The West is Wrong on Kosovo
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Wed, 2007-12-05 12:40
A quote from Fjordman at Jihadwatch, 4 December 2007
President Bush declared a "war on terror" after the Jihadist attacks on the United States in 2001. Six years later, all he has achieved is bleeding American tax payers financially and American soldiers literally while overseeing the eradication of non-Muslim communities in Iraq. Now his administration supports independence for terrorist-sponsoring Muslims in the Balkans and in the Palestinian territories. Unless he does something very substantial in 2008, George W. Bush risks being remembered as one of the worst presidents in American history.
I listened to a speech by Patrick Sookhdeo, a former Muslim who recently launched his latest book, Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam. Sookhdeo had done a lot of excellent – and frightening – research regarding the Islamization of Western Europe, especially Britain. He recalled having a conversation with a senior Western official regarding what would happen if Muslims in a region of, say, Britain or the Netherlands, should declare that they would no longer accept the laws of the central government and would form a breakaway Islamic Republic. This official then stated that they would probably just have to quietly accept that. When witnessing the Muslim riots in France, which more and more resemble a civil war, this question is no longer just hypothetical. […]
Granting Jihadist Muslims independence in Kosovo after they have conducted ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims will establish an extremely dangerous precedent. Not only is it immoral to sacrifice the freedom or perhaps existence of smaller nations, be that the Serbs or the Israelis, in order to save your own skin. As the example of Czechoslovakia demonstrated during WW2, it is also counterproductive. Supporting independence for Muslim Albanians in Kosovo will not lead to stabilization of the Balkans; it will rather lead to the Balkanization of the West. The new thug state will serve as a launching pad for Jihad activities against non-Muslims, just like an independent Palestinian state would do in the Middle East.
In the case of Kosovo, the Russians are right and Western leaders, both in the European Union and the United States, are wrong. The Serbs have suffered enough. Give them a break!
Terminology
Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2007-12-09 22:11.
The terms "western" and "the West" probably go back to Classical Greece and Rome (at least a few centuries BC), and certainly later (in Christian times) to the division between Rome and Byzantium.
Today, "the West" basically means Europe+NorthAmerica+Australia+NZ, with a few other minor exceptions. These are essentially the countries that 'benefited' directly from (1) the Roman empire, (2) Judeo-Christian values passed on through Catholicism and 'Protestantism', (3) these values reinterpreted by the cultural and political struggles of the European 'Enlightenment', and (4) subsequently also from 'European' settlements in (largely) 'empty' territories.
Half a century ago, that concept of the West more or less co-incided with the regions of the world where genuine democracy and 'rule of law' (as opposed to 'rule of men') prevailed. In the future this is unlikely to remain so. There are signs that democracy MAY be taking root in other places (India and Japan are clear examples of sustainability) and that democracy is increasingly threathened in some current/former 'western' countries. The future significant division is not going to be between any West and East, but between democratic and nondemocratic countries in the world. The essential tests for that distinction is (a) freedom of political speech and (b) genuine power alternation at regular intervals between distinct 'ideologies'.
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-12-09 22:31.
Nice mess, I just want to say that I don't belong to this civilization. I don't even think that such civilization exist. ;)
@Monarchist
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2007-12-09 23:22.
"I don't belong to this civilization. I don't even think that such civilization exist. ;)"
Of course you don't. You belong to castles in the air.
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Mon, 2007-12-10 00:09.
As a American you are not aware how many old castles survived. Polish royal castle in Krakow only wait for a proper person to wipe out democracy :)
latin / western
Submitted by Armor on Sun, 2007-12-09 23:10.
Monarchist: "This is incorrect to associate origin of Latin civilization or Catholic church with Italian nation"
Ok. Then I have misunderstood your point of view. But I do associate "Latin" with Italy. By the way, in my dictionary, definition #5 of "Latin" is:
5. of the Roman Catholic Church, especially as distinguished from the Eastern Church.
Back to subject: Kosovo
Submitted by Frodo42 on Sun, 2007-12-09 11:27.
On the original subject of independent Kosovo, I have the pleasure to tell that Dansk Folkeparti now openly opposes the Danish government on its naïve attitude to Kosovo.
It is the first time ever that Dansk Folkeparti opposes the government on an important foreing policy issue.
Woods: Western, not Latin
Submitted by Frodo42 on Sun, 2007-12-09 11:24.
Atheling said:
Note that he calls it WESTERN CIVILIZATION, not "latin civilization.
