History repeating...

March 12, 2003 6:18 AM

Serbian premier assasinated
He was shot in front of government offices at around 1300 local time, (1200 GMT). I know some people are going to cry Newsfilter, but I believe this is worth posting.
posted by tomcosgrave (63 comments total)

At last report he wasn't dead yet, so shouldn't that read nearly assasinated?
posted by Pollomacho at 6:21 AM on March 12, 2003

The article reads that he died of his wounds - two large calibre rifle shots, one to the back and one to the stomach.
posted by tomcosgrave at 6:23 AM on March 12, 2003

The BBC site linked to says he's dead.
posted by yhbc at 6:23 AM on March 12, 2003

not trying to be a jerk, just curious:

I believe this is worth posting

how so?
posted by tolkhan at 6:28 AM on March 12, 2003

From CNN:

Djindic had put himself out on a limb to meet Western demands for aid by handing over other war criminals to the Hague. His reformist pro-Western stance drew opposition from Serb nationalists and created many enemies.

Let this be a lesson (but does anybody every learn?) about the realities of "regime change". It's never easy, and AFAIK, it has never really accomplished anything within a generation after it happens. It takes complacency in the populace to avoid unrest, and that rarely happens.

Although I will have to admit that it was more of a coup d'etat, a change of state from within instead of a forced change from without....and when that happens (as opposed to a popular revolt where I guess the populace has already gotten their way), there are bound to be high profile fueds.

It's all the more telling that this happened in front of government offices.

tolkhan: how so?

Well, a world leader was killed in an assassination. That often merits some conversation.
posted by taumeson at 6:30 AM on March 12, 2003

again, i ask, how so? what about this national leader's assassination merits conversation?
posted by tolkhan at 6:33 AM on March 12, 2003

A head of state, of a new country (Yugoslavia has now broken up) has been assassinated. Serbia, as part of Yugoslavia, has a bloody history of political assassination, as well as that, the Balkan region is a war torn place.

Hence the title of the post being "History repeating".

And one particular assassination in that part of the world (Archduke Franz Ferdinand) led to global war, in an already tense global political climate. I know the politics are totally different now, but still...

I hope there won't be anymore history repeating.

And as for regime change - this guy was doing it for the right reasons. Unlike the leaders of a certain large North American country...
posted by tomcosgrave at 6:34 AM on March 12, 2003

I'll go with what taumeson said - especially since it has relevance to both of the top two screaming match topics around here (Israel/Palestine and the whole Iraq thing).

It's also interesting to note that World War I was started by an assasination in Serbia.
posted by Irontom at 6:36 AM on March 12, 2003

again, i ask, how so? what about this national leader's assassination merits conversation?

You familiar at all with what happens when the Balkans are unstable (which is pretty commonplace)?

Try casting your memory back to the 1990's. Rape, murder, genocide, a very bloody and long conflict, that, as a European, I'd not like to see repeated.

With a pro-democracy figure like Zoran Djindjic gone, the way might be open to a anti-democracy figure such as Milosevic (not him, but others like him) taking his place.

Maybe to an American that may not mean much. To me here in Europe it means an awful lot.
posted by tomcosgrave at 6:38 AM on March 12, 2003

Is there a case of collective Alzheimer's going on here? Between this "I don't understand why a Balkan leader being assassinated is a big deal" and "What's the deal with hip hop being political?", I feel like I woke up in Bizarroworld this morning...
posted by mkultra at 6:47 AM on March 12, 2003

Maybe to an American that may not mean much. To me here in Europe it means an awful lot.

Yeah it must since Europe sent so many troops into combat to take care of the last dictator in Serbia. Maybe next time Europe will have enough interest to take care of it on its own seeing as how Americas efforts at world peace are so wholly appreciated and remembered.
posted by stbalbach at 6:49 AM on March 12, 2003

Maybe to an American that may not mean much. To me here in Europe it means an awful lot

I hope you're not directing an underhanded insult at me. I was asking, sincerely, why this is worthy of discussion here. You've begun to provide an answer, which is what I'm guessing you were wanting to discuss by posting this, but so far, the discussion has been mostly "Oh, this assassination is important," but there's not much to say why it's important.
posted by tolkhan at 6:54 AM on March 12, 2003

I hope you're not directing an underhanded insult at me.

