posted March 11, 2006 01:45 PM              

Former Yugoslav Leader Milosevic Found Dead

PARIS, March 11 -- Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav leader who presided over the Balkan wars of the 1990s, was found dead Saturday in his cell at a United Nations prison near The Hague where he was on trial for war crimes, among them, genocide that became known to the world as "ethnic cleansing."

The 64-year-old Milosevic "was found lifeless on his bed in his cell at the United Nations Detention Unit in Scheveningen," said a statement from the U.N. tribunal. "The guard immediately alerted the Detention Unit Officer in command and the Medical Officer. The latter confirmed that Slobodan Milosevic was dead," the written statement said.....

posted March 12, 2006 08:56 PM            

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right in the head
Better get yourself together
Pretty soon your gonna be dead

What in the world your thinking of?
Laughing in the face of love
What on earth you try'na do?
It's up to you

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna hit you right in the face
Better get yourself together darling
Join the human race

How in the world your gonna see?
Laughing at fools like me
What on earth d'you think you are?
A superstar?
Well right you are

Chorus:
Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the sun and stars

Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you off your feet
Better recognize your brothers
Everyone you meet

Why in the world are we here?
Surely not to live in pain in fear
Why on earth your here?
Your everywhere
Gonna get your share

posted March 13, 2006 02:15 PM            

The same people giving thumbs up for this man, didn't do the same for the other one that had torture rooms, committed genocide and helped sponsor attacks on the US and other Western regions.

Is it me, or does that seem hypocritical?

Somehow I think that if a Liberal came into office in 2008 and said the war was a good idea and even pushed it harder, he would been seen as a "savior". LMAO...

posted March 13, 2006 06:30 PM            

Hey, did you happen to see this? Seems a drug was found in Milosevic's blood which isn't supposed to be there. Further, he claimed they were poisoning him and requested he be sent to Russia for treatment....denied.

"Outside the tribunal's offices, Milosevic's legal adviser showed reporters a letter that he said the former leader wrote the day before his death claiming traces of a powerful drug used to treat leprosy or tuberculosis had been found in his bloodstream. Zdenko Tomanovic said Milosevic was seriously concerned. "They would like to poison me," he quoted Milosevic as telling him."

"A Dutch state broadcaster, NOS, said later that an adviser to the tribunal confirmed such a drug was found in a blood sample taken in recent months from Milosevic. The report said the adviser, who was not identified, said the drug could have had a "neutralizing effect" on Milosevic's other medications. Doctors found traces of the drug when they were trying to determine why Milosevic's medication for high blood pressure was not working, the NOS report said."

Milosevic was the sixth war crimes suspect from the Balkans to die at The Hague. A week earlier, convicted Croatian Serb leader Milan Babic killed himself in the same prison. He had been a star prosecution witness against Milosevic.

posted March 13, 2006 06:58 PM            

The usual drugs and adverse affects are as follows:

Side effects of specific tuberculosis medications

The oral drugs used to treat tuberculosis may produce the following side-effects:

Isoniazid - may make you feel tired or nauseous or make you lose your appetite. It can cause numbness or tingling in your hands or feet but this is rare in well nourished people.

Rifampicin - reduces the effectiveness of the contraceptive pill, so talk to your doctor about other forms of contraception. It can stain lens implants and contact lenses so tell your doctor if you use these.

Ethambutol - can cause visual problems. Your eyesight will be checked during treatment but you should stop taking the drug if your vision is affected and call your doctor straight away.

Pyrazinamide - can lead to nausea and a loss of appetite. It is usually only taken for the first two to three months of treatment. If you develop unexplained rashes, fever, aches or joint pains, see your doctor.

A note of caution
When taking tuberculosis medication, you should remember:
If you do not take the medication regularly, the tuberculosis bacteria may become resistant to the drug.

Drug-resistant tuberculosis is difficult to treat, and the chance of a cure is much reduced.

Alcohol can increase drug side effects and toxicity. You should avoid alcohol during the treatment.