Spot on. Anyone who has read the book, or the somewhat similar by Rodney Stark ("Victory of Reason") will know that we're talking liberty, capitalism, free enterprise and the like. It originated in North Italy and moved north to the Netherlands (not least Flanders) and England later, bringing with it a form of proto-democracy that later evolved into what is today the Western form of democracy.
This is wonderful stuff.
Non-interventionist policy # 4
Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2007-12-08 21:57.
@ Monarchist
I am not the one that is raising "more and more issues". I responded in my 3 paragraphs to the specific issues that you raised in your 3 paragraphs.
But, the central issue was "non-interventionist policy". And you still are unable to recognise that if Roosevelt had pursued a "non-interventionist policy" w.r.t. the European theater in the 1940's, then it is most likely that there would be no more independent Poland today.
Is it really so difficult to accept the general position that one can not judge neither interventionism nor non-interventionism in a vacuum. It all depends on the context and circumstances. That is just common sense. So, it is nonsense for you to have claimed that "the conservative position is non-interventionism".
But then, why should I expect common sense from someone who wants a return to monarchy and to some mythical "latin civilisation", and who is proud to be a 'nondemocrat'?
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2007-12-08 22:38.
some mythical "latin civilisation"
@Monarchist
Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2007-12-08 22:59.
First of all, civilization is the method of collective life on the level of family, tribe, nation, and the state, in both private and public dimensions. Latin civilization is based on Christian ethic. In this civilization we have both "private law" and "public law". The first is used by families and different kind of associations. The public law regulate relations between people, providing internal and external security. The public law in Latin civilization doesn't interfere into private law. The freedom of one person is reduced by freedom of other people. Ability of self-organization at the bottom reduce state interventionism to the minimum. In this civilization we can talk about nations which were created by the natural way. Latin civilization protect property rights. Latin civilization is based on monogamy where marriage is the relationship between man and woman. Neither a human or the state are worshiped.
If your definition of "latin civilization" made sense, it could be read.
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2007-12-08 23:49.
I recommend this author, Thomas E. Woods
@Monarchist
Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2007-12-08 23:53.
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization... been there, done that.
Note that he calls it WESTERN CIVILIZATION, not "latin civilization".
I can assure you that he
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-12-09 00:06.
I can assure you that he knows what is Latin civilization. Title is commercial, more people understand more buy his book. First read and later comment.
@Monarchist
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2007-12-09 00:17.
Why don't you take from his cue then and use the verbiage that people would understand?
You are using a term that is obscure... good communication would avoid that.
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-12-09 13:54.
"Western civilization" is a laicized term that cannot be precisely defined and even every leftist could use it describing current disorder. Professor Woods adds in the title also "How the Catholic Church" to avoid confusions. Etymology of the term "western civilization" is very simple and could be compared to how the left run governments replaced Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays. The left hate the church and want to erase every sign of Christianity from public life. That is it.
europeanness is a marvelous thing
Submitted by Armor on Sun, 2007-12-09 17:04.
Monarchist said: "Etymology of the term "western civilization" is very simple and could be compared to how the left run governments replaced Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays."
I agree. We should say: the European civilization. Not western, not latin, not judeo-christian.
For example: the European civilization embodied by such people as Thomas Jefferson and Nicole Kidman (who is Australian).
However, I am not sure civilization is the right word. Europeans have produced many different cultures and traditions. What makes our civilizations European is that special European fluid in our veins. It is more a way of being than a civilization. We can't help it. Everywhere we land, we produce European civilization. Which should be expected, since we are Europeans.
In any case, using the "Western" word is meaningless. Western compared to what? To Greece? Persia? India? Russia? China? The civilization of Iran is Western from a Chinese point of view!
@Armor
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-12-09 18:22.
I agree. We should say: the European civilization. Not western, not latin, not judeo-christian.
I don't see much difference between 'western' and 'European'. The latter is even more explored by the left in Europe. European Union, European Tribunals, European Days of something, European values, this is whole dictionary of the left. They completely hijacked this term (like many other terms) and describe their wet dreams that I don't share.
Latin civilization is better because they will never use this term. 'Latin' indirectly refers to Christianity and this is the point. I would like to read arguments, why not "Latin"?
However, I am not sure civilization is the right word. Europeans have produced many different cultures and traditions.
Civilizations and cultures should not be confused. Every civilization consist from few or more cultures that are more or less advanced. What these cultures have in common? They share basics values of this civilization. Cultures of Latin civilization share values that I mentioned below, quoted by 'etheling'.
