Rioting Serbs torch US embassy, loot downtown Belgrade

[The Decider]

Quote by: grandpa If you had read it thoroughly, I think you would have noticed that sentiment. Grandpa h.

I must have missed the "Serb ultranationalists are my enemy" sentiment in your very first post. I don't see it in the link either. Better very late than never.

[Nono]

Nono: It does seem to me that it would have been a lot smarter to have given Kosovo independence the green light only on condition that it allow the majority-Serb area in northern Kosovo to remain part of Serbia.

Decider: Bosnian Serbs remained in Bosnia. Kosovo Serbs can remain in Kosovo. Or move. I have zero sympathy for Serbian nationalists after what they did to minorities under their control.

That's it Dec, miss the point completely. Very good. It's all about your emotions, ain't it? About how it makes you feel, about who you have sympathy with and who you don't. Pathetic.

"Bosnian Serbs remained in Bosnia." -- Yeah, and look what the hell happened.
You have a big chunk of Kovovo that's majority Serb and right next to Serbia. If you maroon those people in an independent (i.e. ethic Albanian) Kosovo, guess what -- They're Going To Cause Trouble.

It would have been smarter to do this differently.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Nono Nono: It does seem to me that it would have been a lot smarter to have given Kosovo independence the green light only on condition that it allow the majority-Serb area in northern Kosovo to remain part of Serbia. Decider: Bosnian Serbs remained in Bosnia. Kosovo Serbs can remain in Kosovo. Or move. I have zero sympathy for Serbian nationalists after what they did to minorities under their control. That's it Dec, miss the point completely. Very good. It's all about your emotions, ain't it? About how it makes you feel, about who you have sympathy with and who you don't. Pathetic.

I've offered far more than "emotions" and "feelings" on this thread. You offered an unsupported and totally unrealistic claim. Ceding the Serbian portion of northern Kosovo, (settled by most of Kosovo's 4% Serb population--hardly a "big chunk"), would still leave thousands of ethnic Albanians "marooned" along the current Serbia-Kosovo border. Why should they have to move and not the Kosovo Serbs? The Albanians are stuck too in a hostile Serbian state. Should we carve out a little sub-state of Kosovo within Serbian territory? A compromise was needed. The Kosovo Serbs and Serbia Albanians stay put--or move.

And it's not like the Kosovo Serbs don't get majority rule in their northern enclaves under the proposed Kosovo constitution. They do. If they still don't like it, they know the direction to Serbia.

From the Human Rights Watch:

The flashpoint is Kosovo’s northern city of Mitrovica, currently split between the Serb-dominated north and the Albanian-controlled south. If any eventual solution, through the Security Council or otherwise, fails to satisfy Serb demands, then ethnic Serbs in north Mitrovica and areas further north could declare their intent to join Serbia, with which they share a border and have maintained strong financial and security ties. This could provoke ethnic Albanians in the Preshevo valley, a predominantly Albanian area in Serbia’s south, to take similar steps.   The “Albanian issue” in the south Balkans is still alive, with scattered pockets of disgruntled former fighters from Kosovo, Macedonia, and Preshevo, and a murky armed group called the Albanian Liberation Army (AKSH). While the so-called army lacks the capacity to wage war, and some say the group is but a criminal enterprise wrapped in the flag, it takes relatively few men to stir the pot.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/07/serbia15323.htm

Quote by: Nono It would have been smarter to do this differently.

You've made this claim three times now. Please offer some evidence other than Nono's say-so.

[Nono]

Well surely (I hope) you don't imagine I'm going to disagree with you about Albanian pockets in Serbia. That's the problem in the Balkans -- they've ended up intertwined, living cheek by jowl, but still hate each other. And precisely, as HRW says, "it takes relatively few men to stir the pot". That's why I say: There's going to be trouble, either way.

The difference is that you have virtually the entire, collectively paranoid, population of Serbia up in arms about this and just itching to help any Serb in northern Kosovo who wants to start a fight. This needn't have happened. Which leads us to ...