Shut up and take it to Metatalk if it's such a big deal to you. You're derailing the thread.
posted by jpoulos at 6:58 AM on March 12, 2003

Forgive my temporary historical ignorance here, but didn't killing the prime minister of Serbia, you know, start World War I?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:58 AM on March 12, 2003

Since "regime change" seems to be on everyone's mind, these days, this does serve as an important signpost along the way.

By 2000-2001, there was enough collective hatred for Milosevic within his own country that he could have been tried there. However, Djindjic decided to go along with international pressure (and bribes in the form of aid) and deliver him over to the Hague. This may have appeared to be the practical thing to do at the time, though in retrospect I think less-so. In a world where, once again, we see the US using the carrots of foreign aid to convince the leaders to go along with policies that the people are united against, this is a useful lesson about the outcome.
posted by deanc at 6:59 AM on March 12, 2003

Maybe next time Europe will have enough interest to take care of it on its own seeing as how Americas efforts at world peace are so wholly appreciated and remembered.

I quite agree, stbalbach. I didn't favour the use of US soldiers in the Balkan conflict. Europe should have dealt with the Balkans with their own soldiers, and made sure they did the job properly - some of the European units were powerless to do anything at all, and terrible things to happen as a result.

If peacekeepers have to go in there again, I hope the US won't be supply US soldiers to the UN, and the European military can be responsible in their handling of the situation.

I hope you're not directing an underhanded insult at me

I still don't think the war in the Balkans meant much to the average American, though. And no, that's not an underhanded insult at you, Tolkhan, I'm just saying that the use of US soldiers in the Balkans was down to UN made policy, as opposed to America deciding to send in its soldiers for its own interest. Next time (if there is a next time), I hope Europe will take care of its own problems with its own soldiers.
posted by tomcosgrave at 7:00 AM on March 12, 2003

Sad, sad news. Djindjic just recently survived an assasination attempt, most likely from the same people. (Hardline paramilitaries, most likely, perhaps with the support of the mafia.)

tolkhan: Serbia's decline is a case-study in failed democracy, and I think events like this raise grim questions about its future, as well as the future of the Balkans. Serbia essentially went from a peaceful, relatively well-off country to an ungovernable wreck. The black market is bigger than the national economy, and the influence of the mafia is enormous. When you factor in the fact that Serbia still has border issues with Bosnia and Kosovo, and that hardliners are snuffing out the Prime Minister, things starts to look bleak.
posted by Ljubljana at 7:05 AM on March 12, 2003

Not everyone was a fan of Djindjic (obviously!). Here's a BBC biography which is more favourable, but it's hard to have a lot of time for a leader who ran away when the trouble started.

Single link to a 40 minute old BBC story. No other links, analysis, comment - no real evidence of any effort. Just bash it on the front page. No wonder you get Newsfilter call outs.
posted by grahamwell at 7:05 AM on March 12, 2003

The Balkans have always been unstable. Last time the world was unstable and a Serbian leader was shot, it was the trigger for an all out war. This alone should be enough for discussion on Metafilter.

The whole (recent) Balkan problem is our fault for (once again) lumping together groups of random races, religions and beliefs and expecting them to get along because they have one leader. The same as is happening in Iraq. This alone should be enough for discussion opn Metafilter.

If the almighty Dubya was assasinated by not one but two seperate snipers, would it be worthy of a metafilter thread?

Anyone else want to give it a try?
posted by twine42 at 7:06 AM on March 12, 2003

tolkhan: just skip the thread. we'll call you when we are about to discuss buffy or dreams about the scoobies.
posted by quonsar at 7:10 AM on March 12, 2003

twine - good statement in paragraph 2. though it's tough to say what to do here, because the US typically finds itself in a spot where our NATO or UN allies call for help, we always go. But when we want to do something, right or wrong (I'm not arguing/backing our current stances in the US on anything), we're given a hard time.

Then again, the West basically set up this new regime in the Balkans, and it's not turned out to be so spectacular at this point.

On a side note, with regard to postworthiness, it's a good topic, but not a great positioning. It's not like we are fighting over the posting of the University of Connecticut's women's basketball team losing their 70 game winning streak.
posted by djspicerack at 7:12 AM on March 12, 2003

I believe this is worth posting
how so?
Yugoslavian politics is absolutely fascinating anyway. The Orthodox Serbs and the Russians, the Catholic Croats and the Nazis in WWII, the Muslims not faring well for a long time now. . . This is a tribal conflict that has its roots deep in history. I think PJ O'Rourke said he practically couldn't tell Serbs from Croats, except that the Serbs looked a little more like John Belushi. Yet the division is profound. Neighbors who got along for years killing each other when the last conflict broke out and Yugoslavia fell apart. . . The systematic rape, degradation and genocide of the Muslims. . . Milosovic...
posted by Shane at 7:15 AM on March 12, 2003

No wonder you get Newsfilter call outs.

