I have been reading this rather opinionated site today:

http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp

Some really interesting stuff there. I had no idea about the current state of Balkans and the 'plan' to carve out a seperate state based on religion. Funny how Congress is so certain it will work there, but rejects the idea for Iraq.


This is post long, but particularly interesting on the topic:
http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp?p=4&sp=270

It contains this quote, which is rather unbelievable even for a California Democrat:

"Just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led government[s] in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe. This should be noted by both responsible leaders of Islamic governments, such as Indonesia, and also for jihadists of all color and hue. The United States principles are universal, and in this instance, the United States stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe." - Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee

The EU vote on the establishment of a Kosovo as a seperate state is coming in the next few months and so far only Serbia and Romania oppose it. Opinions? Doubts? Is it really wise to establish a second Palestine right in the heart of the most dangerous part of Europe?

I'm not exactly an expert on Kosovo, but I don't think they're very comparable.

Lot of hot slavic girls there.

What do you suggest doing with the Kosovo people (don't know the name in English) ? Let them be killed?

Just out of curiousity, do you guys ACTUALLY support this?

Support what? You're rarely clear in your opening salvos. You just come out swinging indiscriminantly.

Nope, mostly Albanian there.

Support an Independent Kosovo. I didn't think it needed clarification.

It's not like the other splits from Yugoslavia have been all that bad in the end.

In general, I'm in favor of the splitting of larger artificially created states into more unified ethnically uniform states.

Mind if I ask why? Particularly in the context of Kosovo and what the Muslim ethnic Albanians did in regard to the Christians in Kosovo? Don't you think this will lead to more violence across the world, and fights between ethic groups seeking independence across the world? Don't you think it could set a dangerous precident, when you reward a violent group of people, who've committed gross wrongdoing, with indepence? It's ironic, because even when you look at the break up of Yugoslavia, Milosevic's intentions were simply to unite his people...irregardless of the numerous borders he crossed, and the people he felt like displacing.

Shouldn't the ultimate goal be for people to simply realize that dirt is dirt, and to get along with one another?

What you advocate is a powderkeg of violence just waiting to be unleashed on the world.

Oh god no. Believe me i know what I'm talking about. Former Yugoslavia was composed of different republics with different nations languages comprised. Milosević intentions were far from uniting people but the story is long and complicated and called besides the very complictated Yugoslavia and it's borders, "Velika Srbija" (meaning Great Serbia).
Kosovo is a little different because it was originally a Serbian territory that Albanians slowly populated and became the majority. Mother Theresa was an Albanian from Kosovo btw.
The violence in Kosovo between Albanians and Serbs was a local thing until the historic visit of Milosevic aka when and where it all began.

I think quite the opposite. Forcing disparate populations to live together under the same flag has NEVER done anything besides leading to civil wars and ethnic, sectarian, and religious violence. For 3000 years, empire builders have tried to "unite" people, but they've never been able to hold it together, and it usually falls apart with violence between neighbors, and I mean ACTUAL neighbors, like living next door to one another, not just adjacent states.

If all of the old empires and artificial states of the 19th cnetury were to break down and people were able to form their own local states made up of people who share a common sense of values and identity and goals, there would be greater peace. The breaking apart phase may not be totally smooth (change rarely is), but the end result would be states with internal stability, which would be more likely to be democratically managed, and while they may have negative feeligns towards some neighboring states, they would be unlikely to fight about those differences due to the higher likelihood of a democratic government (and as I'm sure you know, there has never been a war between two democracies). Finally, even if there WERE a war between two small states, the implications would be limited to that small area of the world and would be less likely to inflame the passions of other countries that probably don't share the concerns that led to that conflict.

That's my theory anyway.

All indo-european

They're all pink on the inside. Amirite? Oh, yeah.

*high five*

time to log off David, the population of this board has really begun to have a bad influence on your posts.

Exactly the thinking that led to what Palestine is today.

Now, would you support theocratic break-away states in other European countries? Or the southern US?

Oh, you're not beginning to take my disgusting displays of poor taste seriously now, are you? I think the line between "Serious Dave" and "Sarcastic Dave" is pretty clear.

this is a pretty nifty little device right here:
and regardless of whether I recognized it as sarcasm or not, there are certainly any number of other people who wouldn't- but I apologize, this thread is at least interesting, so I won't continue further.

Yeah, I don't use that. If my sarcasm isn't clear enough, then I'm doing it wrong.