____________________________

posted March 13, 2006 08:01 PM            

quote:

---

It's a case of selective moral outrage, selective compassion, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty Pid

---

Selective moral outrage...nice. You just described yourself as I've pointed out on numerous occasions. You're still trying to tout the humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq when neither you nor any large numbers of Republicans were being activists in any way toward removing Saddam prior to the war.

posted March 13, 2006 08:46 PM            

This is at least the 3rd time I've posted this in answer to your nonsense that Republicans were not concerned about Iraqi citizens prior to the war and only developed that stance as a fallback position when WMD was not found. Further you state Republicans were not trying to remove Saddam prior to the war. What utter bullsh*t acoustic...something you have in abundance.

The year is 1998 acoustic. The subject is the removal of Saddam Hussein. The body speaking is the Republican controlled Congress of the United States. The resolution is HR 4655 which in conjunction with a Senate bill had the language consolidated, passed by the Republican Congress and sent to Commander Corruption.

The Resolution called for the following...among other issues.

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President)) Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress
H.R.4655
Public Law: 105-338 (10/31/98)
SPONSOR: Rep Gilman (introduced 09/29/98) RELATED BILLS: S.2525
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.

It would be a pleasant surprise if, just once, you'd get something right.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

Your outrage is selective and it's hypocritical, intellectually dishonest and boring.

posted March 13, 2006 08:57 PM              

quote:

---

Why was it okay for us to help in Bosnia / Serbia, incarcerate Milosevic and try him as a war criminal - yet everyone seems to have their panties in a bunch when we do the same for Iraq and send Saddam to prison?

---

posted March 13, 2006 09:02 PM              

The Serb leader died in jail Saturday, just two months before his trial was due to end.

PARIS - Even in the manner of his death, Slobodan Milosevic thumbed his nose at the rest of the world.

By dying in a prison cell before the end of his warcrimes trial in The Hague, the former Yugoslav president has denied his victims justice, raised his stature among Serbs as a martyr, and probably dashed the European Union's hope of soon coaxing Serbia out of its pariah status.

At the same time he has set back the cause of international justice, whose proponents had been relishing the prospect of a former head of state being punished for crimes against humanity for the first time .

The abrupt and premature end to Mr. Milosevic's legal battle, however, leaves the principles behind his trial intact, say judicial experts. "He was not brought to judgment, but he was brought to justice," says Edgar Chen, who was observing Milosevic's trial for the Coalition for International Justice. "He did not die in a hail of bullets in Belgrade or in retirement on the French Riviera. He died in a jail cell."

Milosevic was found dead Saturday in his cell at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, where his four-year trial on 66 counts - including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes - had been expected to end within two months.

The trial was often delayed by Milosevic's complaints of poor health. Diagnosed by court-appointed doctors as suffering from heart disease and high blood pressure, Milosevic had asked to go to Russia for treatment. Judges recently turned down the request, ruling that he had good enough medical care in The Hague. Dutch pathologists conducted an autopsy Sunday with Serbian pathologists observing.

"I deeply regret" Milosevic's death, Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte said Sunday, lamenting that "it deprives the victims of the justice they need and deserve." His death "makes it even more urgent" for fugi-tives from the war trials court, such as Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadjic, to be handed over, Ms. del Ponte added.

The European Union recently added to the international pressure on Serbia to hand over Mr. Mladic and Mr. Karadjic, indicted for their alleged roles in the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian men and boys at Srebrenica, by threatening to cut off talks on closer ties with Serbia unless the two men surrender to the court by April 5.

Milosevic's death, however, makes such a handover even less likely, say political analysts in Belgrade.

The Hague tribunal is highly unpopular in Serbia, where it is widely regarded as an anti-Serb kangaroo court, though it has also indicted some Croatian and Bosnian suspects.

Milosevic's death, together with last week's suicide of Milan Babic, a Croatian Serb in the same detention center who had already been sentenced for war crimes, "simply strengthen Serbs' feelings that they are victims of an unjust criminal trial procedure" says James Lyon, an adviser in Belgrade to the International Crisis Group.