Why not Latin rather than Western
Submitted by Armor on Sun, 2007-12-09 19:39.
why not "Latin"?
You want to say "Latin" because your theory is that European civilization originated in Catholic Italy. But since it has spread to the whole of Europe, it should be called European. Latin is the word we already use to name other things :
Latin = 1 of ancient Latium or its people
2 of ancient Rome or its people
3 designating the languages derived from Latin, the peoples who speak them, their countries, cultures...
So, using the word Latin would be confusing. Besides, I resent the idea that I owe my culture to Italy. If the whole of Italy had been destroyed by an eruption of Mount Vesuvius in the early Middle Ages, I think the rest of Europe would still have undergone a similar evolution to what has happened. I think there is much similarity between Europeans from different countries and we all tend to go in the same direction. The Italian civilization did not take hold in Northern Africa, and it would not have had such a great influence in the rest of Europe if we were not similar people. But I like the idea that Thomas Woods, an American with an English name, thinks European civilization owes more to Italy than to England and Germanic countries.
@Armor
Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-12-09 22:28.
1. Many Brits have false imagine of Catholicism. Christianity does not originate in Italy. This is incorrect to associate origin of Latin civilization or Catholic church with Italian nation and this is not the way how Catholics think themselves. Same civilization is partially based also on Greek philosophy and Roman law. The latter could be more associated with Italy, Christianity is universal.
2. I don't think that this would cause much of confusions. Polish language belong to Slavic family but this is not something that I consider to be important. I think that many Germans, Austrians, Slovaks or Lithuanians share my point of view on this issue.
3. I think that this is obvious that Catholic church highly influences English culture. Henry VII who caused the split (just in 1534) because of trivial issue, did not change much theology of Anglican church. I never even thought in this way that I own Polish culture to Italy! Two different cultures, one civilization.
4. As I have wrote before this term is probably the only one that the left cannot steal and suit to their cause.
Non-interventionist policy # 3
Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2007-12-08 00:12.
@ Monarchist
Indeed "you repeat yourself". Because you seem to be unable to address specific questions. So what is left for you, then, is to repeat your already pre-formed opinions.
1) Yes, it is "speculation" about what would have happened if the US had not entered the war with Germany (and Italy). But, anybody with some historical knowledge knows that (a) Hitler was all-triumphant in Western Europe at first, and (b) that Britain would not have been able to 'hang on' without active and extense help from the US. All this, BEFORE the US entered the European war. Under such conditions, if you then want to SPECULATE that both tyrants, Hitler and Stalin, would "have rather destroyed themselves", I repeat that you are free to to do so. But I would also say that you are then blinding yourselves to the realities of the (then) moment. My speculation is that they would have "divvied up" Europe, and there is clear historical evidence of ongoing attempts by them to do so. It is only because of US entry that Stalin could believe that he could do 'better' than compromising with Hitler. And subsequent events (Russian occupation of much of Eastern Europe) have confirmed that.
2) "I" have entered NO war. What a ridiculous thing for you to say. You know nothing about me personally. And President Roosevelt CERTAINLY did not enter a war in Europe because of some formal declarations by Germany and Italy. Again, how silly can you be? You think an American president like Roosevelt would enter a world war (in which his country lost over half a million soldiers) simply because of "declarations" by some nutty dictators (dangerous though they might be)? There are quite a number of nutty dictators today who make similar declarations of being at 'war' with the US without the US actually going to war with them (yet). Your kind of commentary about history is at the least not very serious. It is certainly not well-informed. Roosevelt had much better reasons to enter the war, one of which was that he made the same rational "speculation" as me, i.e. that a Europe divvied up by two tyrants as dangerous as Stalin and Hitler would in the end pose a mortal threat to everyone else (including the US).
3) You still don't know what all this has to do with "non-interventionism"? Well, let me spell it out for you, SLOWLY and CLEARLY. If Roosevelt had stuck to a "non-interventionist policy" (as many were urging him to do; after all, democracies do not go easily to war, because the people have a 'voice') then there would be no Poland today!
You are of course free to think otherwise, i.e. to keep your head a bit longer in the sand. That obviously makes you feel 'better'.
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2007-12-08 19:14.
