BruceVC

This is a nice gesture on your part squeakymeister. I would suggest you put something on the memorial stones similar to " I want Romance in PoE" ....

OK so you didn't watch the documentary. I will then run down the events for you. Where did it start? Most people agree that the national tensions culminated in WW2. What seems to be forgotten by most people today is that Croatia was an ally of the Nazis in WW2 and that they committed even worse crimes then the Nazis during that time. The worst of the crimes was the notorious concentration camp Jasenovac(in which they killed not only Jews, but also Serbs), which committed crimes that dwarfed that of the Nazis. Why? Because where the Nazis where efficiency exterminating the Jewish population, the Ustase in Jasenovac were not concerned with efficiency, they made sport of their killings, tortured people daily and seeing how long they could keep someone alive while doing it. http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/jasenovac.html After WW2 was over Tito assumed power and quelled the national tension for the most part. After he died there was a power struggle which, as is always the case, sent the country in a downwards spiral. With the countries destabilization, America sees the opportunity to dismantle a major power in Europe not under it's control. They offer Croatia a chance to secede from Yugoslavia with their support, which as can be seen they accept. 1st of March, 1992. In Sarajevo at a Serbian wedding in front of a church the groom is killed. This triggers the civil unrest in the City. 23rd of March 1992. Croatian Army attacks the village Hrasno, 6 member of YNA (Yugoslavian National Army ) are killed. 25th of March 1992. Croatian Army block roads to Serbia. 26th of March 1992. Croatian Army in tandem with the local Muslim paramilitary forces commit a massacre in the village Sijekovac. ...More attacks from the Croatian side through out Bosnia. 7th of April 1992. Bosnia and Herzegovina declare independence. 9th of April 1992. Serbian force take over Zvornik. 16th of April 1992. YNA come in to Visegrad and takes over command. 2nd of May 1992. Military objects in Sarajevo are under attack by the Bosnian paramilitary groups. Serbs apprehend the Bosnian president Aliju Izetbegovića. 3rd of May 1992. The Serbs and Bosnian arrange an exchange for Alija Izetbegović and the unarmed retreat of all the Serbian forces under the supervision of UNPROFOR. The retreating Serbs with UNPROFOR at their head are attacked and captured. Alija Izetbegovic is freed. The attacked Serbian forces suffer 32 casualties (One of which was a medic in a sanitary vehicle and also my grandfathers brother), 71 wounded 215 captured. They are released after the war, they seem to be extremely undernourished and to have suffered torture by their captives. Serbian command (Slobodan MIlosevic) orders the retreat of all the Serbian members in YNA from the mainland (Serbs who live in Serbia), from Bosina. ... Continued attacks by the Croat and Bosnian forces. Now for the famous part of the war. 7th of January 1993. Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric commit a massacre over the Serbian population in Kravici. 16th of January 1993. Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric commit a massacre over the Serbian population in the village Skelani. ... Continued attacks by the Muslim paramilitary under the command of Naser Oric. Over 150 Serbian villages are razed to the ground. ... Conflicts continue and Srebrenica is under attack by the Serbian forces in an attempt to kill Naser Oric and his forces. 11th of July 1995. Serbian forces capture Srebrenica but NAser Oric escapes via a helicopter and leaves his forces to fend for them selves. Serbian general Ratko Mladic evacuates all the civilians from Srebrenica. Serbian forces capture the 2000 strong Muslim military forces and execute them for the massacre they committed over the Serbs in the area. Now what Mladic did was essentially wrong, but I doubt he could have stopped it even if he wanted to. The Serbian forces had been chasing after Naser Oric for over a year around the Srebrenica area, and they had seen all the horrors that happened in his wake (children killed, pregnant women disembowel, corpses beheaded and mutilated, people crucified upside down and many, many other horrible things). To make the matters worse the Serbian forces were partly comprised of the people from this area. Soon after NATO interferes and soon after that the Dejton agreement is singed. 4th of August 1995. Operation Storm starts. ...During it over 200 thousand Serbs are ethically cleansed from their homes. 4th of August is declared a Croatian national holiday. So you asked me if Serbia was the victim here? My answer is yes, we have waged a defensive war in Bosnia. If Milosevic had been smart he would have committed the full Serbian might in Bosnia and ended the war inside a week. We would have held all the territory between Zagreb and Serbia. By the time the UN managed to involve it self we would have held all the disputed territory and we could have negotiated from a position of strength. At least like that we would have earned the reputation we have and we would have been in a much better situation now. If you want me to go over the Kosovo conflict, I can go in to detail about that too. But the Kosovo conflict is a different thing all together. Thanks for that detailed post, I appreciate the effort you put into your response I don't want to go into a detailed line for line debate about what you mentioned. Some of what you said is true and some is not IMO. But I'll make some general points. All sides committed atrocities in the Bosnian War. I know the Serbs weren't the only ones. But if you look at International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks have been convicted. So you could say " yes this shows how the Serbs have been unfairly targeted" or you can say " the Serbs committed the most atrocities". A 1995 report by the CIA found that Bosnian Serb forces were responsible for 90% of the war crimes committed during the conflict You say 2000 people were massacred in Srebrenica. All my sources point at close to 8000. And the number is significant as the charges against the Serbs involved was genocide. Genocide is a very different and more serious charge than most war crimes that people in the Bosnian war were charged with If the Serbs were just trying to defend themselves in Bosnia what was the purpose of the brutal and inhumane Siege of Sarajevo? Finally I understand why you distrust NATO and the West, I don't agree with it but I understand your view due to how you feel Serbia was treated. All I ask you to do is to accept that NATO intervened in the Bosnian War because of certain atrocities that Serbia perpetuated and would have continued to do so without Western involvement. You shouldn't assume that every time the West looks at a potential conflict area it acts in a disingenuous and hypocritical way

