Kosovo's Independence - The Emperor is Wearing Albanian Clothes

"Puerto Rican struggle for independence"
The island is divide up between people that want to become a full state of the union and the other half that wants to remain a territory. There is a tiny independence group but they have been unable to persuade anybody. Puerto Rico is allowed to vote for their own government; if they wanted to leave they could.

Hawaiian struggle? What struggle? They almost voted Republican for heaven's sake.

"Or will the EU police force be in there for the next 200 years? Or what? It is very clear that it will not do so and more hypocrisy is very clear on part of the Western Powers."

If the EU police stay for a long time, how is this hypocrisy?

"That statelet is recognised by the Turks and only Turks. Why is Europe not recognising Northern Cyprus as an independent country?"
You answer the question and then ask it. Strange.

Overall, this is very bad writing and not very logical. You should learn more about the examples you use. It sounds like you just don't like Europeans, but your arguments don't back up your animus.

[EDITED: Personal and racist attack]

BD

NATO and their surrogates have developed an expetise in creating nations the size of Connaught Place all over the world. Look at the experiment called East Timor. If that is not a joke what is. And now you have Kosovo :-). These guys have en unemployment rate of 50%.

NATO and the US have certainly adopted a "Might Makes Right" mentality. They invaded Serbia without any UN authorization, basically proceeding as a "Coalition of the Willing". They even violated NATO's own charter, which stipulates that it is to only act in defense of the home territory of its member states. The Clinton Whitehouse was hell-bent on going after Milosevic following the Bosnia War, and they fomented unrest in Kosovo to do this. The price for this was in precipitating the early fall of the Yeltsin govt, so that their drunken flunkie was replaced with the firmer and less capitulationist Putin. Due to the ethnically selective prejudices of NATO and its membership, it's inevitable that they will bring together a Russian-led counter-coalition reciprocally built along ethnic lines. Additionally, NATO expansionism in Europe may further force the Russians into the arms of the Chinese, which may then have fallout consequences for India.

on one side u butcher muslims. On other side u act as if u are muslim friends. Who needs a psychatrist?

George W Bush or me?

also u have a christian president (Chavez, venezuela) who doesnt want US association and its okk but if it arab countries (Iraq, Iran) u will nuke them. Ahhhhh gimme break with ur NATO policies.

Queen, u didnt want ur daughter in law sleepin wit muslim?
Whom are u sleepin wit, evil spirits???

Damn with ur freedom of speech and freedom of expressions. U guys are pathetic losers and more appropriately "Pirates of London". U looted my country and are dictatin terms to us. Pity u. Geologists say Londons days are numbered with high chances tat it will be submerged incl buckingham palace in near time.

Save ur gown and ur palace before its history than attackin others.

Damn with ur imperialism and ur cowardice. U are a nation of wat few millions and wit infertile women and u have guts facin us. Well u cudnt even dictate terms to ur bahu, wat can u dictate terms to us? In indian terms u are a FAILURE, "A BIG FAILURE SAAS"

BD,

I enjoyed reading this and several of your archived articles. You're obviously a smart guy and logical thinker. I think you make some valid points, although your use of examples is somewhat liberal...you have a tendency to paint with a very broad brush.

Despite your intelligence, you seem to have swallowed the "Great Satan" paradigm hook, line, and sinker. Your opinions reflect that bias clearly. And although you attempt to reach logical conclusions with the spattering of over-simplified examples, the fact is, you have already reached a foregone conclusion, prior to typing the first word. Furthermore, you are quick to highlight the problems, point the finger, and scream injustice...but where are your recommendations? What are you're your proposed solutions?

Please try to leave your baggage in the closet before expressing your opinion. Unless of course, your intention is to spread that baggage around. In which case, I have totally misjudged you and the purpose of your blog.

Guido

#1 Keith

the point that I am making is that the principle behind an aggrevied party unilaterally declaring independence is not right, and the western powers coming down on its side in violation of international law that territory separation should only happen when both parties agree is violated. Take Hawaii for example, there is nothing stopping a bunch of chaps going to a small island, claiming majority status, showing history of separate behaviour and then claiming independence. You had a similar situation with the civil war.

Second, the hypocrisy is when you are willing to be there for Kosovo but not for example, Darfur. See what I mean?

Third, no, that wasnt strange, it was a statement and then asking a question to the EU/US powers. SHows that there is no answer. which leads to hypocrisy.

#3 Chandra

well, these are the chickens coming home to roost from actions carried out decades ago. And by this step, chickens will be roosting on the collective european and american heads for a very long time ahead as well. that's my point.

#4, did you also see that China is also expressing grave misgivings about this independence declaration? i didnt even talk about it, because what happens if Taiwan declares independence? or if Kashmir does? What will the EU / US do?

Lomi #5,6, thank you for your comments. I am not sure what you meant but I am sure you meant well.

Guido #7

One thing which I have learnt from my amateurish bumbling around history is that the trajectory of states and nations is very unpredictable indeed but still, you can identify turning points in history when the future literally changes. While many can debate about the turning points, the problem with the anglo saxon legal system (which is slowly getting adopted) is that once precedent is set, then many things follow that precedent.

For example, the trial of Slobodan Milosovic can be directly traced to the fateful decision by Roosevelt that an international trial court will be setup to try the Nazi criminals. Previously, the idea was that a local german court will try them and shoot them in short order. Now, this entire body of international law, the ICC, etc. revolves around that historical point.

This recognition by the western powers is something like this. Yes, I drew a broad brush, Guido, but let me flip this around. If you were in 1945, would you have expected the geopolitical events of 2008? I very much doubt it. So you dont know and nor do I as to where the trajectory of any or all of these insurgency movements will end up.

And I dont have to give a recommendation, my friend, its pretty much obvious. The western powers keep on making the same damn mistake over and over again, they go to war or do political things without good cover, you saw what happened with Iraq. Now you will see what will happen with Kosovo. My recommendation is what everybody has been banging on and on about, its a UNSC matter, not an EU/US matter.

Finally, my baggage and my opinions come as one, I am afraid, the opinons are formed based upon the baggage :(

Lomri wrote:

""on one side u butcher muslims. On other side u act as if u are muslim friends. Who needs a psychatrist?

George W Bush or me?""

Lomri Bhai, you do not need a psychiatrist. That would be too strong an option. Some commonsense would help though. These games have little to do with being pro or anti-Muslim, although such chutiapa helps in rallying support of the herds. It has all to do with power politics (aka the "great game") and "tel ka khel"...when in doubt, remember that the first govt. and country to recognize the USA itself was none other than the "Islamic" Morocco...how's that for something new learnt everyday?

BD,

First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. I apologize for my overuse of metaphors. It's an inept attempt to compensate for my lacking vocabulary. In this case, I used the word "baggage" as bias or prejudice. I always make too many assumptions, and here I presumed my euphemism would be recognized in the intended context. The point that I so poorly tried to assert, is that conclusions and/or assumptions based in inductive logic and involving complex issues, are better served without the fog of bias. There I go with metaphors again! Suffice to say, it's easier for others to see our prejudices...especially when it's polluting our thought and thus our decisions.

For example, let's assume for a moment that I was raised by a white Anglo-Saxon shotgun toting bible-thumper, in the bowels of Alabama. And moreover, I had been taught from an early age to hate the black man. But through the course of my life... via education, wisdom, experience, and exposure to the secular progressive community, I learn to recognize my own biases, stereotypes, and falsehoods. I begin to understand how these prejudice influence and cloud my judgment. I start to form new opinions and conclusions based on a totally different perspective. I let go of the baggage.

Forgive me for belaboring the point, but I think it is critical to good judgment. The bias (whether religious, racial, ethnic, political, or national) must be recognized for what it is and abandoned, or your conclusions and assumptions, no matter how logically thought out and researched, will be false. Your arguments will hold merit and appeal only to those with like thoughts and prejudices. Your assertions will be based in rationalization and lacking foundation, which will ring hollow to those able to recognize your preconceived ideas.

Now to your excellent points...and I mean that sincerely.

1. "...the trajectory of states and nations is very unpredictable." Concur. No one can predict the future of a country, its people, and government. Although I'm sure you'd agree there are cycles and predictable phases in the life and death of nation states.

2. "You can identify turning points in history when the future literally changes." I agree with the statement, but not necessarily your example. If I'm right, you use FDR's decision to conduct the Nuremberg Trails as one of these historic turning points...and then the direct leap to Milosevic and The Hague...and then a giant jump to your point.

Although the US surely held sway over much of the conduct of WWII and post events such as the trials, in no way do I accept that any US president can, or could in 1945 dictate international policy. Especially involving international tribunal.

First of all, tribunals against war crimes occurred long before FDR was even born. For instance, following his escape from Elba in 1815, the Great Powers of Europe declared Napoleon Bonaparte an outlaw. He was tried by what could be arguably called an international tribunal and banished to the Island of St. Helena. Also, under the Versailles Treaty (1919), the German emperor William II was tried by an international tribunal for a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties.

Second, it was the joint decision of the three warring powers via the 1943 tripartite in Tehran; Russia, England, and the US (Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill) that determined the fate of the Nazi party and surviving officials. To assume FDR single-handily "created" the trials is to ignore history and the power of other prominent European leaders.

3. "...this entire body of international law, the ICC, etc. revolves around that historical point." The "point" BD, is historical only in the sense that you made and posted it 18 February 2008. The above point is based on the false assumption of a single misperceived action of one US president more than 65 years ago. Enter the broad brush.

4. "This recognition by the western powers is something like this. Yes, I drew a broad brush, Guido, but let me flip this around. If you were in 1945, would you have expected the geopolitical events of 2008? I very much doubt it. So you dont know and nor do I as to where the trajectory of any or all of these insurgency movements will end up." Excellent BD! No argument here...neither of us is a fortune teller.

5. "The western powers keep on making the same damn mistake over and over again, they go to war or do political things without good cover, you saw what happened with Iraq. Now you will see what will happen with Kosovo."

There are currently 31 wars waging as I write this: Wars. Of those 31, the EU and/or US has had unilateral armed intervention in one...Iraq. Furthermore, excluding Iraq, the US and EU have been directly involved in only four. If my math is correct, the "western powers" are involved in 16 percent of the current worldwide conflicts.

Reference your statement, "political things without good cover"...the broad brush again. If you're referring to Iraq, yes...we're all watching that closely. I'll refer to your point in number four above. Time will tell.

And your final recommendation...or should I say non-recommendation; since you seem at odds..."And I dont have to give a recommendation..." and then "My recommendation is what everybody has been banging on and on about, its a UNSC matter, not an EU/US matter."

If your solution is to let the UNSC handle things, as opposed to the west, let me remind you that 3 out of the 5 permanent members are western countries. And unfortunately the UN's track record for resolving conflicts are spotty at best...Sierra Leone, Israel/Palestine, Sudan, and Bosnia come to mind. Or we can just do nothing and let things take their "natural" course. That option would certainly cull the herd and ease global population growth.

On the current topic of Kosovo, I side with the Serbs. Kosovo and the former Yugoslavian states (Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, and the FYROM) have little in common. However, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo all share some history with Serbia...a lot of history Without going into the bloody complexities of Balkan past, I will simple suggest that Kosovo Albanians seem to have Albania more in mind than independence from Serbia. I think the solution is the status quo.

Again BD, thank you for the opportunity to blog.

Guido

Chandra:

You stump me!

Look at the experiment called East Timor. If that is not a joke what is. And now you have Kosovo :-). These guys have en unemployment rate of 50%.

So, why is East Timor a joke? And is high unemployment a bad reason to create a nation? I wonder what was unemployment rate in India at the time of Independence.

#8, BD:

You make some interesting statements:

... that the principle behind an aggrevied party unilaterally declaring independence is not right,

Why is it so?

...and the western powers coming down on its side in violation of international law

Which law? What law was upheld when Bangladesh got separated from Pakistan?

that territory separation should only happen when both parties agree is violated.

Really? So, did Pakistan approve of creation of Bangladesh?

Guido..

Prejudice is supposed to be irrational, not backed by facts. BD has laid out facts and basis from which he draws his conclusions. When there is factual basis for opinions and conclusions, you can't discredit them as personal bias or prejudices.

I do not think recognizing Kosovo independence is a wise move by USA and EU. It will change nothing in Balkans but breed more future conflicts in that theater. Break up of Yugoslavia was an unwise move that has cost millions of lives since than. Just as removal of secular saddam hussain was an unwise move - now USA is doing the same things in Iraq that Saddam was accused of doing - using heavy-handed militaristic tactics to subdue all dissidents, insurgents and fanatics to maintain semblance of order. West has a pathological addiction of gerrymandering and remaking the world map and than washing its hands off all the bloody consequences. It is sickening.

kerty, you said : Prejudice is supposed to be irrational, not backed by facts

actually, that is incorrect. prejudice is usually borne out of something factual that is taken out of context and oversimplified and over-applied to the group. so while the end result is irrational, the person can usually back up their claims by what they feel is factual evidence.