Serbian politicians, including government leaders, know that "by attacking the tribunal they can only gain" popularity, says Srdjan Bogosavljevic, who runs Serbia's biggest opinion polling firm. "Future cooperation with The Hague is really going to be a problem."

Milosevic's death also rules out any hope that a verdict in his case would encourage ordinary Serbs to face up to what ethnic Serb militias did during the Balkan wars in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. "The Serbs are still in a culture of denial" about the crimes their forces committed, says Mr. Chen, and the lack of a clear conclusion to the Milosevic trial "has dealt a devastating blow" to those hoping to change the culture.

More than 50 percent of Serbs cannot name a single Serb war crime, Mr. Bogosavljevic's polls have found: Either they do not remember the massacres, or they do not consider them crimes.

"The only thing that would help" to change that outlook "is a good and effective process in The Hague," says Bogosavljevic. "That hasn't happened. After four years on the TV every day, people think the trial is an endless process that can't prove anything. The feeling is that if they [the prosecution] had anything, it would be over by now."

Dr. Lyon adds that "what should have been the most important case resulting from the breakup of the former Yugoslavia has now ended in a stalemate that favors Milosevic's propaganda."

It's likely the case would have had more impact in Serbia had it not dragged on so long, which is one of "the lessons that need to be drawn about conducting these kinds of trials," says Richard Dicker, head of the international justice program at Human Rights Watch.

"The prosecution has to focus on the most important representative crimes," he argues, and judges "have to balance respect for the right of an accused to defend himself with the interests of justice in conducting an efficient proceeding." Milosevic's insistence on defending himself - refusing legal counsel - held up the trial on a number of occasions for weeks at a time when he was unwell.

Ms. del Ponte said Sunday she folded all 66 counts against Milosevic into one indictment because "it is not only a question of conviction ... it is a question of truth. It is important for the victims that they have full knowledge of what happened."

Forthcoming trials of Milosevic's lieutenants, she added, would provide "the opportunity for the prosecution to fully explain what happened."

Milosevic's hand in history
Former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic was found dead Saturday in his cell in The Hague, where he was on trial for war crimes.

• 1989 Milosevic becomes president of Serbia; strips Kosovo of autonomy

• 1991 Milosevic urges Serbs in Croatia to take up arms

• 1992 UN cease-fire in Croatia; Bosnia-Herzegovina declares independence

• 1995 Bosnian war ends; NATO authorizes troop deployment

• 1996 Opposition wins run offs in most local elections; elections annulled

• 1997 Milosevic named Yugoslav president

• 1998 Milosevic sends troops to crush Albanians in Kosovo

• 1999 NATO airstrikes begin; Milosevic indicted for war crimes; Yugoslavia agrees to UN control of Kosovo

• 2000 Yugoslavs vote directly for president for first time; Milosevic ousted

• 2001 Milosevic flown to The Hague to face war-crimes charges

• 2002 Trial begins

• 2005 Trial adjourns due to Milosevic's health

• 2006 January - Trial reopens

Feb. 24 - Tribunal rejects his request for medical treatment in Russia

March 11 - Milosevic found dead

Source: Associated Press

posted March 14, 2006 11:52 AM            

"Are you one of those people acoustic, who having gone on a coffee break must be completely retrained?"

LMAO.... I am beginning to think so.. sorry AG, but sometimes you seem to be coming from left field and your arguments are thready at best. Maybe it is the Merc retrograde, but you are almost sounding as bad as OzoneFiller that shows up a day late and a dollar short!"

LMAO

DD, I see you suffer from the same retention problem as AG. You obviously have forgotten how many countries are on the side of the war in Iraq. If we lived by YOUR standards, we would have had to wait until the entire FREAKING world said it was okay to do something. Sorry man, you are absolutely wrong on that one.