This discussion is senseless. You raise more and more issues and I disagree with most of them, horribly US-centric to my taste. Plus some ridiculous claim that I write about you personally if you know very well that I meant "Americans", troops more precisely. This is obvious from context. Watch the videos below, maybe American congressmen (one of the few conservative ones) talking is more compatible with your way of thinking...
Non-interventionist policy # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2007-12-07 22:44.
@ Monarchist
You posted a comment about "conservative policy is non-interventionist policy". I responded to that comment with the observation that (a) if your assertion were true then (2) there would be no monarchies left in Europe (for Stalin and Hitler would have divvied up Europe).
What is your response?......You begin to parrot some common charges made in the naive-left media about the Iraq war! What is the relevance?
Three simple questions for you.
1) Are you denying that Hitler and Stalin would have carved up Europe (if the US had kept out of the war)? You are free to do so, but that would certainly not strengthen your (already poor) credibility.
2) There are obviously many reasons why the US joined ww2. It does not require much brains to understand that. The point is that the US did NOT follow a "non-interventionist policy" vis-a-vis Germany (Pearl Harbor and Japan is another issue). And it is only because the US did not follow such a non-interventionist policy that there are any 'monarchies' and other independent countries left in Europe. Are you denying that too?
3) Are you denying that the US presents the only example of a large country in human history that did not take any territory (or other significant 'booty') from defeated nations after war? I did not claim that the US has always acted like that in the past. But it certainly did over the wars of the last century.
I presented a thoughtful response to your questionable claim about conservative policy being "non-interventionist", and I think I was entitled to a thoughtful reply. Instead I got some 'waffle' about your mistaken ideas about 'Iraq'. Please address the issue presented, and get your head out of the sand.
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2007-12-07 23:38.
I repeat myself now...
1. This is just your speculation. Nobody knows how it would ended. Nazis invaded the SU, they fight each other.
@marcfrans
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2007-12-07 22:51.
As you see, our Monarchist friend employs the same tactics when presented with facts and questions as his counterpart Schaveiger...
It's getting really tiresome.
Non-interventionist policy
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2007-12-07 18:43.
@ Atheling, Monarchist
As a general principle, "conservative policy" would on the whole be wary of any government intervention, but it would NOT be "non-interventionist" in a literal sense, and certainly not in foreign policy. It would be generally cautious, in view of philosophical scepticism about human nature, but it would definitely "intervene" in defense of own interests and values.
If "non-interventionism" had always prevailed, there wouldn't be a single "monarchy" left in Europe today, to Monarchist's chagrin, for they would have all been 'divided up' by Stalin and Hitler. And Poland was divvied up in their famous pre-war pact! Note that (SOME of) Europe's monarchies and other countries were NOT saved from that fate by any European monarchies, nor by 'republican' regimes there, but by a democracy from faraway overseas.
Can there be any doubt that an American monarchy would NOT have intervened to save the Europeans from that fate? I think there can only be little doubt that a 'king' would never have dared to ask Americans to sacrifice their own blood for the freedom of others. Only 'democrats', i.e. a free people, can fight for the freedom of others. Whereas royal 'subjects' can be forced to obey and fight for their 'king and country and themselves', only 'democrats' can be persuaded to fight for others.
There is NO example in the history of the world of a large 'monarchical' (undemocratic) country that was victorious in war and YET did not take territory nor 'resources' after that war. In the past century, the democracy of the USA went several times to war (including ww1, ww2, Korea...) and yet did not want to take any territory from that. The fundamental reason of course is that its INTERNAL democratic polity would never tolerate such 'spoils' of war. A free democratic people does not support the "occupation" of others, because free speech would undermine such occupation. By contrast, nondemocratic regimes (including monarchies, politbureaus, guardian councils etc...) can support anything, because their own people are not 'sovereign' and are subject to 'controlled speech'.
P.S. While 'democrats' can be persuaded to fight for others, this does not mean that it can be done easily. No, democracy will always be messy, precisely because there is free political speech. It surely helps if the 'democrats' can be persuaded or convinced that the freedom of others is also in there own long-term interest. In nondemocracies "persuasion" becomes a moot point, since the authorities control the media and (to a large extent) people's thoughts or opinions.
@marcfrans
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2007-12-07 19:30.
Or perhaps Stalin and Hitler would rather destroy themselves. The US joined the war only because Japan's attack and German-Italian declaration of war. Our soldiers went to Iraq because of financial issue only, nothing to do with democracy. You had no good reason to invade Iraq, Saddam was a murderer but not dangerous to your country. The same about Europe.
