Desicritics Comments on Kosovo's Independence - The Emperor is Wearing Albanian Clothes

Comment by DrugsHome.com

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:32:04 EDT

http://DrugsHome.com

Comment by Guido

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:09:04 EST

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.

Comment by Guido

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:01:36 EST

"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.

Comment by bd

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:29:03 EST

Somebody asked about the legal arguments. http://dailysalty.blogspot.com/2008/02/legal-arguments-foragainst-kosovo.html

Comment by bd

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:01:26 EST

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?

Comment by bd

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:58:37 EST

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?

Comment by kerty

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:06:46 EST

Arman Thanks.

Comment by kerty

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:06:08 EST

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

Comment by Aaman

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:40:34 EST

there was some server issue - all fine now:)

Comment by kerty

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:25:35 EST

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.

Comment by Guido

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:26:04 EST

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

Comment by Guido

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:13:08 EST

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

Comment by kerty

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:29:45 EST

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)

Comment by Chandra

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:04:38 EST

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

Comment by Chandra

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:53:56 EST

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.....

Comment by Sujai

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:53:23 EST

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?

Comment by smallsquirrel

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:22:34 EST

guido... parla italiano?

Comment by Guido

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:31:25 EST

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

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:30:52 EST

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!

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:27:23 EST

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...

Comment by Chandra

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:35:31 EST

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....

Comment by Guido

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:27:36 EST

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

Comment by bd

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:07:41 EST

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?

Comment by bd

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:56:50 EST

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 :)

Comment by smallsquirrel

Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:08:37 EST

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.