Surprise, surprise Kosovo in chaos

[WoodPeckr]

way to go Bush!! Let's create a territory crisis in Eastern Europe, just like in the middle east

Dubya did say in the past,
"Our enemies are always looking for ways the hurt and attack the USA......and so are we!"....

 

[WoodPeckr]

When Bush & Co. visited Kosovo last year (or was it '06), they rolled the red carpet out for him and the locals gave him a heroes welcome. It was memorable because it is one of the very very few places outside the US where the local people have great admiration for the USA (and in a muslim country no less).

What a difference a year makes!.....

Serbia: US 'culprit' in Kosovo violence

By DUSAN STOJANOVIC and SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writers
Sat Feb 23, 4:23 PM ET

KOSOVSKA MITROVICA, Kosovo - Serbia's hard-line leaders on Saturday called the U.S. "the main culprit" in the violence that has broken out since Kosovo declared independence.

Several thousand Serbs chanting "Kosovo is Serbia!" and "Russia, Vladimir Putin!" protested peacefully in the ethnically divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica, the sixth day of demonstrations against Kosovo's break with Serbia. Russia backs Serbia's fierce resistance to Kosovo's secession.

On Thursday night, protesters in the Serbian capital Belgrade set fire to the U.S. embassy, angered by Washington's recognition of Kosovo. The U.S. and the European Union responded by demanding Serbia protect foreign embassies.

"The United States is the main culprit ... for all those violent acts," Serbia's Minister for Kosovo Slobodan Samardzic said in Belgrade....[more]

 

[Aardvark154]

What a difference a year makes!

Sorry Woody, I believe the Serbs felt just about same this time last year. Whether the U.S. action is wise is another story - but in that case you'll need to take some straight on (not your usual Bush b.s.) shots at Germany, France, the U.K. etc. . . who have also agitated for Kosovar independence. l

 

[WoodPeckr]

Sorry Woody, I believe the Serbs felt just about same this time last year. Whether the U.S. action is wise is another story - but in that case you'll need to take some straight on (not your usual Bush b.s.) shots at Germany, France, the U.K. etc. . . who have also agitated for Kosovar independence. l

Then why are the Serbs naming only the US as culprit here and not the other countries?

 

[Aardvark154]

Then why are the Serbs naming only the US as culprit here and not the other countries?

Because the U.S. has been the loudest dating back to your hero WJC bombing the shit out of Belgrade (including the Chinese Embassy) in 1999.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Because the U.S. has been the loudest dating back to your hero WJC bombing the shit out of Belgrade (including the Chinese Embassy) in 1999.

Thanks for bringing up that amazing Commander-In-Chief William Jefferson Clinton.

Commander-In-Chief William Jefferson Clinton was superb in his Serbian War, in spite of Dubya/Cheney and other cementheaded neocons ranting Clinton had no business going there and nation building! Reason: No OIL in Serbia.

Bill's Serbian War:
It lasted 11 weeks!
He bagged his boogeyman Slobodan Milošević in short order!
AND BEST OF ALL, NOT ONE US TROOPER DIED!

Quite a contrast with the DEBACLE your imbecile, who you shill and apologize for, has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, eh....

 

[basketcase]

way to go Bush!! Let's create a territory crisis in Eastern Europe, just like in the middle east

It's obvious it's Bush's fault. It's not like there has been violence and an independence movement for years that even forced the UN to step in and administer the territory for the past decade. Even when it was before his time, it must have been Bush's fault.

Now that I think about it, I think there might have been ethnic fighting in the region for a few years before Bush was born. Even still, it must have been his fault.

 

[nervous]

Yes, it must frustrate you to no end that your entire standard of living depends on "them", much more than theirs really does on 'ours' (because they have no real sharing of wealth, even on the lousy terms we do). Welcome to the new world ... or wait a minute ...

... if you actually knew anything about history, you'd know that this isn't very "new" at all. England's survival as a power, as historically short-lived as it was relative to "their" Empires, was always dependent on the resources, learning and thinking that came from either Southern Europe, the Middle East or Asia.

It is guys like you, with historical ignorance, who venerate the very leaders that eliminate your relevance as a nation. The deep irony is that you do understand that your failure is your own fault, and just can't verbalize it to others, who have already figured it out.

Funny how you must come here to be able to speak freely. And the fact that the wealth is not shared among the masses is not our fault. The money is their if the leaders want to share it.

