Bosniaks oppose RS coat of arms

The Republika Srpska coat of arms will soon be the same as the Serbian coat of arms :).
Cheers!

If the Croats will let you have Arabic writing on your flag for YOUR federation.. then be my guest... let Republika Srpska do whats in Republika Srpska's interest.

its the Serb republic they could do what they please no one says anything to the other half so they should say nothing on the Serb half. if they don't like living in the republica srpska they are free to sell their house and move to the other federation are or croatia.

Bad Gorilla, why do the still wave the national flag of Albnania in Kosovo, when you have your own that represents all the people of Kosovo. don't be a hypocrit. Right on Dragan! Good point Al. Why create a new version of Yugo when the destroied the last one. Because they didn't want to be with the Serbs. Let the RS go. The will of the people right. The majority in the RS, SERBS, want out of this fedration. Let the peoples voices be heard! FREE REPUBLIKA SRPSKA!!!

THERE ARE NO BOSNIANS THEY are Serbs or Croats who have accepted islam.
Los Angeles Times Syndicate
Sunday, September 8 1996
Excerpts from page C07
The Washington Post
(Taken without permission - for fair use only)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the end of the year, we shall be facing a moment of truth in Bosnia: It no longer will be possible to gloss over the incompatibility between the military and political provisions of the Dayton Accords, which brought about the cease-fire.
There are pressures to use NATO (and American) troops to enforce the political provisions, and there is a presidential commitment to withdraw our troops by Dec. 29. The looming crisis has four components:

The political provisions of the Dayton Accords require free elections, a unified Bosnia-Herzegovina, free movement within Bosnia and the right of refugees to return to their homes. None of these goals is achievable without the massive use of force.

At the same time, by establishing cease-fire lines patrolled by NATO, the military provisions of the agreement have the practical consequence of protecting ethnic enclaves and therefore are an obstacle to the proclaimed goal of unification.

Normally, elections presuppose the existence of a country. In Bosnia, elections are projected to create a country from among three deeply hostile ethnic groups. Not surprisingly, each of those groups is manipulating the electoral process, not to encourage pluralism but to unify itself for a showdown with the hated neighbor.

Amid this turmoil, the president's stated policy remains that U.S. troops will be withdrawn by Dec. 29. The other NATO nations have declared that they will follow suit.

If these contradictions are not remedied before the scheduled American withdrawal, Bosnia is likely to blow up again.

Twenty thousand American soldiers find themselves at the center of this looming crisis. At the moment, things seem calm because we are in the eye of the hurricane, but as the various deadlines approach, the success of the U.S. military deployment -- and the of our forces -- will depend on answers to these questions: What is to be the ultimate balance between our military and political objectives? The role of our forces in bringing about a political settlement? What, indeed, are we trying to accomplish?

Bosnia policy has reached this impasse because of a tendency to pursue immediate goals without assessing their long-range consequences.

In 1991 the Bush administration aborted a plan nearly agreed on between the Bosnian ethnic groups that would have created a loose confederation amounting to partition. The reason for quashing the plan was the fear that de facto partition of Bosnia might become a model for the breakup of the Soviet Union, endangering Gorbachev's reforms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The writer, a former secretary of state, is president of Kissinger Associates, an international consulting firm that has clients with business interests in many countries abroad.

You would think this is the middle ages with these coat of arms. Tradition is one thing. But Bosnia is a new country. This is the 21st century.

You don't need an antiquated coat of arms. What's next? Catapults?

PS: It's curious to see that while we can see the double-headed with the “CCCC” white cross shield, the red-and-white checkerboard shield and the yellow-crescent-and-star against a green background flag in many parts of Bosnia, the original Bosnian white flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AFlag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_%281992-1998%29.svg) and Blue-White-Yellow-Fleur-de-Lis shield (designed to represent the Bosnian nation and its habitants, without religious or ethnic conotations) are practically “verbotten” in most of Bosnia itself!

Bosnia is one of the few places in the Planet Earth where a white flag is classified a “war flag”…

Guys, here’s a link to the Flag of the Federation:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Federation_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg

As you can see, it clearly contains the Red & White Croatian Checkerboard (a symbol of Nazism to many Serbs) and the Bosnian Fleur de lys (“lilies” as B92 put it) BOTH of which are Royal Crests. There is no Serbian or Orthodox symbol on it.

So I personally don’t see the issue with RS including references to both Croats and Bosniaks in theirs, when the Federation completely left out the Serbs, who did after all make up nearly 18% of the population before the way (compared to Croatians’ 22%). Now of course the Federation has a less than 2% minority rate (Serbs and others).

Bad Gorilla, I suggest you do your research on the background of the Fleur de lys in Bosnian history, so yes it does have its own connotations. Its sort of the basis for the claim of the Bosniaks on their own identity and history separate from the Croats and Serbs. Trust me, I researched it a bit, my own family crest contains two on a blue background.

Of course the current Flag for all of Bosnia is more neutral.

Another display of a disfunctional marriage between RS & BH. Time to file divorse papers and let the RS leave. Fact is there is too much bad blood to ever make peace work but forcing it upon the people. And even the croatians and muslims are in love with each other, the RS are the only ones saying "i want out" Once the UN money runs out....then we will see.

The former RS emblem (the tricolour circle with the cyrillic “PC”) was more neutral, so why the RS parliament had to change it again?

