by the others sides.
The International Community is good in creating Serbian War Criminals…:smash:

And as we know and shown in and by The Hague “International” Court of Justice, war crimes against Serbs are not war crimes…

About the privatisation process in the East, I saw it in Macedonia (FYROM/ARYM).
The State announced a privatisation process of the state own company.
Managers (all from communist party) fired workers, sold the machines to relatives/friends) making value of the company close to zero.
The company is assessed. They bought their own company for nothing and the shares from their former employees.
Then they bring back the machines. They’ve got all the contact to start to work… Job done…
After they emigrate to England and buy football clubs…
:beam: