Listen DD,
I have no problem discussing the nuances of the Serbian/Kosovo question. But it would probably be more appropriately debated on another thread like the World War III thread.
Subject 22592
We were discussing a wide gamut of potential global hotspots at one time there and theorizing how localized "flare-ups" might lead to friction or conflict between the global powers.
But in sum, there is no doubt that Madeline and crew made some serious miscalculations and had their bluff called. But while the US policy may have baced Milosevic into a political corner with no path of retreat, you should not ignore the evidence that Milosevic is the one who opted to back himself up into that corner in the first place.
The very way you are phrasing the issue like "the serbs would being asked to give up sovereignty" and destruction in that "sovereign country" clearly indicate that you completely disregard the fact that Kosovar Albanians who were born in Kosovo, and can trace their ancestry back hundreds of years (Kosovo is historically important to Albanians as well), were being told that a 5-10% minority of Serbs could rule over and dominate them.
Well the truth is that Tito (a Croat) gave Kosovo autonomy and local self-rulership. It was Milosevic who reneged on this arrangement as he saw demographic ratios grow in favor of the ethnic Albanians while the Kosovar Serbs migrated to Belgrade for work.
Under the old Yugoslavian republic, ethnic autonomy and tolerance was emphasized (given the past turmoil and conflict between ethnicities dating back hundreds of years). It was Serbian leadership, prompted by strong nationalist overtones, that attempted to assert Serbian dominance over the other ethnicities in the FRY. So under that scenario, any ethnicity like the Croats or Macedonians were subverting Begrade's sovereignty when they declared their independence.
So in sum, the definition of what is or isn't Serbian sovereignty is still an open question. Serbia has declared sovereignty over every other part of Yugoslavia, but have not been able to maintain it because of their devisive and intolerant policies. And this is a real shame because these nations would be far stronger being linked together as it was under Tito, than segregating themselves back along nationalistic lines.
I feel the majority of blame rests upon Serbian leadership for creating this atmosphere of intolerance and repression and now they are reaping the whirlwind of their nationalistic folly. You have to question the soundness of Serbian claims of sovereignty when their people have been migrating from Kosovo for decades, while at the same time Belgrade politicians were unwilling to spend the money to create a vibrant economy in that region. If Kosovo had been so important for Serbs in the past, they would have been flocking to live there and maintain Serb demographic dominance.
No Serb could accept a Rambuillet accord simply because they had created the very intolerance and lack of gov't representation that breathed life into groups like the KLA or political separatists like Rugova. Seems to me that our founding fathers fought against taxation without representation as well and found that a sound reason for indepence. And the French were willing to assist, and without their support the American revolution may well have failed.
As for uranium being necessary, given the strength of current armor protection for tanks, there is nothing like Depleted Uranium kinetic Sabot rounds for ensuring maximum penetration of a heavily armored target.
As for us "doing this to people", you'll have to ask that question to the higher authority. He's the one who made us this way...
Regards,
Ron |