Good points rasied Malc

Not just that, but Bruce is the king of ogling and drooling over game babez and romance content. He's part of the supposed 'problem' Sarkeesian is attempting to highlight. I reject that comment with utter prejudice Just because I enjoy Romance in games and appreciate the aesthetics of the female form that doesn't mean I don't agree with Sarkeesian on many issues. There are certain parts of games where the objectification of women is debatable. But I still believe that Sarkeesian does raise valid issues that need to be discussed and addressed. I consider myself a feminist but there are differences of opinions on the topic.

Russia didn't annex Abkhazia or South Ossetia, though I tend to think they should. They're too small to be independent and there's far too much bad blood for them to be Georgian. They're both independent, or 'independent', depending on pov. I've got no personal opinion about Crimea being part of Russia or independent as that isn't my business but should be up to the Crimeans. But I have little doubt that they would want one or the other based on historic data though. Yes Russia didn't "annex" Abkhazia or South Ossetia but the result is the same. They aren't part of Georgia anymore and are completely dependent on Russia for both economic and political survival. They claim to be independent states, even though hardly any country in the world recognizes this, but thats not true. They are completely aligned to Russia and will do as Russia says. This suits Russia as they now have a buffer zone on part of there border that protects them from countries friendly to NATO and the West This is the same route the Crimea is going. What do you think would be your reaction, and others, if the USA moved troops to the Turkish border of Syria and then moved those troops into northern Syria. They only did this because the vast majority of northern Syria was rebel controlled and the rebels have decided they want there own autonomous region and they feel there survival is threatened. To prove that the Syrian rebels want there own state a referendum in the region is held and the results indubitably show the citizens of northern Syria don't want to be part of Assad's government. The USA now says " its clear, northern Syria is a separate region as this is what the residents want " and they decree it so. Because they have vast amounts of troops and military in the region Assad accepts it as he doesn't want war with the USA. And Syria becomes a divided land that the USA military ensures no one challengers What would you say in this scenario? Please don't nitpick the realism of my example. This is about the principle and the reality of how Russia has been " gaining" new territories and there claims they are doing nothing wrong.

