Bosnians want Karadzic arrested

[verte76]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3995603

 

[verte76]

Here is more on why they want Karadzic busted. He is a war criminal.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bosnia/doc/start.html

 

[verte76]

More background on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

http://www.kakarigi.net/manu/briefhis.htm

*edited because of stupid spelling mistake*

 

[verte76]

This is a report about terrorists arrested in Bosnia.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=Bosnia

 

[anitram]

This man is a butcher. He and Mladic sit sipping coffee in Belgrade cafes, watching soccer matches while the victims of his crimes lay buried in mass graves.

And now Serbs have elected Milosevic to their parliament again. It really tells you a lot about what kind of mentality rules that country. They re-elect a man who has no power, who is on trial for crimes against humanity, do you really think they will deliver these two thugs? Dream on.

 

[verte76]

I can't believe those fools elected Milosevic to another office.
Sickening.

 

[melon]

And now Serbs have elected Milosevic to their parliament again. It really tells you a lot about what kind of mentality rules that country. They re-elect a man who has no power, who is on trial for crimes against humanity, do you really think they will deliver these two thugs? Dream on.

It's about dehumanizing your enemies. Do you think Americans care about dead Iraqis, for instance? From a non-Serbian POV, we can easily stand back and wonder how people can vote for such a horrid man. But nations all over the globe elect people that, from an outsider's POV, is a criminal.

It is sad all around.

Melon

 

[verte76]

Yeah, but if people will vote, in a democratic election, for a like Milosevic, doesn't that point out one fundamental flaw, if you like, in democracy? Isn't it possible, in practice, that democracy will go nuts and a democratically elected government could turn totalitarian really fast?

 

[melon]

Yeah, but if people will vote, in a democratic election, for a like Milosevic, doesn't that point out one fundamental flaw, if you like, in democracy? Isn't it possible, in practice, that democracy will go nuts and a democratically elected government could turn totalitarian really fast?

Indeed. After all, even the Roman Republic eventually developed into the Roman Empire.

Melon

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Yeah, but if people will vote, in a democratic election, for a like Milosevic, doesn't that point out one fundamental flaw, if you like, in democracy? Isn't it possible, in practice, that democracy will go nuts and a democratically elected government could turn totalitarian really fast?

It does. In fact there are several authors, going right back to Plato, who have argued that democracy is the "weakest" form of rule as it puts decision-making in the hands of the "uneducated masses." Anyone who's studied Germany in the 1930s would agree with you that sometimes democratically elected governments can turn into a totalitarian regime.

But what's the alternative? If we throw out democracy (which I know you weren't suggesting) because inherent in a democratic political process is the possibility of a man like Milosevic being elected, what system of government do we use instead? Only "educated" people can vote? Only "rich" people can vote? Nobody votes because we're ruled by an absolute monarchy?

Perhaps the solution is similar to the system used in Northern Ireland, where decisions made by the Assembly have to be supported by representatives from across the community. That ensures that you can't have a Unionist-dominated Assembly making decisions that will help Unionist communities at the expense of Republican communities. Even that isn't always effective, and inevitably one "flaw" of democracy is that it can't protect "minorities" from the view of the majority.

All that's left is to hope that the general population won't elect the extremists (ie Milosevic, the British National Party, the KKK, etc) and that if they do then there are limits on the powers of that government, either through a constitution or through another institution of government (ie the US Senate, the British House of Lords) to limit the damage they can do. Even that's not guaranteed, but I think that to deny ordinary people the chance to elect the government they see fit because there is a possibility of them electing a dangerous government is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

 

[melon]

In fact there are several authors, going right back to Plato, who have argued that democracy is the "weakest" form of rule as it puts decision-making in the hands of the "uneducated masses."

But Plato also said that a democracy works only with a strong, educated "middle class." Of course, that goes back to my question of what defines a "middle class," but, by all accounts, it is disappearing in favor of a large and uneducated lower class and a small, but growing upper class.

Frankly, I'm probably headed for the latter, but, call me crazy, the idea of living in a sort of "economic apartheid," where there are well-off people surrounded by poverty, doesn't appeal to me. Of course, if that situation ever happens, the uber-wealthy can just flee to their houses abroad.

Melon