I posted the link to breaking news (which means there's not a lot of room for analysis) and others discuss it. Or have I missed the point of the site? Based on what others have said, I have contributed within the thread also.

I don't believe I've gotten Newsfilter callouts (not that I've seen anyway), but people tend to call out threads if there's news posted. In this case, I believed it was worth posting.

If you want to take this to MetaTalk, go ahead and I'll debate with you more there.
posted by tomcosgrave at 7:17 AM on March 12, 2003

Single link to a 40 minute old BBC story. No other links, analysis, comment - no real evidence of any effort.
I think the links (like the two you posted), comments, and added value are following in the thread, grahamwell. There are much better candidates for a Newsfilter callout.
posted by Shane at 7:20 AM on March 12, 2003

I would like to thank deanc for kind of spelling out what I was going for.

This may have appeared to be the practical thing to do at the time, though in retrospect I think less-so. In a world where, once again, we see the US using the carrots of foreign aid to convince the leaders to go along with policies that the people are united against, this is a useful lesson about the outcome.

Bottom line, the US has ALWAYS been heavy handed at international control, and this administration seems to be the Keystone Cops of international diplomacy.

djspicerack: because the US typically finds itself in a spot where our NATO or UN allies call for help, we always go. But when we want to do something, right or wrong (I'm not arguing/backing our current stances in the US on anything), we're given a hard time.

Maybe that's because the US usually wants to do something rather selfish or internationally useless?

World: Hey USA, would you mind stopping some international genocide for us?
USA: Sure, no problem...hey World, nobody's doing well economically...let's start a war!!
World: Well, USA, I don't think war's the answer to everything.
USA: You suck!
posted by taumeson at 7:21 AM on March 12, 2003

Maybe next time Europe will have enough interest to take care of it on its own seeing as how Americas efforts at world peace are so wholly appreciated and remembered.

I spent 2 years in a Special Tactics Squadron flying around the former Yugoslavia. European countries were most definately involved. I personally worked with French commandos and air units, British helicopter units, and German helicopter units.
Most flight operations were in Italy, so they were involved as well. No doubt there were other countries involved that I never came across. I seem to recall Dutch UN soldiers somewhere too.
Bosnia was not a "US only" operation. It was a UN operation. Did we field a lot of men and material there? No doubt we did, but we didn't do it alone.
It is sad that there is still so much turmoil there, after all the effort that went into calming things down. Hopefully level heads keep the peace.
posted by a3matrix at 7:27 AM on March 12, 2003

Maybe that's because the US usually wants to do something rather selfish or internationally useless?
I'd have a lot more faith in the benevolence of US foreign policy if they would have stepped in at the start of the troubles in Yugoslavia. What happened there in the 80s and 90s was hideous. Genocide and worse.
posted by Shane at 7:28 AM on March 12, 2003

I seem to recall Dutch UN soldiers somewhere too.

Maybe scuttling out of Srebrenica?
posted by Ljubljana at 7:32 AM on March 12, 2003

Don't worry. I loathe Newsfilter callouts and bouncing out to Metatalk even more.
posted by grahamwell at 7:33 AM on March 12, 2003

Maybe scuttling out of Srebrenica?

Yeah. *sigh*

I hope European soldiers are trained better next time.
Srebrenica and the role of the UN soldiers there was horrendous.
posted by tomcosgrave at 7:34 AM on March 12, 2003

taumeson - I think the point I'd like to make is that we have a security council that sat on its hands till the 11th hour, and then after many, many innocents were slaughtered in Rwanda, militaries were finally called in, only to have more deaths to their population at that late hour, after warlords had created almost impenetrable strongholds and created urban warfare. Afterwards, the US and other participating countries were criticized for not doing anything sooner. So you can't win. Ever.
posted by djspicerack at 7:42 AM on March 12, 2003