Democratic vs Totalitarian? I suppose its more of the West vs East Russian retarded rhetoric. Anyway, I already commented on this issue before. Although, while it is not surprising that Russian bullying --in attempt to subdue a country into becoming a submissive satellite state that should care more about Russian interest that its own-- give rise to nationalism. It is amusing how uhm "Totalitarian Russia enthusiasts"(?) try to portray the situation in Ukraine as fascist and what not, considering Russia track record with xenophobia and racism. Btw how goes your attitudes toward various minorities and "dark asses" in particular, and how goes your new patriotic laws, which include the adaption of educational history texbooks to paint a more patriotic picture? It would be interesting to see what would happen if your nationalized tv would give tenth of the time they spend on Ukraine to this issue in russia. What? What "your laws"? Do you really think that anyone who do not support ukrainian revolution is a russian? I don't really care what Russia want to do, for me most interesting and entertaining part is how hard people try to ignore ugly and inconvenient parts of new administration. Plus, how Russia uses the very same arguments that were used for interventions during Kosovo, Libya and Iraq campaigns. And how everyone changes their opinion because "That were democratic and righteous revolutions against all that is Evil and this is a totalitarian undemocratic unfree Satanic invasion to opress all that is Good!". Surely I don't blame west for supporting ultraright nutjobs in some country, because, once again - "Might makes right" but it's one of the greatest source of lulz for the time being that makes righteous internet democracy activists extremely uncomfortable. Yes Culitist sometimes regime change and intervention is about democracy and righteousness. And sometimes its about the humanitarian principle. And sometimes its not and we get misinformation. You need to look at each example on a per case basis. You can't generalize about the reasons for legitimate or illegitimate reasons around Western or NATO intervention Cultist I am generally interested, where do you live if you don't mind me asking?

You body is clearly rejecting the unhealthy food, Donut's are bad for you Hurlshot....very bad While your lack of doughnuts has made you all preachy. ;P You might want to get that checked. I'm happy for someone to dispute what I'm saying about Doughnuts without me researching the issue. Are Doughnuts good for you?

What the hell does the Bosnian war have to do with Kosovo? Also what do you know about the Bosnian war? Do you know how may Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and west Bosnia? Or do you want me to start with WW2 where the national tension culminated? Save me from your western media information, because they lied their ass off during the Bosnian war. If you are interested in the Bosnian war watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08 What has the Bosnian War and Kosovo got to do with each other? You really don't know? Well lets see.... Serbia was directly iinvolved in both conflicts and Serbian nationalism played a part in both wars Serbia took there military strategy too far, in other words what they were prepared to do to "win" In both cases NATO intervened to end the military aspirations of the Serbs I assume you are Serbian? Do you think that NATO treated the Serbs unfairly? The question is more about the Bosnian War Whatever you think about the wars in Yugoslavia in the last ~25 years, I highly recommend you watch the documentary that Sarex linked. While it glosses over a few things (especially the 19th/earth 20th century history), and is told from a somewhat Serbia perspective, there is indisputable first source information in it that flies in the face of what was told in the news to most of the world. What happened in Yugoslavia and Albania, and how those wars came to be, is not what most people outside of those nations think. I'm happy to watch that video but I still need an answer. Do you guys think that Serbia was treated unfairly by NATO in respects to the Bosnian War?