Quote by: Decider You've made this claim (that support should have been withheld from independence with the present boundaries) three times now. Please offer some evidence other than Nono's say-so.

"Evidence" of what, Dec? It's my opinion. So watch me make this "claim" a fourth time -- It would have been better to do things differently.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Nono Well surely (I hope) you don't imagine I'm going to disagree with you about Albanian pockets in Serbia. That's the problem in the Balkans -- they've ended up intertwined, living cheek by jowl, but still hate each other. And precisely, as HRW says, "it takes relatively few men to stir the pot". That's why I say: There's going to be trouble, either way. The difference is that you have virtually the entire, collectively paranoid, population of Serbia up in arms about this and just itching to help any Serb in northern Kosovo who wants to start a fight. This needn't have happened.

Of course it "needed to happen." The Kosovars would not sit by while a portion of their people were further isolated behind Serbian territory. I have yet to see any evidence that ceding Kosovo territory to Serbia would prove any more acceptable. It was a compromise. If the Serbs want to start trouble, then they'll do so againt the 90% majority Kosovar Albanian majority AND Nato AND the Kosovar military. The Serbian military is no longer there to commit atrocities. I would suggest that Kosovo Serbs and the Serbian Serbs rethink warfare as an option. The field of battle has changed.

Quote by: Nono "Evidence" of what, Dec? It's my [unsupported] opinion.

Fixed.

[Nono]

Quote by: Decider The Kosovars would not sit by while a portion of their people were further isolated behind Serbian territory.

I see. And what will Kosovo independence do to help them? In other words, how does Kosovo independence constitute an alternative to "sitting by"?

I have yet to see any evidence that ceding Kosovo territory to Serbia would prove any more acceptable.

You will (I predict).

It was a compromise.

Between whom? And what did the Kosovars concede as their part of the compromise?

If the Serbs want to start trouble, then they'll do so againt the 90% majority Kosovar Albanian majority AND Nato AND the Kosovar military.

Something makes me think that won't stop them.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Nono I see. And what will Kosovo independence do to help them? In other words, how does Kosovo independence constitute an alternative to "sitting by"?

Well, for one, the Albanians in Serbia have a potential safe haven should the Serbs go postal on them. An independent Kosovo will elevate negotiations on the Balkan "Albanian problem" to bi-lateral status and beyond the lower provincial status of the past. Those are just two positives I can think of at the moment.

Quote by: Nono Between whom? And what did the Kosovars concede as their pat of the compromise?

Between the UN participants and the Kosovars. The Serbs have refused to negotiate any deal that would cede any land to an independent state. Their choice.

According to the HRW article, the Kosovars conceded municipal autonomy for the major Serb cities in the north. That's far more than Albanians, Bosnian, and Croats ever got under the Serbian boot.

Quote by: Nono Something makes me think that won't stop them.

Then the Serbian malcontents will face something quite unique in their recent history: a militarily and numerically superior opposition. Their choice.

[D Sretenovic]

The Decider, why don`t we take a look at the situation from another point of view? For example, why do you think that your government is supporting Albanian Kosovars? You surely don`t believe they do it from some ethic believes, in a manner ``Serbs are bullying those poor people and we have to save them``. Especially in these times, when your country is involved in so-called ``war against terrorists``. Do you know the background of people your country supports right now? Ramush Haradinaj, for example, was till some time PM of Kosovo, but he had to quit that position because he was being prosecuted by the Hague tribunal. He`s currently there, being charged for serious crimes against humanity. Agim Cheku, man who declared independence of Kosovo, was his chief in command, which can only mean he`s also responsible for massive atrocities, including killing, rape, torching, and other crimes, against Serbs, other non-Albanian population, but also, against their people. Are you aware of fact that KLA was trained by the members of Al Quaida during the `99 conflict and that there was a strong link between these two terroristic organizations? Why is your government supporting people who are on the other side of world order? Whatever the reason is, I would suggest USA extreme caution, because it wouldn`t be first time that ``the dog they feed, eventually bites them``...