It's really creepy how all the news sites make it look like that the only enemies Djindjic had have been criminals from the mob or people from the old regime who still have power. That was certainly not the case. Some people had reasonable arguments against Djindjic.
Furthermore I think it's creepy how everyone thinks how the assassination of a man who acted against the constitution of his own state in illegal ways, sold out his country to the EU (or rather: Germany), had dealt with members of the mob himself to get rid off political enemies etc will stop the democratic development of Serbia.
posted by zerofoks at 7:45 AM on March 12, 2003

Hey, I thought the U.S. created democracy in Serbia. That's what the hawks said, anyways. Sure makes you want to say a prayer for the Iraqi the U.S. eventually puts in charge of that proposed democratic hotbed.
posted by sacre_bleu at 7:47 AM on March 12, 2003

Next time (if there is a next time), I hope Europe will take care of its own problems with its own soldiers.

Therein lies the problem. Europe doesn't have any offensive capability other than the UK. Who else would have led the conflict? Most European armies are peace keeping they don't have the offensive capabilities. Other than the UK going it alone or re-arming Germany what other options are there besides America.

opposed to America deciding to send in its soldiers for its own interest.

Ok.. this is crux of the matter. It's too OT an issue to debate here but the answer is Americas interests are Europes interests.
posted by stbalbach at 7:58 AM on March 12, 2003

News from beograd.com [the site is quite busy right now as one might imagine]
The Balkans have always been unstable.
The Balkans were always made unstable. Most recently by Germany's foreign policy in the late 80's which contributed directly to the war in Yugoslavia...
A great analysis of what the war was about, from Le Monde Diplomatique [Google Cache].
And finally I wouldn't be surprised if Djindjic's death had something to do with the local Mafia. The other paragon of democracy in the Balkans, Djukanovic, leader of Montenegro, certainly has a few links with smugglers.
And what zerofoks said.
posted by talos at 8:02 AM on March 12, 2003

Governmental transition to Western-style democracy. Do you have life insurance?

And for the Buffy-watching, Newsfilter ignoramuses, it may be wise to create a ready.gov-like infographic to explain why the assassination of a world leader in an unstable reason is important. Or world news in general.
posted by ed at 8:03 AM on March 12, 2003

I hope European soldiers are trained better next time.

Was it really training that was the problem or that the U.N. refused to give them a mandate to do anything? U.N. peacekeepers are generally poorly armed and have very strict rules of engagemnet. If I recall correctly it wasn't until NATO troops (with much more robust rules of engagement) got involved that things really started to improve.
posted by boltman at 8:10 AM on March 12, 2003

Bottom line, the US has ALWAYS been heavy handed at international control

I'm assuming you claim the beginning of all time was in 1945?

Maybe that's because the US usually wants to do something rather selfish or internationally useless?

World: Hey USA, would you mind stopping some international genocide for us?
USA: Sure, no problem

Doesn't part two of your statement totally negate part one?

Forgive my temporary historical ignorance here, but didn't killing the prime minister of Serbia, you know, start World War I?

No, he was an Austrian nobleman you're thinking of World War III.

If the almighty Dubya was assasinated by not one but two seperate snipers, would it be worthy of a metafilter thread?

Two bullets does not mean two assasins!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:21 AM on March 12, 2003

The whole (recent) Balkan problem is our fault for (once again) lumping together groups of random races, religions and beliefs and expecting them to get along because they have one leader.

Isn't that what America is? What's stopping this from happening to America?
posted by dgaicun at 8:32 AM on March 12, 2003

he was shot once in the back and once in the stomach and two men have been arrested. Not 100% proof, but a fair guess, no?
posted by twine42 at 8:33 AM on March 12, 2003

Jesus.
posted by jpoulos at 8:33 AM on March 12, 2003

Isn't that what America is? What's stopping this from happening to America?

Other than the Indian population, the majority of the non slave enterants to America did so by choice. They created a multicultural world through choice.

Oh, and you can't tell me America has no racial problems...
posted by twine42 at 8:35 AM on March 12, 2003

And in other historical revisions: How the US won the second world war single handedly....
posted by brettski at 8:36 AM on March 12, 2003

What's stopping this from happening to America?

Good question
posted by Pollomacho at 8:39 AM on March 12, 2003

What's stopping this from happening to America?