On the first point there's very little doubt it was illegal- the vote was made under duress, it was made using an older constitution without the repeal of the newer being made lawfully, and even then they did not have the required super majority as there were insufficient members present to get 75% even with a unanimous vote- they only achieved a super majority of those present. Russia's position is certainly correct in a legal sense there. On the second, it is clear that the Ukrainian constitution was written specifically to stop secession as it requires both central government approval and a referendum across the whole country. To use an example from the last thread that would be like Great Britain refusing Ireland's independence based upon referendum votes from Scotland, Wales and England. Indeed, the current Scottish referendum is Scotland only. Having said that the referendum is clearly illegal under the Ukrainian constitution. The difference in practical terms is that the impeachment/ removal process is designed to be difficult, as you'd expect, but could legitimately have been done- if they hadn't driven off so many Party of Regions and Communist members. The secession process is practically impossible though, as Mr Yatsenyuk etc have made it clear it will not be considered under any circumstances, and the maximum allowed might be more autonomy and reversion to the old Crimean Constitution that Kiev abrogated in 1995. Interesting perspective, so what would you feel about a referrendum only in Crimea where results would obviously show autonomy or actually joining Russia. Russia then says " the Crimea has spoken" and because Russia has the military advantage and presence in the area they now annex Crimea like they did with regions in Georgia ?

You body is clearly rejecting the unhealthy food, Donut's are bad for you Hurlshot....very bad

My concern around this Sarkeesian development is I don't want it to undermine all the other important work she is doing in raising awareness around the objectification of women in games. I am worried that people won't take her as seriously as they should because of how her image may get tarnished ?

So what? Facts on the ground. Argentina may not accept that the UK rules the Falklands, but they may as well be blowing bubbles in a gale for all the difference it makes. The west has no balls- if it's easy they'll do it, if it's hard then they'll look for something easy instead. This is hard, so they'll yell and wave their hands, then only bring it up when convenient and they need to remind people how horrible Russians are. Sure is, which is why if it's such a problem pouring a big barrel of oil down the Kosovan hill was pretty moronic of the west. Of course, it only becomes a slippery slope when it's someone other than the west doing it, when the west does it it is Principled. There's a quote from Victoria Nuland that very accurately describes my feelings towards the EU. Sorry Brucey, you ain't going to catch me with that one. I've said repeatedly that the main problem with the west's actions is that they will be used by others to justify their actions and that they undermine 'international law' for whatever that concept is worth- not much, when you're willing to flagrantly ignore it when convenient. It is the slippery slope argument, it's just that people stick their heads in the sand about who exactly started down the slippery slope. You cannot expect only one side to abide by a set of rules, if they do they're morans because the other side has already shown they won't. So far the Russians have been far better than the west has anyway, nobody has died and they've gone for a region which has a long and provable history with Russia, and of opposition to being part of Ukraine. Indeed, it's a region that is only part of Ukraine due to Krushchev and the USSR breaking up inconveniently (Crimea voted to be an autonomous SSR- 95% voter approval- in 1991, but it was only a couple of months before the USSR broke up so it was never implemented). So yeah, I broadly support the Russians here for those reasons, and because the concept of international law is bunkum if only one side adheres to it. If you'd paid attention in the previous thread you'd even have noticed I wasn't implacably opposed to Kosovo either, just its extremely one sided implementation. Okay you make some good points. But I want to ask you a question. Russia is claiming that the way Yanukovych was removed was illegal. But a referrendum to determine if Crimea should join Russia would also be "illegal" according to the Ukrainian constitution. Whats your view on the referrendum?

What the hell does the Bosnian war have to do with Kosovo? Also what do you know about the Bosnian war? Do you know how may Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and west Bosnia? Or do you want me to start with WW2 where the national tension culminated? Save me from your western media information, because they lied their ass off during the Bosnian war. If you are interested in the Bosnian war watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08 What has the Bosnian War and Kosovo got to do with each other? You really don't know? Well lets see.... Serbia was directly iinvolved in both conflicts and Serbian nationalism played a part in both wars Serbia took there military strategy too far, in other words what they were prepared to do to "win" In both cases NATO intervened to end the military aspirations of the Serbs I assume you are Serbian? Do you think that NATO treated the Serbs unfairly? The question is more about the Bosnian War

I'm decidedly under the impression that not saying bad stuff to your face speaks more of wisdom than cowardice I wish I could double "like" your comment, funniest line of the day

What makes this even worse is that the Serbs were ethnically cleansed from most parts of Kosovo and when we tried to defend our people we got bombed. The whole west supported what happened. The even sadder thing is that what little Serbs remain in Kosovo are still being oppressed and prosecuted, not to mention the yearly defiling of Serbian grave sites and destruction of our churches and monasteries. And unlike in Crimea, the Albanians have no claim on any part of Kosovo, historically or otherwise. You don't actually believe the Serbs were the victims in the Bosnian War?