@Monarchist
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2007-12-07 19:33.
I guess you don't remember that the UN firmly believed that Saddam had WMDs... too busy with those castles in the air???
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2007-12-07 19:51.
Some believe that we are not alone in this universe. :) There was not resolution, so apparently their believe was not so strong. Would you order invasion of Iran right now if the UN would similarly "believe" that they might have WMD?
@Monarchist
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2007-12-07 20:55.
"As a result of the invasion and the Gulf War, the UN passed resolutions including Security Council Resolution 687 that requires the "destruction, removal, or rendering harmless" of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range ballistic missiles. The resolution called for this to be done under international monitoring and supervision. This monitoring is commonly referred to as weapons inspections.
From 1991 to 1998 Hussein's regime was uncooperative with the weapons inspections. Inspectors were barred from many sites and items were removed from some sites prior to inspectors being allowed admittance. In one incident in June of 1991, UN inspectors tried to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment. Iraqi personnel fired warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment was later seized and destroyed under international supervision. Finally, in 1998 Hussein suspended all inspections and the UN inspectors left the country.
Since that time Hussein has continued manufacturing chemical and biological weapons and has been trying to develop nuclear weapons. Under the threat of a preemptive attack by the United States, Hussein has accepted the terms of a new UN resolution reinitiating the weapons inspections..."
So what were you saying about "no resolutions"???
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2007-12-07 22:20.
These are some old stories. I meant one particular resolution, permission for military intervention. I find myself in stupid position because I really dislike the UN and personally I would never trust them or listen to them. You have raised the issue of the UN, so this is my answer. I don't know why we discuss this at all if even US goverment admits that there was no WMD in Iraq. Only facts really counts.
@Monarchist
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2007-12-07 22:28.
I too dislike the UN. If I had my druthers they would be kicked out of the US and can set up shop in some hell hole like Crapistan.
However, you said "no resolutions" and I showed you some.
Now you qualify your comment by saying they should authorize "military intervention". Excuse me, but the United States needs no organization's blessing when it comes to defending our sovereignty, security and interests except Congress.
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2007-12-07 23:23.
Now you qualify your comment by saying they should authorize "military intervention". Excuse me, but the United States needs no organization's blessing when it comes to defending our sovereignty, security and interests except Congress.
This was not the case, Iraq was not a threat to the US. I have also write before that I wouldn't care about the UN myself, so my position is clear enough.
WoT is absolutely possible
Submitted by HenrikRClausen on Fri, 2007-12-07 00:33.
Monarchist, I think it's absolutely doable to fight the War on Terror. Now, if only the Bush administration would do it better...
Bush loves the epic feeling of sending his troops into battle. Yet, people like Rachel Ehrenfeld might have saved many more lives with a much smaller budget - simply by making it embarrasing to fund terrorists.
Another obvious failure of the US administration is the neglience of the ideology that inspired the 9/11 attacks (and many others): Wahhabism. We can uproot that ideology from the Balkans - the easiest way might be quite effective: Make any support, material or political, contingent on uprooting Wahhabi influence, whereever it is found. That would preempt much future trouble, including drug & human trafficking to Western Europe.
@HenrikRClausen
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2007-12-07 12:57.
Well, I distrust neocons in general. Iraq war have more to do with Halliburton and similar to them rather than with WoT. You are right about Mrs Ehrenfeld activity, it has much more sense than away wars. Generally I think that so called "west" need to get out troops from Muslim lands. In the same time get rid of all kind of radicals and rioters from Christian lands and categorically stop the new immigration.
@Monarchist
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2007-12-07 17:12.
"Well, I distrust neocons in general. Iraq war have more to do with Halliburton and similar to them rather than with WoT."
ROFL!!!
Good work! You've joined the Leftist Conspiracy Club! And you know that GWB is also behind the 9/11 attacks, don't you?
But of course, if we had a King or Queen, none of this would have happened...
@atheling
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2007-12-07 17:40.
Neocons are leftists and together with Democrats like Hillary they voted for Iraq war. Some undeniable facts. If you search those whom are responsible for this decision firstly look at those whom earned the most from this adventure. This is not any conspiracy theory, clear link decision-money. My own former dumb post-communist goverment counted that Polish companies will win some contracts in Iraq. But suprise, suprise, Halliburton and company won everything worth something. So don't tell me that Iraq was not about money because the greed of cash prevented neocons to share with allied countries.
