Help of KPS? That's funny. Do you really think KPS helps NATO? Or that we need their help? They are so busy taking bribes that they can't help their own people. Please, don't make untrue comments here.
I hope this helps you and you start putting other arguments in here.
(Bilbao, 29 January 2010 10:45)
I see you would love nothing more than the truth go go away in the form of Ron not getting back to those questions time and time again.
Ron is right to keep reminding us of just how hypocritical America is and no, your answers do not make sense at all.
There is no reason why those other regions should not be separated if Kosovo is. Nothing new in Kosovo no matter how hard you and your masters try to say there is.
Albanians died fighting for Kosovo, but so did the Serbs. So what else have you got?
In our life time there will not be Kosovo under Serbia
(Bilbao, 29 January 2010 10:45)
You are wrong. North IS still under Serbia. Like some other enclaves.
(Milan, 29 January 2010 16:34)
Milan,
Let me remind you in case you forgot, there have not been Serbian troops in Kosova for over ten years and there will not be any in the future. That fact alone should convince any rational person that Kosova is independent, including the north. If Northern Mitrovica were under Serb rule, then there would be no Albabians living there. You can't claim Serb dominance since with help of the KPS, NATO controls all of Kosova and there will not be a change to that. Any military challenge by Serbia will be met with overwhelming force, just as it was in 1999. It should be obvious to anyone that northern Mitrovica is clearly secured and in the hands of NATO and the Kosova gov't.
-- See, he wins points here for at least ackowledging that agreeing to disagree is a rational (if the only) way forward. But it strikes me as odd that the same person then calls on Serbia to recognize Kosovo and defend Kosovo's "territorial integrity", even though Kosovo can't even claim legitimacy over its territory.
It's one thing to be pragmatic. It's quite something else to be dogmatic. Both words may sound the same, but they carry to entirely different connotations. The Assistant/Deputy Secretary of State should realize that because if you "agree to disagree", you're going to have to be liberal in supporting Kosovo's territorial integrity.
(Mike, 29 January 2010 00:13)
This is not a forum for teaching english to people. Nevertheless your logic is completely flawed. "Agreeing to disagree" means that there are other issues that Serbia and US should be talking about. However when it comes to Kosova, there is a clear disagreement including K-territorial integrity.
See, "let's agree to disagree on K-question but let's solve the other issues". The expression itself it is design to change the context while you keep blowing in the same flute hole by asking US to be "liberal towards K-integrity". Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the saying.
Some of these comments he makes don't make any sense. He refers to territorial integrity only as it applies to this Kosovo project. Territorial integrity applies to all nations and should especially be important when mentioned in a UN resolution regardless of where it was mentioned at in the resolution. Serbia's claim to Kosovo is more legitimate than Kosovo's UDI. And as far as trends, 65 nations two years later doesn't look like much of a trend in Kosovo's favor. How much of this came at the expense of taxpayers having to give grants to the nations that recognized Kosovo's independence? Joining the IMF and World Bank aren't trends. Where are the UN and the EU? Those would be important trends but Kosovo can't even dream about the UN with Russia and China opposed to Kosovo's UDI. And with five EU nations against Kosovo's UDI and no visa liberalisation in the near future, I don't see Kosovo becoming a real nation. Just a failed state with corrupt politicians who promise a lot and deliver nothing.
And again: why Kosovo and not RS?
Why Kosovo and not Abkhazia?
Why Kosovo and not Tibet?
By the way: why does Georgia not recognize Kosovo? If Kosovo is a unique case, then why not?
(Ron, 29 January 2010 03:21)
Ok Ron it seems you have always same answer and same questions I will try to answer to you.
Why Kosovo not RS- In Dayton and UN resolution for Bosnia it clearly states RS can not split its written clearly there We saw this in ICJ.
Tibet - Its a very sad situation and it should be but China will not let that happen and since that would cause WW III no one is going to challenge that. Is it fair no bu this is how it has been through out History.
As for Kurds and the rest this is all different case not that their struggle is less meaningful but doe snot mean that Kosovo should stay under Serbia and be open to abuse ( as in this site you can see Serbs want Kosovo the land without Albanians)
In our life time there will not be Kosovo under Serbia, some here have said that Serbia will wait 500years and still get it this shows how people think and they cant live together.
I was in Kosovo for xmas and people there are more concerned about Job's and the corrupt govarmant than Serbia to them is a distance past and no one is concerned what VUK or any one says.
Both Gov. are keeping this in the news as a distraction to people and have someone else to blame.
And more years pass the which is 11 now there is less and less interaction and people will not care.
So ron please stop bringing other regions even Palestine is saying we dont want to balkanise the situation.
I hope this helps you and you start putting other arguments in here.
"'The U.S. consider Kosovo to be a republic whose independence is irreversible. Our position is firm. Belgrade has got a different position – that Kosovo is still a part of Serbia. In the end we will have to come up with a solution,' added he."
-- See, he wins points here for at least ackowledging that agreeing to disagree is a rational (if the only) way forward. But it strikes me as odd that the same person then calls on Serbia to recognize Kosovo and defend Kosovo's "territorial integrity", even though Kosovo can't even claim legitimacy over its territory.
It's one thing to be pragmatic. It's quite something else to be dogmatic. Both words may sound the same, but they carry to entirely different connotations. The Assistant/Deputy Secretary of State should realize that because if you "agree to disagree", you're going to have to be liberal in supporting Kosovo's territorial integrity.
Who cares what Obama or the US thinks. It dead in the water and 2010 is the start of US contraction as a “world” power – even Obama was quoted as saying that this year was the beginning of major changes in the US which many of its citizens may not like.
Serbia needs to get the military back in Kosovo and police the lands.
(Another Canadian Serb, 28 January 2010 16:20)
Your friends in the east signed a resolution preventing such an event.
"Regarding the dispute about the northern, Serb part of Kosovo, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state said that America was committed to Kosovo’s “territorial integrity”."
To bad the americans were not as committed to Serbias territorial integrity!
If Kosovo is lost to the Serbs then the north is lost to the americans.
Mr. Jones:
Serbia has been fighting for it's land and freedom long before the US existed. Maybe you could learn a thing or two from Serbia's fight for freedom.
Kosovo is Serbia forever!
"Regarding the dispute about the northern, Serb part of Kosovo, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state said that America was committed to Kosovo’s “territorial integrity”."
To bad the americans were not as committed to Serbias territorial integrity!
If Kosovo is lost to the Serbs then the north is lost to the americans.
Mr. Jones:
Serbia has been fighting for it's land and freedom long before the US existed. Maybe you could learn a thing or two from Serbia's fight for freedom.
Kosovo is Serbia forever!
Who cares what Obama or the US thinks. It dead in the water and 2010 is the start of US contraction as a “world” power – even Obama was quoted as saying that this year was the beginning of major changes in the US which many of its citizens may not like.
Serbia needs to get the military back in Kosovo and police the lands.
(Another Canadian Serb, 28 January 2010 16:20)
Your friends in the east signed a resolution preventing such an event.
"'The U.S. consider Kosovo to be a republic whose independence is irreversible. Our position is firm. Belgrade has got a different position – that Kosovo is still a part of Serbia. In the end we will have to come up with a solution,' added he."
-- See, he wins points here for at least ackowledging that agreeing to disagree is a rational (if the only) way forward. But it strikes me as odd that the same person then calls on Serbia to recognize Kosovo and defend Kosovo's "territorial integrity", even though Kosovo can't even claim legitimacy over its territory.
It's one thing to be pragmatic. It's quite something else to be dogmatic. Both words may sound the same, but they carry to entirely different connotations. The Assistant/Deputy Secretary of State should realize that because if you "agree to disagree", you're going to have to be liberal in supporting Kosovo's territorial integrity.
Some of these comments he makes don't make any sense. He refers to territorial integrity only as it applies to this Kosovo project. Territorial integrity applies to all nations and should especially be important when mentioned in a UN resolution regardless of where it was mentioned at in the resolution. Serbia's claim to Kosovo is more legitimate than Kosovo's UDI. And as far as trends, 65 nations two years later doesn't look like much of a trend in Kosovo's favor. How much of this came at the expense of taxpayers having to give grants to the nations that recognized Kosovo's independence? Joining the IMF and World Bank aren't trends. Where are the UN and the EU? Those would be important trends but Kosovo can't even dream about the UN with Russia and China opposed to Kosovo's UDI. And with five EU nations against Kosovo's UDI and no visa liberalisation in the near future, I don't see Kosovo becoming a real nation. Just a failed state with corrupt politicians who promise a lot and deliver nothing.