Guido #14

Thank you for your comments. My reason for raising the turning point issue was to show that issues such as recognition of Kosovo will mark a turning point in the annals of international law and possibly politics. For the Yalta meeting, it was Roosevelt who pushed for the war crimes trials, Churchill was not interested and Stalin did not know what trials meant.

So to go back to the original point, the fact that they have recognised Kosovo will mark a turning point and yes, a broad brush is required to recognise it because just like that Nuremberg decision is now seen on a broad brush across the world for example on the ICC, this decision will also cause a broad based impact. Think of a decision tree and by the time 5-10 evolutions take place, you see a fan of impact points.

Do nothing is not an option, you as well as I know that the EU and US were and are definitely out there to tweak the Russian bear's nose. There is always hope, and there were quite a lot of options on the table excluding outright independence and status quo. But none were seriously negotiated, either in Brussels or in NY, I am afraid. Albanians, of the right persuation (even Rugova) agreed that it will be very tightly tied to Serbia economically for a very long time. The reason why Kosovo was better than Albania was Serbian entrepreneurship, industry and the like, so for them to cut off the tit that feeds them was pushing them into a corner and that's what the EU/US did, and they, unfortunately, will have to bear the consequences.

I am not on either side, but I am rather miffed with the inability of the western powers to review and think through the implications of their decisions 

And no need to thank me, my friend, this is healthy debate 


PS: the bias discussion is a difficult one, and perhaps relates to value judgements. I have yet to find a historian who does not do that :)

Sujai #16, no, the issue of Bangladesh does not apply as the relevant UN resolution was not made.

Here's a good overview of what I referred to when I mentioned international law

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7244538.stm

Second, you have the right for self determination, but at the same time, states have the right to territorial integrity. You pick which side you fall. War's, on the other hand, have a tendency to override laws and become facts on the ground. In this particular case, both parties had agreed to diplomatic solutions. You see, given the current scenario, it will be lawful for Serbia to wage war on Kosovo. And for Russia to come to its aid.

Curious, no?

Kerty # 17

Thank you for your comments.

Please reread my supposition concerning bias and you'll notice that nowhere have I stated or inferred that prejudice is fact-based, as asserted in your opening sentence.

My original comments concerning BD's well written Kosovo article, was to point out that he used historical examples to support (in my opinion) far-reaching conclusions about the west...in particular the EU and US. I further implied that his decisions were perhaps influenced by personal bias. Your second paragraph makes my point. It is a litany of accusations obviously founded on hatred of the west.

If we look at your closing statement, "It is sickening" and read backwards, it provides insight into your decision making process. BD attempts to support his assumptions...even if I think they are slightly prejudicial. But there is no substance to your claims...no facts, data, or examples...only the exposition of a predictable and overused anti-west rant.

Guido

Sujai-15

I think you will have to read my comments along with what BD has already written. You cannot compare India with Kosovo because unlike Kosovo India was occupied by another nation. As BD has already highlighted,Kosovo has always been a part of Serbia. It is not that the Serbs had occupied Kosovo.....

East Timor has a population of 8 lakhs and is now in the middle of a civil war........it is surely a massive joke......the only reason it is a nation is because it is christian....

Kerty:

""West has a pathological addiction of gerrymandering and remaking the world map and than washing its hands off all the bloody consequences.""

Right you are again! Japan no doubt was a Western power...

Kerty:

""West has a pathological addiction of gerrymandering and remaking the world map and than washing its hands off all the bloody consequences.""

Just as some folks get their daily fix by lashing out at "the West". Talk of pathological addictions! Easy, lazy highs!

BD #19

BD,

I won't quibble the FDR issue...only to admit we slightly disagree, 1) about the level of influence he had in shaping the Nuremburg trials, and 2) the precedence those trials set on the current ICC structure and in-turn Kosovo.

Reference your quote, "...the fact that they have recognised Kosovo will mark a turning point...". It seems that "they" are growing in number. According to the most recent news reports, Bulgaria and Romania have jumped on the EU bandwagon to legitimatize Kosovo independence. Perhaps we won't have to wait too long to observe the impact points you allude to.

