Hollywood goes to Bosnia, again.

Oh, you're right, I didn't look carefully enough. Pages in the middle are missing :)

Tim Judah's "Serbs", IMHO, is required reading for any English-speaking (non-Serbian speaking) journalist interested in the region.

The problem is not so much the Kaplan book in itself but the fact that many politicians (even Clinton?) educate themselves by reading this kind of superficial, selfserving and ignorant books. There is even a proliferation of instant "history" books which are written in the same vein, for example those authored by Norman Malcolm.

as far as gere's role....with all due respect, I can't stand that guy.

why? what's wrong with american gigolo, ?

that movie is the only credit that he has from me. ...but comparing with the other movies and actions...he is just not worth it any attention.

buddhist my ass.

In regards to journalists, I didn't mean to suggest that the film's stereotype was inaccurate. Instead, I meant to cast doubt on its decision to glorify and promote the macho, tough guy, story chasing aspect of foreign reporting.

that's true. they're not macho at all :)

As for Burma, Serbia, Georgia and the likes, we are all small fry, a wedge between tectonic plates of major players in the international arena. It's not a matter of conspiracy theory... international relations are still more or less as Hobbes described them in Leviathan or Machiavelli in the Prince or the Book of Rulers of the State of Shan (Machiavelli analogue in early China), they are only packaged nicely in secondary concerns, such as human rights and the democratic order. The primary concern is still the balance of power and relative or absolute gain. Burma, or even better Palestine and Kurdistan are stark examples - where there is no gain in these primary objectives, human rights and justice for the victims are of no concern to the mighty.
Once we have a global government and global currency, then these might also become primary concerns, as they are more or less in a state of law. However, we seem father away from this Wilsonian ideal than after WW II.

regz.

As for Burma, Serbia, Georgia and the likes, we are all small fry, a wedge between tectonic plates of major players in the international arena.

What?! Last time I looked, Serbia was about to bring NATO and the New World Order to its knees! ;-)

Great posts, tnosugar, my recommendations.

Not to its knees, but we have served as an important training ground (and may yet serve as a precedent) for remodelling international relations in this century. The precedent that is being set less by the dissolution of the former Yu republics, but to a greater extent by the possible recognition of Kosovo (and perhaps even Vojvodina and Sandzak if some interest groups have it their way), could have huge implications for all other similar cases worldwide, as has been often argued on this blog and elsewhere.

This is why the clash between international players to keep Kosovo in Serbia (or provide it with independence and sovereignty) is actually more fierce, behind the closed doors of diplomatic relations, than was their confrontation over the break-up of ex-YU, which was inevitable and permissable by international law. It was the finer details of how to deal with the 'leopard skin' distribution of ethnic groups that provided conditions for the war-mongers at home and arms dealers abroad to present us with the worst case scenario.

I'm still not sure whether the US are looking to actually accomplish this precedent, or whether they are just looking for an important strategic pivot on the faultline between Eurpe and Asia Minor. Precedents come and go, but Bondsteel is there to stay.

btw... good article on TFF on War from a Buddhist perspective.
Here's a teaser...the rest of it is here

Why we love war
By

David R. Loy

October 9, 2007

In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.
—José Narosky


War is hell, and today more than ever. Although high-tech weapons make it a videogame for some, those same weapons make it unbelievably destructive for everyone else. Whatever valor was once associated with hand-to-hand combat has long since disappeared due to gunpowder, and the massive slaughters of the twentieth century have made it increasingly difficult to romanticize the death and misery war causes. Nonetheless it continues and we have learned, if not to accept it, to take it for granted.

Obviously, not everyone loathes it. The U.S. economy would collapse without the obscene amount spent on the military-industrial complex, now well over $600 billion a year according to some calculations. It’s hard to rationalize such a sum without a war once in a while. That’s why the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union was so disconcerting. What would we do without an enemy! Fortunately the war on terror fits the bill perfectly. With a bit of luck it may never end (how would we know?) and the military budget can balloon forever.

