2007-03-22 17:41:49 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'm sorry Irena but lets be realistic. Belgrade never experienced what Sarajevo did, years of shelling from the mountains resulting in mass civilian death, total destruction of historical buildings and civilian homes. What I don't understand was that Serbs controled 70% of Bosnia and really had no designs on Sarajevo yet the slaughter, and destruction continued year after years. It was cruel, it was inhumane, and againts the rules of war it was simply put "OVERKILL". Now some should pay for this enormous cruelty.
2007-03-23 07:32:25 · update #1
YES YES YES... 92% of the country was completely destroyed by Serbian forces. Serbian war plan was to destroy as much as possible - libraries with huge amount of precious books were burned and someone should be held responsible for that.. and yes, pay the restitution.
2007-03-23 05:01:33 · answer #1 · answered by identity_letters 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
As Jelena said the international court decided that Serbia should pay reparations to Bosnia..
And I agree with the verdict..even though it was a very political decision..
Serbia isn't exactly a rich country. It simply doesn't have the money to pay Bosnia. If it had to pay..it would be paying for generations..and the people who would be punished wouldn't all be the ones who were guilty. But rather the next generation those who were too young or born after the war who would suffer most.. from living in a country broke by these payments.. It would do nothing to allow Serbia to develop a civil society..but rather the hatreds that are there now will grow and fester .. And the isolationist kingdom of heaven myth will grow stronger. Reparations against Germany after WW1 certainly didn't have the desired effect and it would be the same with Serbia
I disagree with the concept of collective responsibility too.. because it allows the REALLY REALLY GUILTY such as Milosevic and Karadzic to escape the blame as 'everybody' is guilty. And it somehow diminishes their guilt..
At the same time it is unfair to stigmatise an entire nation.. as not everybody is guilty..some stood up against injustice at great personal risk.
In the case of Serbia.. paying reparations.. What about Montenegro???? They were very much involved too..Just because they are now a new country should their escape justice.. Or Republika Srpska..because most of those doing the fighting were Serbs from there
Why should those from Sandzak pay when most of the population there were not involved? Or Albanians from Presevo or Kosovo (because Kosovo then was part of Serbia) pay? Because if Serbia had to pay it would be the nation as the whole that pays ..so many of those who were also victims would be paying reparations whilst some of the guilty would be benefiting from them because they live in Bosnia..
Alot of the individual war criminals have left the country and are not paying taxes..so it wouldn't effect them which is not fair..
This is a hard question because honestly sometimes little can be done to make a situation 'right'. I know Serb victims too who suffered alot. But nothing can ever really be done to correct what happened. Just to hopefully stop it happening again.
Sometimes justice can't just be about punishment but rather making conditions right for a better future.
2007-03-23 10:51:38 · answer #2 · answered by Kraljica Katica 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Vince, I have one suggestion for you: dig in some more poppy seed and cry.
Kraljica, "really guilty" is a funny term. What exactly would Milosevic and Karadzic be really guilty of, concerning Bosnia? And how would you place their "real guilt" in comparison to the fact that their "real guilt" for anything in Bosnia was never declared in any court, other than political gameplay with which one was declared Balkan Peacemaker and the other given space to leave the political scene? Should we rather judge Karadzic after or before any guilt is presented in some court? How would you compare their "real guilt" with the "allow me to state utmost guilt" of Izetbegovic, the Croat army which killed Serbs in Bosnia, journalists and foreign politicians who escalated the Bosnian conflict, corrupted UN officials...? Shouldn't we rather say that those who massacred their own people in Markale and Vase Miskina are the "real guilty" ones? Please don't rush with such remarks.
ADDED:
Giving apology would mean they are guilty, which they are not. The only guilt they had was not doing enough, although Milosevic was declared Peacemaker. While Serbia "was not doing enough," other countries were doing everything for the bloodshed to escalate...
2007-03-23 11:39:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
Yes, as soon as Saudi Arabia and Iran pay for arming Mujahiddens in Bosnia.
Nonsense.
2007-03-23 06:35:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
a program of reconciliation that addresses long ago & recent atrocities,,,,,,,,criminal time ,maybe execution or life confinement for a few,,,,,,,everyone agrees to "move forward",
2007-03-22 17:49:14 · answer #5 · answered by quackpotwatcher 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
reparations are always controversial as for apologies...it would be difficult as of the moment.
2007-03-22 17:46:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it shouldn't, read the papers, UN court rejected Bosnia's claims for monetary reparations so it's official.
2007-03-22 23:35:20 · answer #7 · answered by Jelena L. 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Ne
2007-03-23 11:11:06 · answer #8 · answered by Sexbomb 4 · 4⤊ 4⤋