Considering that he has, without any doubt, acted and acted decisively that analysis doesn't stand up to even the most cursory examination. He's bitten, he's won, and there's essentially nothing practical anyone can do now except shout and wave their arms in the air while spouting the usual do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do blather about sovereign integrity and the like- ignoring that Crimea has actually voted to separate from Ukraine multiple times previously (1991, 1992, 1995). What has Putin "won". Even if the referendum votes overwhelmingly to join Russia there is no evidence that supports a view that Ukraine or the West will accept this. And this has very little to do with the fact that the West is militant or hypercritical in there dealings with these types of political situations. Its about the principle of "do we allow groups of people who populate a part of a country to claim they want autonomy or to just join another country" This is a very slippery slope If the Basque separatists could just vote on independence and the vote was all that mattered both France and Spain would loose territory. Would this be acceptable to the EU? Also I find it ironic that you feel Western countries constantly meddle in other countries affairs and there independence but the moment Russia does it you are fine. Where do you actually stand on when it is acceptable for a country to invade another country. Does your condemnation only apply to the West in places like Libya or Syria?

Thats a classic and funny story

I assume real ? Surly you don't expect some kind of subterfuge Bruce, don't you know there is only like 10 people who post here. We're all just one of their alts! GD please don't tell me you are actually Hurlshot and Alan !!!

I know racist people. I've seen racism firsthand directed at others in a real way (not just calling someone a name, but in a manner that actually hurts the individual in some way), and have experienced it directed at myself in a real way. It exists. It however does not exist as a common thing to a level that it affects more than a smidgeon of the U.S. population's opinion of Obama. Those that defend Obama on grounds of racism really just show how little there is to defend, and/or show how per-occupied with race they are themselves. Racism isn't even remotely as prevalent in the U.S. as it is in South Africa (where it is still probably worse than it ever was in the U.S. as a whole, even in the darkest of times in that regard) or as some in the U.S. media would have you believe, and not even remotely might be an understatement. Also, It is probably safe to say Obama has gotten more votes due to his skin color than those he's lost because of it. I've heard far far far far more people say they were voting for Obama because he's black (in 2008) because they thought it was time for a black president than say they wouldn't vote for him because he was black. That Obama was black was overall an asset in 2008 USA, not a liability. Valsuelm can I ask you a favor, I have noticed a slightly annoying trend lately from some people where I make a point around a particular issue of social justice and part of the response is "but in South Africa you xx " or in South Africa there is xxx". I'm not talking about South Africa and the obvious social ills that our society grapples with. We can start a separate discussion around the social problems that South Africa faces and I'll gladly partake in it. Saying all that you make some good points. You feel race has very little to do with the condemnation Obama faces, I can't dispute your opinion so we will have to agree to disagree. Finally I find myself disagreeing with most of what you say on topics. But I want to recognize the fact that you take the time and effort to make your point, the foundation of a debate is the principle of constructive views. You don't ever say things like " well you are wrong because I'm right". You articulate your point and I appreciate that. So keep up the good debate etiquette

Wait a minute here. I've read this three times and I want to make sure I am getting your meaning. Are you actually suggesting that distrust (hatred in your words) of government is the same as racism? Or is somehow rooted in racism? If so that is the most appallingly stupid thing I've ever seen posted here. And considering the folks who post here, that is saying a lot. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding what you are driving at. If so, my apologies. Personally I think that some of the dislike of Obama is not really based on his policies but on the fact he is black and how some people resent the fact they see there interpretation of what defines the USA as changing. I'm not saying this is why you dislike Obama as you have given your reasons in the past and they are not based on his race. But surly you can't deny that some of the criticism of Obama are really about racial perspective?

