No Independence For Kosovo!!!
 

How can Bush support the independence of Kosovo?
Kosovo has always been part of Serbia!
In the 1990s Bill Clinton, attacked Serbia
and SUPPORTED AND FOUGHT WITH (and for) Islamic Terrorists,
including Al-Qaeda. Surely, after 9/11, we cannot still be
in support of the same people who have killed 3000 of our people.
The Serbians are defending themselves from Islamic Terrorism
and the same kind of Islamic tactics that are being used in Israel,
India, and elsewhere around the World, in order to illegally steal land.
What kind of War on Terror is this,
if we are working with the terrorists in the Balkans -
the same terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and the
same terrorists attacking us in Iraq and Afghanistan?
This is our chance to gain a real and true new ally
in the War on Terror: Serbia.
Let the Serbians keep their land and let them defend themselves!
If world accepts independance of Kosovo, we can all say goodbye to international law!
History does not end, if International law ends.
(Kosovo 15 jun 1389 - 20 oct 1912), (?17 feb 2008 - ...)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/905791187

No Independence For Kosovo!!! KEEP SERBIA UNITED!!

Please sign petition!

Thank you

One of the articles I read put Kosovo's unemployment rate at 60% and the average monthly wage at $250.

I guess being a part of Serbia wasn't working out so well for more than just religious reasons.

are you sure you meant to write 'being a part of Bosnia'?

No, I completely didn't. Thanks for pointing that out. It's weird that I didn't even notice. I feel a little like that pageant contested with the misguided geography.

The only defense I can offer is that I'd been reading a bunch of wikipedia articles about the history of the whole region since I'll be honest, I had lost a sense of the sequence of events, but I don't think I was so confused as to not remember who they were declaring themselves independent of.

Thanks for being polite about my error.

I can do without "allies" who perpetrate ethnic cleansing.

Thanks anyway.

Also... international law? What a ridiculous argument. Care to develop that argument with facts? I usually don't respond to trolls, but who knows? This could be an interesting thread.

I'd find it interesting to compare our attitudes about the Lakota independence issue with our attitudes about Kosovo's independence or Chechnyan independence. I don't hold a uniform view, but it's hard for me to express what I think makes each situation different.

Are you speaking in the third person?

The biggest difference is that the U.N. is stepping in to rectify wrongs which are currently occurring. Whatever happened to the Lakota happened a long time ago. If in 2008, we embarked on a genocidal campaign against the Lakota, the U.N. might have something to say.

Of course, the reality is that the U.S. has enough guns, bombs, etc. to keep anyone from being able to do anything about something like that, so nothing happened. Perhaps that's the biggest difference between those two situations? Serbia is small enough that the international community can impose its will, the U.S. determines the national community's will.

Also, the Balkans have been known to be the starting point for serious international conflict. The western U.S.? Not so much.

Ahhh, the Gavrillo Princip principle of international relations...

Huh? You mean me since I said "our"?

I was thinking of the people who had chimed in back on the Lakota thread where most of us took the opinion that declaring an independent state was impossible, unnecessary, interesting but impractical etc.

I didn't mean is as some sort of royal "we" where I intended to speak for GC, although that might be funny.

I hear you about differences in the current situation, but I doubt that's how the Lakota tell it.

Your point about the Balkans as a starting point in international conflict is an interesting one, but it makes creating essentially an independent majority Islamic state all the more interesting, which is not to say that I'm opposed to it.

What about Chechnya? Should they just suck it up and accept they're part of Russian forever since there's been no attempt at ethnic cleansing*? Things seem to have settled down and they may have simply accepted things.


*ETA: or maybe more accurately, what is the difference since their have been attempts at ethnic cleansing?

haha, no i meant the original poster.

There are accusations of ethnic cleansing going on in Chechnya.

I believe you, but can you give me a link?

As I do my superficial, wikipedia level, online research, it's hard to tell what's up right now. I can see that there was "displacement" or Muslims during the first Chechnyan War, but I can't really tell what's up or how things were resolved.

What do you think, Moe.ron, about the independence in each of these cases?

For a starter, Stalin forced Chechen to relocate in 1944. Up to 30% of Chechen died during the transportation, resettlement and the first year of exile.

Then there is the 1999 operation which resulted over 30,000 civilians death and Chechnya in ruins.

From what I can gather, not much going on. Either in redeveloping Chechnya or open conflict. However, Amnesty has reported many male "disappearing" and there are various individuals who have disappear.