Why do you think that it is news, old or new, that empires exploit ours to the betterment of their own people. Seems like a tried and true approach. At one time national powers ruled, now it is a combination of nation -corporation. Something England figured out a long time ago.

 

[Aardvark154]

Thanks for bringing up that amazing Commander-In-Chief William Jefferson Clinton.

Commander-In-Chief William Jefferson Clinton was superb in his Serbian War, in spite of Dubya/Cheney and other cementheaded neocons ranting Clinton had no business going there and nation building! Reason: No OIL in Serbia.

Bill's Serbian War:
It lasted 11 weeks!
He bagged his boogeyman Slobodan Milošević in short order!
AND BEST OF ALL, NOT ONE US TROOPER DIED!

Quite a contrast with the DEBACLE your imbecile, who you shill and apologize for, has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, eh....

So in Woody's world it's solely about how long it takes and how many casualties and death's there are?

And I do like the projection of shilling and apologizing, when you can't discuss something that's always your fallback position - call names.

 

[WoodPeckr]

So in Woody's world it's solely about how long it takes and how many casualties and death's there are?

And I do like the projection of shilling and apologizing, when you can't discuss something that's always your fallback position - call names.

Lame retort even by your standards.

There 'real world' tends to measure results of actions that way, while paraniod neocon nutzy neocons set policies resulting in perpetual war(s) that produce more enemies than they can kill off.

Clinton was a brilliant Commander-In-Chief in his War compared to Dubya's 2 Wars. Most sane people in the world see that. Why you continue to support an utter fool makes you and your cohorts look much the same. Obfuscate, bob & weave all you want but the facts remain Dubya has been a DISASTER for the US & World. The only ones gaining are the Banks, the MIC and Big OIL. If you can't see this you must be as retarded as bottie, the ultimate corporate cheerleader.....

 

[Don]

way to go Bush!! Let's create a territory crisis in Eastern Europe, just like in the middle east

...ahem... the crisis was started by Bill in '98. The same year he fired missiles into Afghanistan which pissed off Osama to plan 9/11.

Way to go Bill!!

 

[slowandeasy]

It's obvious it's Bush's fault. It's not like there has been violence and an independence movement for years that even forced the UN to step in and administer the territory for the past decade. Even when it was before his time, it must have been Bush's fault.

Now that I think about it, I think there might have been ethnic fighting in the region for a few years before Bush was born. Even still, it must have been his fault.

sarcastic much?

 

[enduser1]

It's obvious it's Bush's fault. It's not like there has been violence and an independence movement for years that even forced the UN to step in and administer the territory for the past decade. Even when it was before his time, it must have been Bush's fault.

Now that I think about it, I think there might have been ethnic fighting in the region for a few years before Bush was born. Even still, it must have been his fault.

LOL,


Good call. BTW here is an interesting article that sets out the issues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7262134.stm

As I stated earlier WWIII will not start in Kosovo. It also looks like Russia is doing nothing, just blabbing. So I expect that the story will disappear from the headlines and bubble quietly under the surface to explode in the future.

The Bush Administration is right when it points out that there is a new Cold War brewing. I simply do not buy into the left wing view that Russia is our "Friend". I didn't buy that twaddle in the Cold War and I don't buy it now.

I also, believe that Bush was right when he pointed out the existance of the Axis of Evil. Unfortunatley, the man has mishandled everything. His entire Presidency is Hurricaine Katrina.

EU

 

[Aardvark154]

The Bush Administration is right when it points out that there is a new Cold War brewing. I simply do not buy into the left wing view that Russia is our "Friend". I didn't buy that twaddle in the Cold War and I don't buy it now.

Unfortunately, we in the West contributed to all this, taking the attitude that we "won the cold war" why should we now help them. Canada, the U.K. and Denmark were no better on this point than was the U.S. We pushed the Russian Government into immediate market reforms, and provided next to nothing in economic assistance.

Most Russians remember the Yeltsin Administration not for democratization of the political process and liberalizing reforms but rather for economic hardship (which was quite severe with State employees, Civil and Mining Engineers, Physicians, Academics and Dentists among others not being paid for months at a time), the sense that Russia was not being given respect by the West, and the “fire sales” of State assets that led to the rise of the oligarchs.