The difference is, it was fine when we were protecting the Muslim erradication (especially to those that are Muslim or Muslim sympathizers) but when we are attacked by Muslim extremists (and I lump them in the same category at the wacknut Christian right that believes in murdering abortion doctors or the Animal right activists that let loose HIV infected animals) and we fight back.. OMG.. the hue and cry goes up that we are against a whole damn race / religion of people.

I have read your other posts where you are so against the US that every other post you are putting American's down in some way. You make statements such as all of our TV programs feature Muslim terrorists - which isn't true - in this country we have allowed ALL religions to worship here peacefully, but like in any country holding people from various backgrounds we do get extremists. Those idiots plot to kills innocent men, women and children that are housed in a Business (Twin towers), military facility (The Pentagon) or even just taking a flight to see family (the planes). These idiot extremists also burn down Muslim, Christian, Jewish..etc.... churches - because there is something wrong with their heads.

Unlike you, I do not blame a whole country and find ways to continuously put them down because I do not espouse their views. All is fine though with the good people of America donate our time and money to help out other countries. What in the hell do we get in return? The constant b1tching and whining that America is just so mean and cruel for ousting Saddam, building roads, schools etc... or removing an a$$ like Milosevic.

I didn't hear alot of moaning and groaning when we helped out Kosovo and lost our boys / girls out there. You sure didn't complain about the loss of innocent lives when our men and women were gunned down by snipers or when there was a loss of life due to collateral damage brought about by bombs going off or one side sabotaging the other. Hell no, every one of you whiny, complaining sympathizers that hate us now, sat there and cheered every time the UN / US uncovered another mass grave. Every time we came into a city to rescue another group from genocide, the world was clapping their hands.

When we were attacked and our citizens murdered by these Iraq, Iran and other terrorist sponsored countries, people sat back and started finding ways to blame us. DID WE BLAME THE DAMN MUSLIMS WHEN MILOSOVIC WAS MURDERING THEM? Hell no... yet, we get attacked and people like you blame it on a President that had been in office less than 9 months.

People like you blame it on American Ideals - yet those ideals compel us to remove people like Saddam and Milosevic and give the Palastinians / Isrealis, Saudis...etc... money. Our MONEY is fine but we're still ridiculed.

Maybe we should just become islotionists and allow countries like Pakistan and India shoot it out - who gives a crap if they blow themselves up with Nukes... as long as we don't get involved. Let North Korea blow Taiwan off the map and China can take them down. Wouldn't it be great to takes our Billions from Isreal and Palastine and watch Evolution / Natural Selection take its course.

And the next time another leader like Saddam or Milosevic comes into power and decides to make a group of people his person factory for human skin lampshades, we should just sit back and say 'Well, hey, at least we aren't imposing our views on them"

In the meantime, let's stop allowing foreigners into our country. Why in the hell do you want to be here anyway when all you do is b1tch about us? I am positive we can sustain ourselves, but how would the other countries do without our aid. Will Africa survive the HIV / AIDS epidemic? What about countries that rely on our money to feed and clothe their people?

Nope... pull it all - be like we were back when Hitler first took office.

But no... then we would be accused of being cold.

posted March 15, 2006 08:07 AM              

"I am the head of state," Saddam replied.

"You used to be a head of state. You are a defendant now," Abdel-Rahman (the judge) said.

posted March 15, 2006 02:36 PM              

quote:

---

People like you blame it on American Ideals - yet those ideals compel us to remove people like Saddam and Milosevic and give the Palastinians / Isrealis, Saudis...etc... money. Our MONEY is fine but we're still ridiculed.