Go ahead and let it happen already. We get the world we deserve.
posted by jonmc at 8:54 AM on March 12, 2003

Your recollection is correct, Boltman - I remember seeing footage of sobbing and disarmed Dutch troops punching sneering Serbian troops and irregulars in utter frustratation at the time. There was a lot of activity in the UN aimed at opening the rules of engagement just before the fall of Srebrenica, but evidently it was too little, too late.

Anyhoo, what the hell is this thread disintegrating into?? The tone of the thing has been snarky from the start, and a lot of the criticism of Tom's post seems petty and unwarranted, in my opinion.
posted by Doozer at 9:02 AM on March 12, 2003

And for the Buffy-watching, Newsfilter ignoramuses, it may be wise to create a ready.gov-like infographic to explain why the assassination of a world leader in an unstable reason is important.
I agree this is not Newsfilter, ed, but, um... the Buffy thing is being discussed here.
posted by Shane at 9:08 AM on March 12, 2003

zerofox: Your first link is to a violently pro-Serb site; Jared Israel and his fellow Emperor's-Clothiers rant about "anti-Milosevic lies" and try to deny the Serbian death camps while playing up anti-Serb atrocities. Hardly "reasonable arguments"; to these people, anyone who wants to have anything to do with the West is a traitor. And your second (Elsaesser) link doesn't, as far as I can see, mention Djindjic at all.

tomcosgrave, I think this was well worth posting and you don't deserve the attacks you've gotten, but you did make yourself vulnerable with the form of the post. It's always a good idea, even if it's a "link to breaking news (which means there's not a lot of room for analysis)," to add at least a sentence suggesting why you think the news is important (which could have replaced your second sentence, which was counterproductive and basically begged people to call Newsfilter on you). Just a suggestion.
posted by languagehat at 9:24 AM on March 12, 2003

a: Bottom line, the US has ALWAYS been heavy handed at international control
b: I'm assuming you claim the beginning of all time was in 1945?

hm, i seem to recall we've gone into a lot of situations with guns blazing and egos soaring. that incident where we killed three-quarters of the population of the phillipines back around 1900 springs to mind. Seems like before 1945, we were a bit more overt in our tendencies towards conquest, and after that, when we screwed up the world scene we left the bombed to rebuild, instead of claiming their land and taking that burden on ourselves.

ahem. sorry.
posted by kaibutsu at 9:30 AM on March 12, 2003

Me: Bottom line, the US has ALWAYS been heavy handed at international control
Male Chicken: I'm assuming you claim the beginning of all time was in 1945?

Irrelevant. When the US has tried to exercise international control, they've done so heavy handed. I didn't say they were always movers and shakers...just that when they decided to do so, they were more of an earthquake then a gentle shove.

Me: Maybe that's because the US usually wants to do something rather selfish or internationally useless?
World: Hey USA, would you mind stopping some international genocide for us?
USA: Sure, no problem
Male Chicken: Doesn't part two of your statement totally negate part one?

Absolutely not. In the example you cite, that's the World's idea, not the US's, to stop international genocide. It didn't originate in the US.
posted by taumeson at 9:53 AM on March 12, 2003

Didn't the whole WWI thing come about because of all the countries in Europe having treaties with every other country in Europe saying if someone declares war on you we'll declare war on them? A working EU makes that kind of thing rather unlikely, within Europe itself.
posted by Guy Smiley at 10:16 AM on March 12, 2003

tomcosgrave:I still don't think the war in the Balkans meant much to the average American, though.

It did to this American and pretty much every one of my friends and family. Quite frankly, I was pissed that no one stepped up to the plate sooner. Watching people run from snipers, seeing cities bombed into rubble, knowing that there were concentration camps, mass excecutions and organized, systematic rapes - why wouldn't I be concerned? And the thought of that arising again scares the hell out of me.
posted by echolalia67 at 10:38 AM on March 12, 2003

Guy Smiley: The entire WWI metaphor is bizarre. I don't know why it keeps coming up. First, our good friend the Archduke was assasinated in Bosnia, not Serbia. The killers were Bosnian Serbs. And the victim was Austrian. The assassination put Austria-Hungary and Serbia (suspected of financing the killers) onto a collision course. End of story.