As you know BD, tweaking the Bear's nose is an old game the east and west have played for a long time. But I don't think it was a major factor in NATO's decision to use force in Kosovo. Had there been no outside intervention (do nothing) the problems facing Europe today would look quite different than the current issue of Kosovo independence. Eastern and Western Europe would be dealing with the lasting effects of three-quarters of a million very angry Kosovo Albanian refugees...which I might add, no one wanted; including the neighboring countries of Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Where would those refugees be now? Who could afford to absorb them, even if they wanted to? And what insurrections would be festering in god-knows what disease-ridden refugee camps. Does Palestine ring a bell?

Although I don't disclaim that the NATO countries were eager to flex their muscle in the face of growing opposition to NATO's post cold war existence, it does not belie the fact that doing what they did, when they did it, more than likely saved lives and increased the overall stability in Europe during a period of great change in the Balkans. Of course, at the expense of Serbia...and so in there lies another separate but related issue.

I think you're right on the mark with your financial analysis of Kosovo. However, isn't there the chance that the global market will help an independent Kosovo recover from losing the purse strings of mother Serbia? That is of course, unless someone with a big stick (enter the Bear) destabilizes the situation and scares away the investors. Now the US dollar is in decline, the stock market is down, and American troops are tied up on two fronts...perhaps it's the Bears opportunistic turn to do a little tweaking.

Gratzie!

Guido

guido... parla italiano?

Chandra:

East Timor has a population of 8 lakhs and is now in the middle of a civil war........it is surely a massive joke

Is 8 lakh too low a number to make a nation?
Does having a civil war negate the existence of a nation? [India went into an overdrive to kills its own people - more than half a million in few months, right after our Independence]

...the only reason it is a nation is because it is christian....

So, why is Kosovo being Muslim, is a nation now?

I think all these debates are pointless.At the end of the day, NATO decides the contours of the Planet. This was the case 150 years ago and is still the case....I dont know when he will rise and throw these guys out of Asia....the sooner the better.....

Sujai

Yes, I think 8 lakhs is too small to create a nation. I dont know if you are following the events in Dilli. These morons now have a civil war within that 8 lakh people (My tribal district of Koraput had a larger population with zero violence, may be we should have a nation too). The west has been prodding these guys since 1975 because the Indonesians got rid of the Portuguese. They managed to split this region from Indonesia because of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. This is another way of teaching the Indons a lesson. Guess who supports these 8 lakh people....Australia!!!


I can understand Kosovo being autonomous under a UN mandate. But declaring itself free and that being accepted is ridiculous. Since when did Govts that form a part of the SC go above the SC in accepting the Independence of a country. None of SC resolutions suggest that Kosovo can declare independence....


* SC -> Security Council

Guido..

You Said: "If we look at your closing statement, "It is sickening" and read backwards, it provides insight into your decision making process. BD attempts to support his assumptions...even if I think they are slightly prejudicial. But there is no substance to your claims...no facts, data, or examples...only the exposition of a predictable and overused anti-west rant."

In your decision-making process, it appears facts = overeaching, logical conclusions = prejudices, sound reasoning = assumptions. When you read them backward, any obvious conclusion staring in the face can appear anti, hate, bias, prejudice, overreach etc. I think it is vain tactic of building immunity and infallibility from criticism or opposition - and that is very typical of west's approach in dealing with criticism. Every thoughtless deed it does, it builds this wall of infallibility and immunity by discrediting the criticism and opposition. One can't criticize them without being labeled as hatred or bias or anti-west. This reminds me of how right-wingers in America try to discredit criticism of racism - for whom, practicing racism is not racism, but pointing out racism in day to day events is hatred of whites and racism.