[The Decider]

Quote by: D Sretenovic The Decider, why don`t we take a look at the situation from another point of view? For example, why do you think that your government is supporting Albanian Kosovars? You surely don`t believe they do it from some ethic believes, in a manner ``Serbs are bullying those poor people and we have to save them``. Especially in these times, when your country is involved in so-called ``war against terrorists``. Do you know the background of people your country supports right now? Ramush Haradinaj, for example, was till some time PM of Kosovo, but he had to quit that position because he was being prosecuted by the Hague tribunal. He`s currently there, being charged for serious crimes against humanity. Agim Cheku, man who declared independence of Kosovo, was his chief in command, which can only mean he`s also responsible for massive atrocities, including killing, rape, torching, and other crimes, against Serbs, other non-Albanian population, but also, against their people. Are you aware of fact that KLA was trained by the members of Al Quaida during the `99 conflict and that there was a strong link between these two terroristic organizations? Why is your government supporting people who are on the other side of world order? Whatever the reason is, I would suggest USA extreme caution, because it wouldn`t be first time that ``the dog they feed, eventually bites them``...

Ramush Haradinaj voluntarily surrendered at The Hague for his war crimes trial. I don't remember ANY Serbian leader who did that. They were all captured and arrested and forcibly transported for their trials. The Serbian fears of an "Al Qaeda base" in Kosovo don't impress me. When people are fighting against oppressors they sometimes make deals with unsavory people. The Kosovo leadership is not the Taliban. But I can understand why Serbs feel the need to make such comparisons--how else can they drum up support for their lost cause in Kosovo?

Again, I don't deny that Kosovars committed terrible atrocities. But the Serbian army and paramilitaries attacked the Kosovars. They oppressed the Kosovars. What did the Serbs expect, flowers in return?

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Decider Ramush Haradinaj voluntarily surrendered at The Hague for his war crimes trial. I don't remember ANY Serbian leader who did that.

Well, Serbs themselves arrested Milosevic. I don't recall his engaging in a gun battle. Some of his supporters demanded he retain his liberty, but that's pretty much standard, even before a war crimes trial.

The general question remains, though: Will European culture ever move beyond vengeance and aggression?

Grandpa h.

[Matt W]

Errr...yes? I suggest you stop with the sweeping generalisations. Comparing the Balkans with Western & Northern Europe is like comparing apples and oranges.

[Roxdog]

Quote by: The Decider Bosnian Serbs remained in Bosnia. Kosovo Serbs can remain in Kosovo. Or move. I have zero sympathy for Serbian nationalists after what they did to minorities under their control.

Um, what about what the minority did to them with Western intelligence assistance? And you do realize that everything you know about what "Serbian nationalists did to minorities" you learned through Western media, yes? And even if you had a point....what the heck gives you the right to meddle in the affairs of foriegn nations thousands of miles away?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Roxdog Um, what about what the minority did to them with Western intelligence assistance? And you do realize that everything you know about what "Serbian nationalists did to minorities" you learned through Western media, yes?

Plenty of Americans would surely object to that argument, simply because it veers away from the acceptable dialogue. The only position we are supposed to have is "Serbs were bad, the KLA and NATO airstrikes were good." Any other viewpoint must emanate from Mars, or maybe we support Milosevic. Review the data, however, and your view is not as crazy as some make it out to be.

Grandpa h.

[Roxdog]

Well, you certainly seem pretty reasonable so maybe there is hope! :)

[D Sretenovic]

Quote by: Roxdog And you do realize that everything you know about what "Serbian nationalists did to minorities" you learned through Western media, yes?