But it’s not only those who get rich (or richer) off war who like it. They couldn’t promote war if the rest of us weren’t willing to go along with their manipulations. We support and follow the war-makers because, to tell the truth, there is something in us that finds war agreeable . . . even attractive. Can Buddhism help us understand what that is?

The official excuse for every war is always the same: self-defense. It’s okay to kill other people and destroy their society because that’s what they want to do to us.

As Hermann Goering said, “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders . . . Just tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” They haven’t attacked us yet? Then we need a “preventive war.” That suggests the problem with all “just war” theories. Once there’s such a thing as a just war, every war becomes marketed as a just war.

But that’s not why we like war. That’s just how the propaganda works, how leaders get us to line up behind them. What makes us so gullible? Why are we so willing to sacrifice ourselves, even our children? Why doesn’t exposing the lies of the last war inoculate us against the deceptions that will be used to promote the next one?

Buddhist societies have not been immune from war. The Japanese Buddhist establishment wholeheartedly supported the imperialist ambitions of its fascist government. In Sri Lanka today politicized Buddhist monks oppose a negotiated solution to a civil war that has already cost thousands of lives.

In all the cases that I can think of, however, people who consider themselves Buddhists became belligerent because their Buddhism had become mixed up with a more secular religion: nationalism. Such war-mongering startles us because it so obviously contradicts Buddhist principles—not only incompatible with its emphasis on not harming, but also inconsistent with a worldview that emphasizes wisdom over power.

From a Buddhist perspective, the various conflicts in the Middle East look like a family quarrel. That’s because the three Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—share much the same understanding of the world. It’s a feud among brothers who have fallen out, which is, of course, sometimes the most vicious sort. Having been raised by the same father, they have a similar worldview: this world is a battleground where the good must fight against those who are evil.

The most important issue is where each of us stands in this cosmic struggle. Our salvation depends upon it. It’s necessary to choose sides.

It is not surprising, then, that the al-Qaeda understanding of good and evil—the need for a holy war against evil—is also shared by the administration of George W. Bush. Bin Laden would no doubt agree with what Bush has emphasized: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Since there is no room in this grand cosmic struggle for neutrality, neither of them is much concerned about the fate of innocent bystanders. Bystanders are not innocent. Once something has been labeled as evil, the focus must be on fighting it. The most important thing is to do whatever is necessary to destroy it. This implies a preoccupation with power and victory at any cost. Whether one supports small-group terrorism or state terrorism, the issue is the same. Which will be more powerful, the forces of good or the forces of evil?

Buddhism offers a different perspective. In place of this battleground of wills where good contends against evil, the most important struggle is a spiritual one between ignorance and delusion, on the one side, and liberating wisdom on the other. And seeing the world primarily as a war between good and evil is one of our more dangerous delusions.

Looking back over history, we can see that when leaders have tried to destroy evil, they have usually ended up creating more evil. An obvious example is the heresy inquisitions and witch-trials of medieval Europe, but for sheer violence and dukkha nothing can match the persecutions of the twentieth century. What was Adolf Hitler trying to do with his “final solution” to the “Jewish problem”? The earth could be made pure for the Aryan race only by exterminating the Jews, along with all the other vermin (gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally defective, etc.) who contaminate it. Stalin killed well-to-do Russian peasants because he was trying to create his ideal society of collective farmers. Mao Zedong eliminated Chinese landlords for the same reason. Like Bush and bin Laden, they were trying to perfect the world by eliminating its evil people.

So one of the main causes of evil in our world has been attempts to get rid of evil (or what has been seen as evil). In more Buddhist terms, much of the world’s suffering has resulted from this delusive way of thinking about good and evil.

more

Movies like 'Pearl Harbor' or movies like 'Platton' ?

Apocalypse Now?

"Apocalypse now" is too good of a movie to be repeated :)

Obviously it's 'inspiration' was not too horrible to be repeated !