Take the case of Iraq war. There was no compelling rationale to launch a gruesome war upon people of Iraq. Neither people of Iraq nor Saddam did any wrong to people of USA. America's geopolitical calculations drove it to launch a brutal war with lies that killed more people in Iraq than Saddam ever did. But nobody could anything about it, not even independent American media or people opposed to war. If one opposed the war at policy level, they were silienced as friends of saddam, associates of Al Queda, appeasers of terrorism, against men and women serving in american army, weak on American national defense. If one sought to cut the funding for immoral war, they were silenced as trying to harm American men fighting a war for freedom of Americans. If one opposed torture and other inhuman tactics used against Iraqis, they were silenced as trying to put American lives at risk by thwarting efforts to uncover and prevent terrorist plots. If one want American troops to pull out from Iraq, they are accused of destablizing Iraq, handing victory to Al Queda, surrendering to terror, inviting terrorist attacks and putting American lives at risk, trivializing and mocking the sacrifices made by dead and wounded American soldiers. With these kind of tactics of silencing the critics, no political voice in America can oppose any US-led war however evil it may be. American war-mongering machine has acquired total immunity from any opposition from within America and since America does not give a hoot to any opposition from outside America, that is absolute and unaccountable war powers - not accountable to Amercian people, not accountable to people outside America, not amenable to any criticism, not subject to any restraints. That is what Iraq has been about - about acquiring such demonic war powers, and not about fighting some phantom demons in Iraq. If someone exposes or opposes this, he or she would be anti-american and anti-west suffering from prejudices and hatred. I hear you.

Look around the world map and all trouble spots around the world if you need data and examples. Like Kosovo, powers that be in the west have left their footprints all over world map, and trail of bloody strife behind those gerrymandering. In previous post, I didn't just jump into my final comment 'it is sickening' which you tried to read backward. I gave couple of examples too why it is so sickening. However, for you, that is just an evidence of anti-west hate, and not any wrong-doing. For me, that is clear case of remorse-less and arrogant infallibility that only power-mad countries would exhibit.

(PS: I do not know why I got banned from this site. I am getting permission denied when I access this site. I hope I have not ruffed too many feathers here. I mean I do have no-hold-barred views which I can not help. I am using different computer now to post here. But if this site does not want me post here, I will gladly go away. Bye and wish you all well)

Kerty,

Thank you for the well thought out reply. I sincerely appriciate and respect the passion evident in your words. You seem to genuinely care a great deal about whatever it is you're espousing. But I stick by my previous assertion concerning your opinions. You have done exactly the same as your previous post...leveling sweeping accusations against whole groups of people, without any support whatsoever, save for your own beliefs.

Please allow me to clarify my intentions before continuing. I'm not promoting anyone's agenda here. I am not right, left, conservative, or liberal...democrat, republican, or communist. Perhaps a bit independent. I'm trying to be open-minded, yet critical without being rude and cynical...a real challenge in cyberspace. I mention this to assure you that nothing that I post here is personal.

Your quote: "This reminds me of how right-wingers in America try to discredit criticism of racism - for whom, practicing racism is not racism, but pointing out racism in day to day events is hatred of whites and racism."

The word racism is used five times in one sentence and forgive me, but I don't have a clue what you're trying to say. However I do recognize that you've stereotyped the conservative American political base.

Your quote: "Take the case of Iraq war. There was no compelling rationale to launch a gruesome war upon people of Iraq. Neither people of Iraq nor Saddam did any wrong to people of USA."

According to whom? Again, you make profound generalizations without any supporting reference. Here are some reasons for going to war with Iraq. You might not think they're compelling or rational, but 98 percent of the US congress...both sides of the house and senate would have disagreed with you.

1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
2. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
6. Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
7. Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
9. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
10. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
11. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
12. The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Some have used the argument that President Bush lied about the WMD. But those same people don't want to hear about the intelligence failure on a global scale...a fact accepted by the CIA, FBI, and British Intelligence. And by the way, all wars are gruesome.

Your quote: "America's geopolitical calculations drove it to launch a brutal war with lies that killed more people in Iraq than Saddam ever did."

What are America's "geopolitical calculations"? I thought the coalition went to war because Bush lied about WMD.

A September 14, 2007 estimate by Opinion Research Business, an independent British polling agency, suggests that the total Iraqi violent death toll due to the Iraq War since the US-led invasion is in excess of 1.2 million. That's a very liberal assessment and many dispute it. Nonetheless, sources in wikipedia.org estimate the Iran/Iraq war total death numbers at 1.75 million. I might add, Saddam's war is noted for being very similar to World War I...tactics used included trench warfare, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges, use of barbed wire, human wave attacks and Iraq's extensive use of chemical weapons (such as mustard gas) against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds. The body count from his death squads is still being tallied as more mass graves are found even now. But the numbers aside, don't you think there's something fundamentally wrong with comparing the deaths of a foreign invasion with that of a dictator's own atrocities. There's another leader with the distinction of killing more of his own people than the invading force...Stalin. And by the way, all wars are brutal.