I myself noticed that The Decider accepts everything he may have heard from media and uses it as valid information. Unarguably, there were crimes committed on Kosovo, against Albanians, mainly by paramilitary forces, but it was greatly exaggerated in Western media. Serbian novelist and a winner of Nobel prize, Ivo Andric, once said, I`ll try to paraphrase, ``A man who reads(or listens) just a little, is less ignorant and naive than a man who reads(or listens) a lot, but believes in it all``. So, no offense, but you got to check the information you`re getting before accepting it as a fact. As for the rest of Roxdog post, I was positively surprise to see that there exists an another opinion, another point of view, another attitude amongst American people when considering this subject. That attitude I find natural and rational.

[The Decider]

Quote by: grandpa Plenty of Americans would surely object to that argument, simply because it veers away from the acceptable dialogue. The only position we are supposed to have is "Serbs were bad, the KLA and NATO airstrikes were good." Any other viewpoint must emanate from Mars, or maybe we support Milosevic. Review the data, however, and your view is not as crazy as some make it out to be.

My evidence comes from Human Rights Watch, a group that has heavily criticized the US on a whole range of issues. You continue to misrepresent my position without challenging the HRW data. Please stop lying and start debating.

[The Decider]

Quote by: D Sretenovic I myself noticed that The Decider accepts everything he may have heard from media and uses it as valid information.

I myself have noticed that you, D Sretenovic, have not refuted the Human Rights Watch evidence, an independent source unrelated to the "media." You, on the other hand ignore the HRW and regurgitate the Serbian point of view without citing your sources. Please offer sources for your claims; your word is no longer good enough on this thread.

Quote by: D Sretenovic Unarguably, there were crimes committed on Kosovo, against Albanians, mainly by paramilitary forces, but it was greatly exaggerated in Western media.

Prove it. Your word alone is no good.

Quote by: D Sretenovic Serbian novelist and a winner of Nobel prize, Ivo Andric, once said, I`ll try to paraphrase, ``A man who reads(or listens) just a little, is less ignorant and naive than a man who reads(or listens) a lot, but believes in it all``. So, no offense, but you got to check the information you`re getting before accepting it as a fact.

You have no business lecturing anybody about sources since you have provided exactly NONE to support your claims.

[Roxdog]

Human Rights Watch Applauds NATO Efforts to Apprehend War Criminals (Human Rights Watch, July 10, 1997)

HRW is a joke.

