Greater Albania

They’re not jihadis just like all the other Muslims aren’t jihadis until they are.

Blame Bush for Kosovo?

fourstringfuror on February 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM

You bet, and this time he deserves it. He and Clinton both supported and encouraged them to break away and now Bush had the US recognize Kosovos as a sovereign state.
Kosovos is an illegal breakaway area belonging to the state of Serbia, and Serbia has every right to defend and secure their borders and with whatever method and ally they choose. Yes, even Russia.
We need to stop thinking this country has all the answers for everything and learn to mind our own business.

…

Religion is not the driving force here; nationalism is. Many times, religion is simply a reflection of national identity. When an Albanian Muslim does something to a Serbian church, it is not because he hates Christianity, it is because he hates Serbs. (BTW, 30 percent of Albanians here are Christian of some sort.) Vice versa for Serbians.

So, argue the pros and cons of Kosovar independence all you want. There are many arguments on both sides, and yes, considering the possibility of Jihadist enroads here is a valid and legitimate concern. But please debate it from a more educated perspective.

When John Bolton has something to say, it pays to listen….

As I understand it, Serbia is a legitimate, democratic state and a member in good standing of the UN. All states, including Serbia, are entitled to prevent their own dismemberment…the US had a civil war about it, as have had a lot of other countries. These are ugly horrible events to be avoided, but it is not illegal at international law to take all steps, including the use of force, to keep your state together.

So, on what legal basis have all the above parties been able to orchestrate the dismemberment of a European state.

I should add that I have no sympathy for Serbia per se in this matter. The Serbs have brought on themselves most of this…their brutality and cynicism, not to mention war crimes, during the breakup of Yugoslavia still remain in everyone’s memory.

But that is no reason to create a terrible precedent for everyone else. As a Canadian, for example, the last thing I would want is the United Nations dictating to us what we could or could not do to prevent the breakup of our country.

This is another Bush legacy that we will be forced to deal with later. He just does not seem capable of thinking things through to their conclusion.

Blame Bush for Kosovo?

Remember our civil war and what we did about it? Why should it be any different in Serbia?

Very, very different circumstances. The War Between the States was just that – a war between two groups of (up until that time) independent states. The issue at hand was whether states could determine their own destiny, make their own choices. Ultimately, it was decided that they could not.

The situation in Kosovo is primarily an ethnic issue – ethnic Albanian, Muslim people who want their own sovereign state. Whether it’s a good decision, I don’t know.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Split EU meets to debate Kosovo
EU foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels to seek a joint position on Kosovo’s independence declaration.While the major European powers are widely expected to recognise Kosovo’s indepe…

That’s a fight that Russia ought to win and the free world needs Russia to win, if it happens. Whatever we might justifiably think of and even fear from Putin and a resurgent Russia, the world doesn’t need a jihadist republic with caliphate ambitions anywhere, anytime, in European Kosovo or in the Caucasus. If Russia stands in the way of that happening, then Russia is in the right.

Spot on analysis. The world needs a strong Russia and Russia needs a strong leader like Putin.
Putin may not be democratic enough for some but the man knows what to do in a pinch. And he gets it done in a “I’ll rip your head off and $hit down your neck” efficiency.
Given half a chance, I’m thinking he would make a better ally than any we have now. Especially since the Muslim state of Britain can’t even wipe their own a$$ anymore.

Kosovo’s independence is going to bite us in the backside before it’s over. It will end up being another terrorist bastion, and you can bet the farm on it.
They certainly do not have the right to steal away from Sebia. Remember our civil war and what we did about it? Why should it be any different in Serbia?
This is another Bush legacy that we will be forced to deal with later. He just does not seem capable of thinking things through to their conclusion.

Just a thought: If the agenda in Kosovo, overt or covert, is to institute a Sharia run Jihadist haven, it was very smart of them to profess friendship with America.

Yup. I’ve started writing a short story, kind of a satire, which envisions a future war between the US and jihadists in Kosovo: “The Mujahideen formed a barricade on Bill Clinton Bouelvard and unleashed a barrage of rocket fire against the hapless Marines.”

aengus on February 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Your comments, of themselves, are quite correct – I lived through them.
But, if the Welfare State had not been instituted, giving rise to the “dependency” syndrome, we would not have seen such a degradation of respect for the basic underpinnings of a civilized country – one of which is education.
A properly educated youth is far less likely to fall for the nonsense poured forth by the “Angry Young Man” mantra of the ’60s lefties.

Please…in your wisdom….which people have been assimilated in a ‘friendly’ way during the last 5000 years?

Limerick on February 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM

Southern California by Mexicans…

Three years ago I mocked a New York Times editorial that demanded that Kosovo show that it deserves its independence. I don’t know that Kosovo has demonstrated its worthiness or not. The Palestinian Authority – whether the Hamas section or the Fatah s…

Not so. they surrendered it in 1945 – it just took awhile for full effect.