Couple this with the strong component in both Russian history and the Russian psyche for the Tsar as Little Father who leads and takes care of us a.k.a. "the man on the white horse." Add as well Yeltsin's asinine decision in appointing Putin as Prime Minister and then resigning the Presidency early and the huge rise in the price of crude oil and Voilà one has present day Russia.

I hasten to add that many/most Russians generally like Americans and Canadians as individuals.

 

[abstract]

You might want to check facts yourself. The Croats might have joined the Waffen SS in greater numbers but there was a Serb contingent too.

It is interesting (sad?) that the Serb, Croat, and Bosnian, and Albanian Nazi collaborators spent as much time killing each other as they did killing the "enemy".

Sir the Serbs, were never affiliated with the Nazis. Only the Croats and Italy and a few others which I am not familiar with but there were never Serb Nazis.

 

[abstract]

AND BEST OF ALL, NOT ONE US TROOPER DIED!

Ya ok

and that stealth fighter that was shot down was a joke, not real..

idiot!

 

[fuji]

We pushed the Russian Government into immediate market reforms, and provided next to nothing in economic assistance.

I'm not so sure. It's interesting to spend some time thinking about how it is that the Chinese economic reforms begun in 1979 were so successful, and the apparently similar Russian ones such miserable failures, despite occurring a decade later, giving the Russians an opportunity to observe and learn from the Chinese experience.

We did not provide much in the way of economic assistance for the Chinese either, nor are we ultimately responsible for the policies adopted by foreign governments.

I think the Russians did this to themselves.

Yes, we pushed them for reform, but we would have been satisfied with a moderate pace of reform. It was the Russians themselves who decided to rush into the changes at breakneck speed, and as a result, broke their own necks.

I think the difference is partly that the Chinese leadership was simply less corrupt than the Russian leadership. Russia turned into a kleptocracy as everyone connected to the state made a mad grab to abscond with as much of the nations resources as they possibly could. State enterprises were privitized rapidly by people who wanted to get their share of the pie before someone else did.

None of it was well managed.

The Chinese leadership, on the other hand, though equally dictatorial and tyrannical, apparently acted in the interests of the Chinese people rather than in the interests of members of the government. Sure, there was much corruption, but a "manageable" amount, and apparently much less than in Russia.

They intentionally slowed their reforms down, managed them carefully, floated trial balloons in limited areas to see how it would work, then rolled the things that worked out to the rest of their nation.

The Chinese carefully avoided things like privitizing large state enterprises early. Instead they privitized small enterprises, grew wages quickly to create demand for consumer products, and gradually, gradually broke up the state enterprises.

At the end of the day I think the Chinese took responsibility for their own country and their own problems and acted prudently in the interests of their nation. The Russians, on the other hand, interpreted economic freedom as meaning the rape and pillage of the state by oligarchs.

I do not think the West is really to blame.

 

[basketcase]

Sir the Serbs, were never affiliated with the Nazis. Only the Croats and Italy and a few others which I am not familiar with but there were never Serb Nazis.

So you say but...

Aside from German armed forces which were the dominant Axis military in the territory, there were two Serbian collaborationist military forces, the Serbian State Guards (Srpska Državna Straža) and the Serbian Volunteer Command both formed in 1941. In 1943, the Serbian Volunteer Command was renamed the Serbian Volunteer Corps (Srpski Dobrovoljački Korpus).[25]

Initially, the recruits were largely paramilitaries and supporters of the fascist Yugoslav National Movement "Zbor" (Jugoslovenski narodni pokret "Zbor" , or ZBOR) party of Dimitrije Ljotić. Nedić's forces fought Communist Partisans as well as Royalist Chetniks who were not willing to sign an agreement of cooperation.

Recruits to the collaborationist forces increased in numbers following groups of Chetniks loyal to Kosta Pećanac joining. These Chetniks joined with the intention to destroy Tito's Partisans, rather than supporting Nedić and the German occupation forces, whom they later intended to turn against.[26]

The Serbian Volunteer Corps were formed in the spring of 1943. At the end of 1944, the Corps and its German liaison staff were transferred to the Waffen-SS as the Serbian SS Corps and comprised a staff from four regiments each with three batalions and a training battalion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia_(1941-1944)#Collaborationist_armed_forces

If you don't like wikipedia,

Serbian Volunteer Corps
Serbian Volunteer Command

* Srpski Dobrovoljacki Korpus
* Serbisches Freilligen Korps
* Serbian SS Volunteer Corps

Formed on 15 September 1941, by Dimitrije Ljotić from Chetniks and his Zbor Movement activists. It had twelve 120-150 strong detachments. In January 1943, it become Serbian Volunteer Corps (Srpski Dobrovoljacki Korpus - SDK) with five 500 man battalions - four volunteer and one Chetnik Assault battalion and from 4 January 1943 it also had armored car battalion, cavalry squadron and 6 aircraft - strength is around 3,000 men. Formation was fully equipped by Germans who where impressed by its performance.