Who is behind Human Rights Watch? (2004) Under President Clinton, Human Rights Watch was the most influential pro-intervention lobby: its 'anti-atrocity crusade' helped drive the wars in ex-Yugoslavia. Under George W. Bush it lost influence to the neoconservatives, who have their own crusades. But the 'two interventionisms' are not so different anyway: Human Rights Watch is founded on belief in the superiority of American values. It has close links to the US foreign policy elite, and to other interventionist and expansionist lobbies. No US citizen, and no US organisation, has any right to impose US values on Europe. No concentration camps or mass graves can justify that imposition. But Human Rights Watch finds it self-evident, that the United States may legitimately restructure any society, where a mass grave is found. That is a dangerous belief for a superpower: European colonialism shows how easily a 'civilising mission' produces its own atrocities. The Belgian 'civilising mission' in the Congo, at the time promoted as a noble and unselfish enterprise, killed half the population. Sooner or later, more people will die in crusades to prevent a new Holocaust, than died in the Holocaust itself. And American soldiers will continue to kill, torture and rape, in order to prevent killings, torture and rape. For a century there has been a strong interventionist belief in the United States - although it competes with widespread isolationism. In recent years attitudes hardened: human-rights interventionism became a consensus among the 'foreign policy elite' even before September 11. Human Rights Watch itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGO's and academics. It is certainly not an association of 'concerned private citizens'. HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically summarised, Human Rights Watch arose as a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department. Nevertheless, it represents some fundamental characteristics of US-American culture. The September 11 attacks confirmed the interventionism of the entire foreign policy elite - not just the highly visible neoconservatives. More important, the public response illustrated the almost absolute identification of Americans with their own value system. Without any apparent embarrassment, President Bush declared that a war between good and evil was in progress. Ironically, that mirrors the language of the Islamic fundamentalists. It implies a Crusader mentality, rather than the usual pseudo-neutrality of liberal-democratic political philosophy. A society which believes in its own absolute goodness, and the absolute and universal nature of its own values, is a fertile ground for interventionism. Human rights are part of the American value system, but they are also especially useful as an 'ideology of justification' in wartime. Such an ideology should ideally meet some criteria. First, it should not be a simple appeal to self-interest. Simply stating "We own the world!" or "We are the master race, submit to us!" is not good propaganda. As a slogan, 'war on terrorism' is also inadequate, since it is too clearly an American war, against the enemies of America. For propaganda purposes, an appeal to higher values is preferable. Second, these higher values should be universal. This is why Islamism would probably fail as an interventionist ideology: it is specific to Islam. A geopolitical claim to intervene in support of Islamic values can be answered simply by saying: "We are not Muslims here". The doctrine of universal human rights is, by definition, universal and cross-cultural. Third, the ideology should appeal to the population of the super-power. In the United States, for historical reasons, 'rights doctrines' have become part of its political culture. It would be pointless for a US President to justify a war by appealing to Islam, or royal legitimacy, because very few Americans hold these beliefs. Most Americans do believe in rights theories - and very few know that these theories are disputed. Fourth, if possible, the ideology should appeal to the 'enemy' population. It should ideally be part of their values. That is difficult, but the doctrine of human rights has succeeded in acquiring cross-cultural legitimacy. This does not mean it is inherently right - but simply that no non-western cultures have an answer to the doctrine. The government of China, for instance, fully accepts the concept of human rights, and claims to uphold them. So when it is accused of human rights violations, it can do nothing but deny, on this issue it is perpetually on the defensive. Acceptance of your values by the enemy population could be seen as the Holy Grail of war propaganda: if the enemy leadership is incapable of presenting an alternative value system, it will ultimately collapse. Human rights are not the only ideology of intervention. The 'civilising mission', which justified 19-th century colonisation, is another example.The point is that human rights can serve a geopolitical purpose, which is unrelated to their moral content. It is not possible to show that 'human rights' exist, and most moral philosophers would not even try. It might not be a very important issue in ethics anyway - but it is important in politics and geopolitics. And geopolitics is what Human Rights Watch is about - not about ethics. HRW itself is an almost exclusively US-American organisation. Its version of human rights is the Anglo-American tradition. It is 'mono-ethical' - recognising no legitimate ethical values outside its own. However, the human-rights tradition is not, and can never be, a substitute for a general morality. Major ethical issues such as equality, distributive justice, and innovation, simply don't fit into rights-based ethics. Ethical values are not, in themselves, culturally specific. However, this ethical tradition has become associated with the United States. It is dominant in the political culture, it has become associated with the flag and other national symbols, and it is capable of generating intense national emotion. It emphasises the universal rights set out in the American Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. In a sense the US was 'pre-programmed' as an interventionist power. Universal human rights, by their nature, tend to justify military intervention to enforce those rights. Expansionists, rather than isolationists, are closest to the spirit of the American Constitution, with its inherently interventionist values. In fact, most US-Americans believe in the universality and superiority of their ethical tradition. Interventionist human-rights organisations are, like the neoconservative warmongers, a logical result. Human Rights Watch is not formally an 'association for the promotion of the American Way of Life' - but it tends to behave like one.

Who is behind Human Rights Watch?

[Roxdog]

The Hoax of the Serbian Deathcamps

[The Decider]

Fascinating screed, but I see no evidence that contradicts the findings of HRW or similar organizations. The screed only attacks the HRW for supporting intervention, a policy matter. The implication is that HRW manufactured its data to support the policy, but no proof is offered. Weak.

I need to see evidence contradicting the HRW. Be prepared to offer similar evidence to discredit information from Amnesty International and the UN. Specifics, please, not unsupported screeds.