It seems to me one more demonstration of the campaign by the Dodik party to annul the Bosnian identity and nation-sate and create a “Srspki” one, tied to Belgrade and not to Sarajevo, the legitimate capital of all of Bosnia.

its the Serb republic they could do what they please no one says anything to the other half so they should say nothing on the Serb half. if they don't like living in the republica srpska they are free to sell their house and move to the other federation are or croatia.

The former RS emblem (the tricolour circle with the cyrillic “PC”) was more neutral, so why the RS parliament had to change it again?

It seems to me one more demonstration of the campaign by the Dodik party to annul the Bosnian identity and nation-sate and create a “Srspki” one, tied to Belgrade and not to Sarajevo, the legitimate capital of all of Bosnia.

If the Croats will let you have Arabic writing on your flag for YOUR federation.. then be my guest... let Republika Srpska do whats in Republika Srpska's interest.

You would think this is the middle ages with these coat of arms. Tradition is one thing. But Bosnia is a new country. This is the 21st century.

You don't need an antiquated coat of arms. What's next? Catapults?

The Republika Srpska coat of arms will soon be the same as the Serbian coat of arms :).
Cheers!

PS: It's curious to see that while we can see the double-headed with the “CCCC” white cross shield, the red-and-white checkerboard shield and the yellow-crescent-and-star against a green background flag in many parts of Bosnia, the original Bosnian white flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AFlag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_%281992-1998%29.svg) and Blue-White-Yellow-Fleur-de-Lis shield (designed to represent the Bosnian nation and its habitants, without religious or ethnic conotations) are practically “verbotten” in most of Bosnia itself!

Bosnia is one of the few places in the Planet Earth where a white flag is classified a “war flag”…

Guys, here’s a link to the Flag of the Federation:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Federation_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg

As you can see, it clearly contains the Red & White Croatian Checkerboard (a symbol of Nazism to many Serbs) and the Bosnian Fleur de lys (“lilies” as B92 put it) BOTH of which are Royal Crests. There is no Serbian or Orthodox symbol on it.

So I personally don’t see the issue with RS including references to both Croats and Bosniaks in theirs, when the Federation completely left out the Serbs, who did after all make up nearly 18% of the population before the way (compared to Croatians’ 22%). Now of course the Federation has a less than 2% minority rate (Serbs and others).

Bad Gorilla, I suggest you do your research on the background of the Fleur de lys in Bosnian history, so yes it does have its own connotations. Its sort of the basis for the claim of the Bosniaks on their own identity and history separate from the Croats and Serbs. Trust me, I researched it a bit, my own family crest contains two on a blue background.

Of course the current Flag for all of Bosnia is more neutral.

Another display of a disfunctional marriage between RS & BH. Time to file divorse papers and let the RS leave. Fact is there is too much bad blood to ever make peace work but forcing it upon the people. And even the croatians and muslims are in love with each other, the RS are the only ones saying "i want out" Once the UN money runs out....then we will see.

Bad Gorilla, why do the still wave the national flag of Albnania in Kosovo, when you have your own that represents all the people of Kosovo. don't be a hypocrit. Right on Dragan! Good point Al. Why create a new version of Yugo when the destroied the last one. Because they didn't want to be with the Serbs. Let the RS go. The will of the people right. The majority in the RS, SERBS, want out of this fedration. Let the peoples voices be heard! FREE REPUBLIKA SRPSKA!!!

THERE ARE NO BOSNIANS THEY are Serbs or Croats who have accepted islam.
Los Angeles Times Syndicate
Sunday, September 8 1996
Excerpts from page C07
The Washington Post
(Taken without permission - for fair use only)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the end of the year, we shall be facing a moment of truth in Bosnia: It no longer will be possible to gloss over the incompatibility between the military and political provisions of the Dayton Accords, which brought about the cease-fire.
There are pressures to use NATO (and American) troops to enforce the political provisions, and there is a presidential commitment to withdraw our troops by Dec. 29. The looming crisis has four components:

The political provisions of the Dayton Accords require free elections, a unified Bosnia-Herzegovina, free movement within Bosnia and the right of refugees to return to their homes. None of these goals is achievable without the massive use of force.

At the same time, by establishing cease-fire lines patrolled by NATO, the military provisions of the agreement have the practical consequence of protecting ethnic enclaves and therefore are an obstacle to the proclaimed goal of unification.

Normally, elections presuppose the existence of a country. In Bosnia, elections are projected to create a country from among three deeply hostile ethnic groups. Not surprisingly, each of those groups is manipulating the electoral process, not to encourage pluralism but to unify itself for a showdown with the hated neighbor.

Amid this turmoil, the president's stated policy remains that U.S. troops will be withdrawn by Dec. 29. The other NATO nations have declared that they will follow suit.

If these contradictions are not remedied before the scheduled American withdrawal, Bosnia is likely to blow up again.

Twenty thousand American soldiers find themselves at the center of this looming crisis. At the moment, things seem calm because we are in the eye of the hurricane, but as the various deadlines approach, the success of the U.S. military deployment -- and the of our forces -- will depend on answers to these questions: What is to be the ultimate balance between our military and political objectives? The role of our forces in bringing about a political settlement? What, indeed, are we trying to accomplish?

Bosnia policy has reached this impasse because of a tendency to pursue immediate goals without assessing their long-range consequences.

In 1991 the Bush administration aborted a plan nearly agreed on between the Bosnian ethnic groups that would have created a loose confederation amounting to partition. The reason for quashing the plan was the fear that de facto partition of Bosnia might become a model for the breakup of the Soviet Union, endangering Gorbachev's reforms.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The writer, a former secretary of state, is president of Kissinger Associates, an international consulting firm that has clients with business interests in many countries abroad.