The US can't get it right
Submitted by Dr. D on Thu, 2007-12-06 22:20.
The ignorance of the US State Department and Pentagon regarding the recent misadventures of the US in Central Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo, Herzegovina) is appalling. It shows a clear lack of understanding of history, but it also shows a willful disbelieve in the obvious facts before them. Regarding the history, a statement attributed to Napoleon seems to fit here: "(Written) history is a lie agreed to by all." If it is a lie, it can easily enough be changed and that seems to be what the US planners have done. There is not such a simple explanation for their denial of the facts that existed at the time of engagement, other than massive stupidity and hubris. Even now, the same foolishness appears to persist; there is little hope for improvement.
@Dr. D
Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2007-12-06 23:34.
The ignorance of the US State Department and Pentagon regarding the recent misadventures of the US in Central Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo, Herzegovina) is appalling.
This is not ignorance at all. Simply Republican Party is controlled by neocon leftists whom only pretend to be conservative. The whole concept of WOT understood as away wars was unrealistic. Double standards are visible in Bosnia or Kosovo, this proofs that original intention of neocon gang is completely different. Neocons like Democrats care only about their own pockets and about oligarchy to which they are linked.
Honourable Mr.Clausen, may
Submitted by Ritvars on Thu, 2007-12-06 09:40.
Honourable Mr.Clausen,
may I remind Serbian census of 1921 found Albanians were 66% in Kosova even after Balkan Wars and the Great War. Another census of 1948 - after relocations You mention - found Albanian percentage as 68%. Not a great shift, I'd say.
Dear Monarchist,
let me remind the indigenous nations of the Baltics exercised their self-determination right and won independence in 1918-20 without being any autonomies of Russia before. No new countries were proclaimed in 1987-91.
@Ritvars
Submitted by Monarchist on Thu, 2007-12-06 16:01.
I know basics of history. Polish troops even liberated Daugavpils from Bolsheviks and handed to Latvian goverment. I have write before that Latvia was occupied. Albanians in Kosovo can fight for independence if they want. But why international forces should stand against Serbia to help them? I repeat that if Latvian support separatisms he is playing with fire.
There are so many details & misunderstandings on this...
Submitted by HenrikRClausen on Wed, 2007-12-05 18:23.
Ritvars, the Albanians were not always there - far from it. The great shift came when Italy & Germany relocated a great number of Albanians to the province during WWII. Yes, it's another Nazi war crime, one that haunts us today still.
For more analysis on Kosovo and the collapse of Yugoslavia, CzechRebel has a detailed post at the 1389 Blog. Comments include a letter I sent to Danish MPs, as well as many interesting additions to the main analysis.
Yes, the US is dead wrong in Kosovo. I'm reading Christopher Deliso: "The Coming Balkan Caliphate". We need to watch this very closely. Balkans has been severely infested by Wahhabi Islam, mainly due to US/Western mistakes. It's our job to get our act together and defeat the ideology in a region where it really does not belong.
Helping the Serbian police stem the mafia would be good. Independent Kosovo certainly would not.
Fjordman is right. Kosovo is
Submitted by Monarchist on Wed, 2007-12-05 18:00.
Fjordman is right. Kosovo is part of Serbia no matter how many Albanians live over there. Bosnia or Slovenia had the right to secede from Yugoslavia, Kosovo hadn't. Kosovo was just autonomy not republic. Neither the EU or US have the right to interfere. The same about Russia in Moldova, Georgia or Azerbaijan.
@Monarchist
Submitted by Ritvars on Wed, 2007-12-05 18:22.
Latvia wasn't a republic, even not an autonomy of Russia when Latvians won independence. Serbia wasn't a republic of the Sublime Porte either.
@Ritvars
Submitted by Monarchist on Wed, 2007-12-05 18:45.
Latvia was the republic of the USSR according to Soviet law. However in fact Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union. You should not support double standards like Russia, US or EU bureaucracy. Beside of that Riga is full of Russians, so I don't think that Latvians should support any separatism.
Ignorance
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-12-05 16:57.
Sorry, but I don't think Fjordman knows much about American presidential history...
May I remind Albanians
Submitted by Ritvars on Wed, 2007-12-05 16:52.
May I remind Albanians aren't recent immigrants in Kosova. They were there before the great powers gave Kosova to Serbia and retained at least 60% majority even during the darkest years of Serbian rule.
And, of course, self-determination for Kosova threaten freedom and existence of Serbia no more than self-determination for Bosnia or Slovenia.