Armored car battalion (bornih kola) had some 20 different vehicles - some ex-YU which Germans considered obsolete, few French Renault tanks, Czech and maximum of three German half-tracks in very bad shape. Out of six aircraft, two were Breguet-XIX and one Fieseler Storch. Flights (when aircraft were in flight condition) were allowed only with German supervision.

In 1944 five 1200-man regiments with 500-man artillery battalion, under German tactical command but reporting to General Nedić. On 21 June another regiment was formed - 2nd Iron Regiment (2. gvozdeni puk), total strength has risen to around 9,000 men.

Strength of the Volunteer Corps in August 1944 according to Bundesarchiv, RH 19 XI/31 Militaerbefehlshaber Suedost Ia, Gegenueberstellung der Feindstaerken und der eigenen einsatzfaehigen Kraefte im serbischen Raum (21.8.1944): 9.886 men.

On 8 October 1944 leaves Belgrade, moving to Syrmia and finally retreating to Slovenia. In November 1944 the Waffen-SS took over the job of supplying the SVC, and on paper naming it the Serbian SS Volunteer Corps. But the SVC never had German uniforms, only Yugoslav or Italian, and never donned SS patches or runes.

http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/serbia/serbian-volunteer-corps/


And another detailed source
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=90

And even from youtube
http://www.truveo.com/Serbian-SS-Volunteer-CorpsSerbisches-SS/id/2020151903

There were also Divisions of Bosnian Muslims, Russians (including their ethnic minorities),Ukrainians, Croatians, Latvians, Finns, Indians, Dutch, Hungarians, Romanians, Spanish, Brit and dominions, American, French, Belgian, and a few more.

 

[Aardvark154]

I'm not so sure. It's interesting to spend some time thinking about how it is that the Chinese economic reforms begun in 1979 were so successful, and the apparently similar Russian ones such miserable failures, despite occurring a decade later, giving the Russians an opportunity to observe and learn from the Chinese experience.

We did not provide much in the way of economic assistance for the Chinese either, nor are we ultimately responsible for the policies adopted by foreign governments.

I think the Russians did this to themselves.

Yes, we pushed them for reform, but we would have been satisfied with a moderate pace of reform. It was the Russians themselves who decided to rush into the changes at breakneck speed, and as a result, broke their own necks.

I think the difference is partly that the Chinese leadership was simply less corrupt than the Russian leadership. Russia turned into a kleptocracy as everyone connected to the state made a mad grab to abscond with as much of the nations resources as they possibly could. State enterprises were privitized rapidly by people who wanted to get their share of the pie before someone else did.

None of it was well managed.

The Chinese leadership, on the other hand, though equally dictatorial and tyrannical, apparently acted in the interests of the Chinese people rather than in the interests of members of the government. Sure, there was much corruption, but a "manageable" amount, and apparently much less than in Russia.

They intentionally slowed their reforms down, managed them carefully, floated trial balloons in limited areas to see how it would work, then rolled the things that worked out to the rest of their nation.

The Chinese carefully avoided things like privitizing large state enterprises early. Instead they privitized small enterprises, grew wages quickly to create demand for consumer products, and gradually, gradually broke up the state enterprises.

At the end of the day I think the Chinese took responsibility for their own country and their own problems and acted prudently in the interests of their nation. The Russians, on the other hand, interpreted economic freedom as meaning the rape and pillage of the state by oligarchs.

Fuji, I believe you have sound points, but quibble about some of them. I believe that perhaps the crucial difference is that the Russian economy was in the tank, where as the Chinese economy was going at such a level that they were able to make the transition.

I, however, entirely agree as to the corruption of the Russian Government.

 

[onthebottom]

WORLD WAR III

When does that start?

OTB