This is most likely a mafia hit, and won't spark a world war.
posted by Ljubljana at 10:53 AM on March 12, 2003

langaugehat: Part of the problem why the war against Serbia was started was that the "crimes against humanity" were largely exegerated to justify the post-WW2 Germany begin a war again. I wouldn't go so far as you did to say that anyone who denies that there have been Serbian death camps (which Elsaesser, for instance, cleared up in many articles and a book were made up by the western ally) - there simply was no second Auschwitz in the Kosovo that had to be prevented. Of course that doesn't mean that acts of genocide occured pretty much anywhere in the Balkan for the last centuries against pretty much every ethnic group there has been.
I also mentioned Elsaesser because he is one of the few (German) journalists who didn't praise Djindjic for him being a "technocratic democrat" but rather saw him as what he (among many other politicians, granted) was: a liar and a criminal.
posted by zerofoks at 11:19 AM on March 12, 2003

When the US has tried to exercise international control, they've done so heavy handed.

i seem to recall we've gone into a lot of situations with guns blazing and egos soaring.

I never said that we NEVER went guns blazing, just that we don't ALWAYS do it. How about that damn heavy handed Jimmy Carter and the way he beat Begin and Sadat into submission for example? Did we HAVE to broker a peace deal, did anyone ask us to? Nope, that was all the USA's (well, Carter's anyway) idea to get those two together at Camp David.

It was terribly selfish of us to give the Philippines (and Cuba) their independence after all the fighting we'd done to conquer them. (by the way from your link: "Both sides engaged in wanton violence and slaughter" "the Islands were modernized and the nation prepared for eventual independence. " "This was the first major land campaign fought by the U.S. outside of the Western Hemisphere. ")

In the example you cite, that's the World's idea, not the US's, to stop international genocide. It didn't originate in the US.

So its OK for American troops to be sent in to put their lives on the line, for US taxpayers to pay for it and supply equipment and relief funds, but we just had better not take any credit for doing anything positive?

Of course this is all contrary to Rwanda where the world does NOTHING and watches MILLIONS get slaughtered by machete wielding maniacs.

when we screwed up the world scene we left the bombed to rebuild, instead of claiming their land and taking that burden on ourselves.

Right, that's why there are still American troops in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Korea...

PS - its Pollomacho, not male chicken, thanks.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:27 AM on March 12, 2003

I know that I could generate a new MeTa-thread up for this, but can I instead politely ask all of you here to just not derail this thread to solely talk about US foreign politics?
posted by zerofoks at 11:32 AM on March 12, 2003

I just saw a great movie on PBS about the birth of Serbia's democracy movement a few months back. Seeing Tom's post (and thanks for it, Tom) reminded me of that movie.

It also reminded me that there isn't that much of a tradition of representational politics in much of the world. Someone asked why there isn't more ethnic strife in America; I think it's because we left most of that bullshit behind in the Old World (and I said most. Christ knows there's still plenty of You-Think-Differently-So-You're-My-Enemy tension here). Gangsterism is as old as humanity, and I think Djindic was another casualty in the fight against organized crime and various other thugs. Or maybe it was good ol' Slobo's pals. I dunno. But it was a hiccup, the forces of Might Makes Right trying to snuff out someone who was coming down on them via the law and popular opinion.

I don't think we're going to see anothe explosion of ethnic violence in Serbia. I don't think we're going to see the forces of darkness sweeping over Europe. I don't think we're going to see UN Peacekeepers doing (or not doing) their thing. I think we're going to see Serbia go through another ugly phase of politcal puberty. Will they take the high road, maintain order, ferret out who's responsible, unlock all the cash the Commies squirrelled away, and get the nation on track? I hope so.
posted by RakDaddy at 4:21 PM on March 12, 2003

Not to get all HistoryFilter on you guys, but this is pretty much the place where WWI began. Powder keg and all that. That's why it's worth discussing.
posted by geekhorde at 11:10 PM on March 12, 2003

Did you even bother reading the thread, geekhorde?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:29 PM on March 12, 2003

Sure I read it. Just weighing in. Two cents worth.

So shoot me.

No need to get snarky.
posted by geekhorde at 3:48 PM on March 13, 2003

... For the great majority of Serbs, he will be remembered as a quisling who enriched himself by selling his country to those who had waged war against it so mercilessly only a few years earlier.
posted by grahamwell at 3:54 AM on March 14, 2003

No need to get snarky.

Heh. Now there's a tagline if ever I heard one!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:23 AM on March 14, 2003

grahamwell: that was an amazingly cruel, but nonetheless remarkably accurate article. This is FPP worthy material.
posted by talos at 5:25 AM on March 14, 2003