What is Mexican coke? A variety of Coca-Cola but made in Mexico..is it sweeter than normal Coca-Cola?

Okay. As a recently converted Buddhist, we Buddhists hold animals as being very important. Animals have always been regarded in Buddhist thought as sentient beings, different in their intellectual ability than humans but no less capable of feeling. It's why I was wondering how you saw the distinction of a humanoid cat with a centaur. So as long as they have seme type of humanoid feature, then you could probably have a romance with this creature. So while the Khajiit could be on all fours, it's because it's mostly in humanoid form that you have no problem with humans romancing them. Also, you said you didn't have a problem with romancing elves. Some people regard elves belonging to the fae which also includes fairies. So I take it you have no problem and quite willing to romance and have sex with a fairy. Not there's anything wrong with that. I have no issue with Romance with a fae, there are numerous examples in fantasy of Dryads or Nymphs seducing men for a variety of reasons. So yes Romance with a fae is 100 % fine

There's still some issues (I don't know about nursing, specifically) in some situations. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full Synopsis. 127 scientists looked at an undergraduate applicant's paperwork. 63 were told the applicant was a man named John. 64 were told the applicant was a woman named Jennifer. Scientists were asked to rate the applicant based on competence, hireability, salary conferral, and mentoring scales (out of 5). The scientists were made up of both men and women, and the results of these evaluations were based on a split based on student gender, and further split on faculty gender. (That is, they look at how male/female students scored split by male/female faculty). In all cases the effect of student gender was significant (significance meaning the difference in values were not due to random chance, as opposed to "large" or "important"), while the effect of faculty gender was NOT significant. In other words, female faculty members were also harder on female applicants than male applicants. The suggesting here being that there may be assumptions that people make about someone's capability based on their sex, and that it affects all people and not just men. Here's a breakdown of the scores Competence: Male Faculty Male applicant (M/M): 4.01 Female applicant (M/F): 3.33 Female Faculty Male (F/M): 4.1 Female (F/M): 3.32 Hireability: M/M: 3.74 M/F: 2.96 F/M: 3.92 F/F: 2.84 Willingness to mentor: M/M: 4.74 M/F: 4.00 F/M: 4.73 F/F: 3.91 Salary offered: M/M: $30,500 M/F: $27,100 (88.9% of Male) F/M: $29,300 F/F: %25,000 (85.3% of Male) The study discusses the following point: I think it's important to point out that stuff like this is possibly (I'd say probably) not intentional. That is, no one is consciously suggesting that the woman is less qualified simply because she's a woman. Thats an interesting study. In my mind there is no doubt that certain women can also be unintentionally biased. But that doesn't mean there isn't a perception problem that needs to be rectified. You raise another good point that I see in South Africa, people have certain prejudices but they aren't founded on true bigotry. Sometimes a person is unaware of it for cultural reasons. For example there was this white model who won a local beauty pageant in a predominantly black town. In the local newspaper there was a photo of her, a black guy phoned in on one of our radio talk shows and basically said " how can you put a white women in a black newspaper highlighting the fact she won this competition. Its wrong" What he didn't realize he was saying is " A Black person somehow can't vote or find a white women attractive in a pageant dominated by black women". It was basically a racist comment but thats not how he saw it because in his culture you don't cross racial lines. We know that beauty is irrelevant to the race and is really about how a person looks and carries themselves when we talk about it in the context of modeling competitions

I had Spare Ribs last night and I made a delicious potato salad. Very easy potatoes (obviously ) raw onion cut finely chives Feta Cheese Mayonnaise and Sour Cream as the liquid base for the salad

Its an interesting concept, a robot capable of true physical and emotional responsiveness. But then I would also want the robot to have its own opinion and to challenge my view if it feels its not appropriate. So now you need to program into a robot not just the concept of emotions but also the fact that it needs to disagree with me but not just for the sake of disagreeing ..there must be a legitimate reason. Very complicated