Maybe we should just become islotionists and allow countries like Pakistan and India shoot it out - who gives a crap if they blow themselves up with Nukes... as long as we don't get involved. Let North Korea blow Taiwan off the map and China can take them down. Wouldn't it be great to takes our Billions from Isreal and Palastine and watch Evolution / Natural Selection take its course

---

I dont understand why people think that Pak and India are going to shoot it out. Both countries are more mature than that. They had an 'intimidation testing' strategy that was ment to scare the other. And if America has been the only nation to even use the a-bomb, can others not even have it? The truth is that rumor has it a *lot* more nations have it. I always grew up listening to the 'fact' that Iran had nuclear weapons. Now Americas all freaked out over it. The truth is that no one is going to use them because governments learned from American govt.s horrifying display of mass murder at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The truth is also that Iraq has been squarely divided down the lines of Shia and Sunni. The Shias did infact welcome America because they were oppressed by Saddam. However, people fail to see that Sunnis were also oppressed; Saddam was just a cruel dictator who oppressed all except those of his particular hometown, and his cronies and family. When Saddam was placed in govt by the US in the first place then what makes the Iraqi Shiites think that anyone better is going to come around the second time? Maybe if not mass murder, he'll try psychological racism against them. It's all the same. The Muslims are too divided, and that is the problem. America had come in and capitalized on those divisions, just as Britain used to 'divide and rule.' And besides, everyone knows that the US is in it for the oil.... not for the humanitarian purposes. Otherwise, how ironic would it be to achieve humanitarian cause with such inhumane ways? Besides I know several educated Iraqis here, one is even a PhD who had been formerly working in Britain. They all basically agree that it is a farce and they get to hear all sorts of things that the Western media doesn't allow on TV, like the amount of women that american troops are raping and the children being killed. You'd only really see that if you saw other channels as well, such as Al 3rabiya or Al gazeera.

posted March 15, 2006 02:49 PM            

quote:

---

dont understand why people think that Pak and India are going to shoot it out. Both countries are more mature than that.

---

posted March 15, 2006 03:20 PM            

quote:

---

And besides, everyone knows that the US is in it for the oil.... not for the humanitarian purposes

---

Assumption

I do not KNOW the minds of others & do not presume to; I do KNOW the quote does not speak for me.

BTW, Excellent debates in G.U. lately! Kudos to all the posters!!

posted March 15, 2006 04:15 PM            

quote:

---

I am beginning to think so.. sorry AG, but sometimes you seem to be coming from left field and your arguments are thready at best.

---

It's strange, but I have to admit I'm way off my game right now for some reason. Of course my arguments will always sound thready to you. I don't really expect anything different. That's life. At least you and I can be somewhat civil about it.

I'm going through a mental repositioning in my life right now I think. I don't think it will change my political allegiances or anything (not that changing allegiances is a bad thing. I've already done that once so far.), but my focus can't be on GU. I can't devote the kind of time that I once did. My life is expanding too much into too many areas to keep this up.

posted March 15, 2006 06:01 PM            

The planet of death and regeneration does that yet the process / transition feels unbearable. Combine that with Mercury going retrograde (and it being in Pisces has to be causing you a bit of conflict as well).

Please don't think I feel you are inadequate to play battle of wits. I don't feel that way at all (even if I DO believe your politics are Waaaaaay off...LOL.... ) challenge is the best way to learn - and I love debate.

posted March 15, 2006 07:14 PM              

I don’t want to make it into a religious warfare. And I would like to believe it is not, however, there are many Fundamentalist Christian Americans and Zionists, as well as Muslim extremists in other parts of the World, like Bin Laden, who really do believe it is a religious war.

But who are the Americans fighting? How do you know that who you are fighting are extremists? When innocent civilians are taken in the name of liberation that is only creating more enemies for Americans.

Someone has to speak out for the other side. I don’t have a problem with American ideals, just blind patriotism. Actually most times I hear about Muslims and Islam on television is when Muslim terrorists are bombing or fighting. However, you don’t hear any American bombers bombing areas where there are civilians called terrorists. They are liberators. That’s just not right.

It was not my intention to blame a whole country. Just the ones who are making these bad decisions. I’m sorry you see it as me putting them down. But I’m trying to show you the other side of reality. My heart does go out to the good people of America. It’s just the one’s who are manipulating their people I have a problem with.