The rest of your article seems to be about how the evil forces on the right silence the righteous the left. I'm trying not to be cynical or patronizing, but it's hard. In your words, "If one opposed the war at policy level, they were silienced as friends of saddam, associates of Al Queda, appeasers of terrorism, against men and women serving in american army, weak on American national defense." Whom Kerty? Who is the one? You refer to this enigmatic "one" six different times:

1. One can't criticize them without being labeled as hatred or bias or anti-west.
2. If one opposed the war at policy level, they were silienced as friends of saddam...
3. If someone exposes or opposes this, he or she would be anti-american and anti-west suffering from prejudices and hatred.
4. If one want American troops to pull out from Iraq, they are accused of destablizing Iraq...
5. If one opposed torture and other inhuman tactics used against Iraqis, they were silenced...
6. If one sought to cut the funding for immoral war, they were silenced a...

Please give me a name, an example...a reference...anything to corroborate your assertions.

I'm sorry Kerty, but I have read and reread your post and come to the same conclusion every time. Your hypotheses (I use the term generously) are unsupported and void of any attempt to legitimize them. You use stereotypes and make broad accusation. i.e. "America does not give a hoot to any opposition from outside America". I assume that includes all Americans and that you speak for them.

Any reasonable person will read your post and make the same assumptions I have. The author despises the west and especially America. And nothing anyone can say...no clear evidence to the contrary is going to change your view.

I sincerely enjoyed the discussion Kerty and I hope to see more posts. You certainly haven't ruffed my feathers...well maybe a little. But I have a thick skin. However, I think we both need to get back to BD's subject at hand...Kosovo. Which by the way seems to be exploding at the moment.

Grazie,

Guido

Smallsquirrel #26

Io parla Italiano un po e mi piace Italia molto! I speak a little, but I have enough trouble just trying to be understood in English. I'll stay in the English speaking mode at this blog.

Ciao, Guido

I don't know what was the glitch that denied me access to this site, but whatever it was seems to be gone in few hours and I am able to access this site again. Thanks.

there was some server issue - all fine now:)

Newsweek fears a birth of another failed state.
Here is Newsweek link

http://www.newsweek.com/id/112945

Why Kosovo independence is illegal and UN may not be able recognize it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3385104.ece

Arman

Thanks.

And so it begins

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - A top aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Wednesday the Palestinians should consider declaring an independent state unilaterally if peace talks with Israel continue to falter.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a member of the Palestinian negotiating team with the Israelis, told Reuters that if they could not reach a deal with the Jewish state, the Palestinians could consider declaring independence like Kosovo did on Sunday.

"If things are not going in the direction of actually halting settlement activities, if things are not going in the direction of continuous and serious negotiations, then we should take the step and announce our independence unilaterally," he said.

(Reporting by Mohammed Assadi, Writing by Ari Rabinovitch; Editing by Michael Winfrey)

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2022795620080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Will NATO be sending troops in, bombing Israel and EU sending its policemen and bureacrats in? :)

Or recognising the new state?

And more hypocrisy and inconsistencies bubbling up now.

http://dailysalty.blogspot.com/2008/02/can-north-kosovo-declare-independence.html

What a tragic set of decisions these stupid gits have taken?

Somebody asked about the legal arguments.

http://dailysalty.blogspot.com/2008/02/legal-arguments-foragainst-kosovo.html

"What happens to a tiny enclave of Serbs numbering only about 70,000 in northern Kosovo is just the start. If these Serbs succeed in de facto seceding from Kosovo, then the Serbs of Bosnia -- who number about 2 million -- will similarly seek to throw off NATO control and merge with Serbia as well. NATO and the EU probably will accept the first, even if not officially, but the second has the makings of a shooting war.

For Russia, which has opposed Kosovo's independence from day one, this is a bit of sweet revenge. While the Russians may have no tools for directly influencing events, the events well unfold precisely along the lines that a vengeful Kremlin would have scripted." STRATFOR - 19 Feb 2008.

Just for the record. For those who like to point the preverbal accusing finger...and who doesn't like to do that. Make sure your pointing at all KFOR contributors:

In addition to NATO members, nineteen non-NATO countries are participating in KFOR operations, namely: Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Morocco, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and Ukraine. Source: NATO Handbook, Chapter 5: The Alliance's Operational Role in Peacekeeping, 2003 publication.