This view is popular but I disagree. I think it was the rise of leftism in the ’60s and the consequent decline of religious feeling (specifically Christian) and rise of libertinism that’s brought them to this impasse. This is also about the time when the education system was wrecked.

If you meant purely in military terms then I still disagree. The Mau Mau Uprising and Mayalan Emergency were handled quite well.

(And the Brits are surrendering an entire island).

HerrMorgenholz on February 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Not so. they surrendered it in 1945 – it just took awhile for full effect.

Finally, this is why ‘democracy’ is not necessarily a ‘good’ form of government.

ThackerAgency on February 18, 2008 at 1:01 AM

And here am I, thinking that i am the only one in the West who thinks this. All of a sudden – I am not alone!

calbear on February 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Not really. 65% of Swiss are ethnically German and speak German, but you don’t really think of Switzerland as a Germanic country.

No kidding, they are Swiss, and as such speak Swiss German not standard German, I mentioned that in my post. I also mentioned that while Italian and French are official languages the society revolves around Swiss German. Television programs, the news, print magazines, they all revolve around Swiss German. It is part of the Swiss identity. They have language cohesion. Immigrants do not learn French or Italian to get along in Swiss society, they learn Swiss German.

A majority of Canadians speak English, but for about 35 or 36 of the last 40 years, the Prime Minister post has been filled by politicians from Quebec And what’s the dominant language here?

This is evidence of what? This refutes what? The dominant language is not English because the Prime Minister is from Quebec? Quebec does not have a language difference that undergirds their desire to become independent? Stop it really. Quebec wants to become a seperate nation based largely on their language differences. The official language is French… in Quebec. 23.2% of Canadians speak French that is about 7.7 million of that 7.7 million, 5.9 million of them love in Quebec! So the remaining 1.8 million are spread out across Canada. The dominant language in Canada is ENGLISH! The dominant language in Quebec is French. So I’ll rehash my quote…

The issue resurfaced when Michael Ignatieff, a front-runner for the Liberal Party leadership, said the French language, history and culture mark Quebecers as a separate people who should be recognized as a nation under the Constitution.

We even have a Canadian poster trying to tell you the same thing…

52% of citizens are Protestants, but considering how many Protestant denominations there are (and how many Catholic non-citizens there are), that’s hardly “a dominant religion.”

When did I say Protestant? I said Christian. I never mentioned denominations on purpose, because denominations are inconsequential. Please do not try to make them so. Christianty is about Jesus as Lord and Savior. He died on the cross, and rose from the grave. That is what all denominations and Catholics believe. We may disagree on certain specifics but we all have the same identity under those basic beliefs. Weak.

That is just false. What about Jordan? Tunisia? Syria?

Syria keeps thier “Palestinians” in refugee camps. They have not been integrated into society.

Jordan dealt with their “Palestinians” a long time ago, breaking off the West Bank to keep them from tearing the country apart. Making my point for me helps, the Palestinians went into Jordan and a civil war broke out.

Tunisia? That is North Africa dude. Are you telling me there are a significant number, say 30% of Tunisia’s population, that are “Palestinian” and there is no civil strife? I find that hard to believe since it is a real long trip from Israel to Tunisia.

And you’re missing my point. My point is that countries that are founded on race, ethnicity, language, etc., generally run into trouble. Heck, that’s the big problem in Iraq. It’s majority Shi’a yet was ruled by a Sunni. Lacking anything else to believe in, people regress to religion and tribe, and minorities are persecuted. Countries founded on something more substantive – if the people believe in it – seem to have more long-term stability.

I think you are missing my point. Countries are not founded on culture. Nation states and culture go hand in hand. The two are unseperable. As we progressed politcally humans developed the nation state, and nation states are drawn on cultural lines. I am not arguing for forming nation states on cultural lines as a practice. I am stating that nation states are drawn on cultural lines as fact. If not then show me people of different languages, and ethnicities, and religions that decided to from a nation together…

Iraq proves my point. Iraq is a artificial nation, drawn by western powers that is the only reason you had Sunni and Shia living together. The country NEVER would have developed like that on its own. That is why when Shia Muslim “Palestinians” were introduced into Lebanon and they changed the demographic the resulting civil war was as predictable as the tides. You seem to be under this pollyanna notion that nation states can be formed on an an ideal seperate from a national identity based on culture. Never has it happened in human history and it never will. Nor did you answer my question:

Since it is your opnion that culture is a poor choice to define a nation state what exactly do you suggest define us in 2050, when whites are a not the majority and 30% of the nation is Hispanic?

Kosovo’s going to have to work awfully hard to keep Serbian minorities from seceding themselves.

All 4% of them.

If we had a global democracy, the only people in power would be Chinese and Indians. Think about that the next time you champion ‘democracy’ as some great form of government.