War is good for the economy. Iraq was once upon a time on its way to being a first class nation but look at it now, it’s been reduced to a third world nation. Now what multinationals are going to come in and construct all the infrastructure of Iraq for oil and $$??

posted March 15, 2006 07:17 PM            

Mercury Sextile Jupiter, exact at 21:24
Venus Sextile Venus, exact at 19:31
Moon Opposition Chiron, exact at 05:01
Moon Square Jupiter, exact at 12:34
Moon Trine Med.Coeli, exact at 06:41
Moon Trine Saturn, exact at 10:37
Moon in the 6th House, exact at 22:23
Moon Sextile Mercury, exact at 13:52

Important long-term influences:

"On target" (Saturn Sextile Pluto)
"Group relations" (Mercury in the 11th House)
"A dominant personality" (Mars in the 1st House)

There are lots of things going on right now, though. Lots of things on my mind. I don't feel that any of them are negative to be honest, but at the same time I've been feeling a bit on edge. I've been thinking it's tied to diet or sleep, though I try to be conscientious about both. The things on my mind are all very constructive for me to be considering, and deserve attention I haven't been giving them. These things primarily have to deal with new revelations about Capricorn NN and Jupiter and how I need to apply what I've learned to my financial strategy as well as my artistic career path. I need to be more Capricornian and start actively managing these things to achieve my aims. That's about as concise as I can put it.

The other aspects of my chart are fun and give me certain strengths, but the way I look at it I need to put Capricorn back in charge of this gregarious group in order to build what I want in this life. May be an unusual way to put it, but I think there is a certain heirarchy to a chart, and one of the challenges is figuring out what fits where, and who should be in charge of what...but that's another tangent.

I'll have to check again when I get home if Pluto's aspecting me. I'm not real clear on getting transit charts off astro.com, but if I did it right Pluto is in between my Merc and Sun right now. About an 8 degree separation from both of them.

As far as my politics, I take the wide view. I know that the Democrats ultimately want to help everyone. I don't think Republicans do. With Bush we get a man who ran as a 'Uniter,' but we've had 6 years to see how true that statement was. I think it would be difficult to say that Americans are more united under Bush than they were previously. People are as partisan as I've ever encountered really. That's not the mark of a good administration or good leadership.

posted March 16, 2006 01:31 AM              

Actually pak and india are both very clever in their war tactics. even the wars over bangladesh and the one succeeding that were not as bloody violent or idealistic as a lot of pakis and indians believe, altho ive seen that the indians have a clearer picture of the reality in those scenarios. More to-be-pakis died trying to come over to the pak border in 1947 than have died in those wars, probably combined. The propoganda of the paki govt inthat case had caused the wars in order to stimulate economy. As far as the Kashmir issue goes, its not an issue of pakistan vs india, its an issue of
1. resources, the water line, and they are practicing shared control over it right now, altho srinagar is with india
2. who is in power, musharraf does not care much for kashmir being of an urdu speaking background (he was born in delhi!), but the biggest deal was made by nawaz sharif, who was himself somewhat kashmiri by background, and who wanted to play the kashmir cards to get everyone riled up and emotional. Punjabis in general in pakistan tend to be more anti-india than the non punjabis.

In essence what Im trying to say is that Kashmir is an issue of exaggerated egos, exaggerated numbers, and agricultural resources. Contrary to popular belief it is not a land conflict between pak and india. the whole conflict generally looms around how to divide the population that is a confusing mix of hindus, muslims, and other minorities, and who gets access to the river first. Its not an emotional war either, unless a punjabi is in power in pak, which is not the case. And that has been the trend in history (non punjabis have been not so emotional nor as involved in kashmir). So I SERIOUSLY Doubt there will be any bombing over it. honestly, there is just no reason at the moment, and historically speaking.

Maybe in the 1970s pak and india might have had a lot more hostility. Nowadays, look at musharraf kiss up to manmohan singhs @$$. he really wants good relations with india because like I said he comes from that background himself. In fact pak has almost spoiled its relations with china over that.