And again: why Kosovo and not RS?
Why Kosovo and not Abkhazia?
Why Kosovo and not Tibet?
By the way: why does Georgia not recognize Kosovo? If Kosovo is a unique case, then why not?
(Ron, 29 January 2010 03:21)
Ok Ron it seems you have always same answer and same questions I will try to answer to you.
Why Kosovo not RS- In Dayton and UN resolution for Bosnia it clearly states RS can not split its written clearly there We saw this in ICJ.
Tibet - Its a very sad situation and it should be but China will not let that happen and since that would cause WW III no one is going to challenge that. Is it fair no bu this is how it has been through out History.
As for Kurds and the rest this is all different case not that their struggle is less meaningful but doe snot mean that Kosovo should stay under Serbia and be open to abuse ( as in this site you can see Serbs want Kosovo the land without Albanians)
In our life time there will not be Kosovo under Serbia, some here have said that Serbia will wait 500years and still get it this shows how people think and they cant live together.
I was in Kosovo for xmas and people there are more concerned about Job's and the corrupt govarmant than Serbia to them is a distance past and no one is concerned what VUK or any one says.
Both Gov. are keeping this in the news as a distraction to people and have someone else to blame.
And more years pass the which is 11 now there is less and less interaction and people will not care.
So ron please stop bringing other regions even Palestine is saying we dont want to balkanise the situation.
I hope this helps you and you start putting other arguments in here.
In our life time there will not be Kosovo under Serbia
(Bilbao, 29 January 2010 10:45)
You are wrong. North IS still under Serbia. Like some other enclaves.
(Milan, 29 January 2010 16:34)
Milan,
Let me remind you in case you forgot, there have not been Serbian troops in Kosova for over ten years and there will not be any in the future. That fact alone should convince any rational person that Kosova is independent, including the north. If Northern Mitrovica were under Serb rule, then there would be no Albabians living there. You can't claim Serb dominance since with help of the KPS, NATO controls all of Kosova and there will not be a change to that. Any military challenge by Serbia will be met with overwhelming force, just as it was in 1999. It should be obvious to anyone that northern Mitrovica is clearly secured and in the hands of NATO and the Kosova gov't.
-- See, he wins points here for at least ackowledging that agreeing to disagree is a rational (if the only) way forward. But it strikes me as odd that the same person then calls on Serbia to recognize Kosovo and defend Kosovo's "territorial integrity", even though Kosovo can't even claim legitimacy over its territory.
It's one thing to be pragmatic. It's quite something else to be dogmatic. Both words may sound the same, but they carry to entirely different connotations. The Assistant/Deputy Secretary of State should realize that because if you "agree to disagree", you're going to have to be liberal in supporting Kosovo's territorial integrity.
(Mike, 29 January 2010 00:13)
This is not a forum for teaching english to people. Nevertheless your logic is completely flawed. "Agreeing to disagree" means that there are other issues that Serbia and US should be talking about. However when it comes to Kosova, there is a clear disagreement including K-territorial integrity.
See, "let's agree to disagree on K-question but let's solve the other issues". The expression itself it is design to change the context while you keep blowing in the same flute hole by asking US to be "liberal towards K-integrity". Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the saying.
I hope this helps you and you start putting other arguments in here.
(Bilbao, 29 January 2010 10:45)
I see you would love nothing more than the truth go go away in the form of Ron not getting back to those questions time and time again.
Ron is right to keep reminding us of just how hypocritical America is and no, your answers do not make sense at all.
There is no reason why those other regions should not be separated if Kosovo is. Nothing new in Kosovo no matter how hard you and your masters try to say there is.
Albanians died fighting for Kosovo, but so did the Serbs. So what else have you got?
Help of KPS? That's funny. Do you really think KPS helps NATO? Or that we need their help? They are so busy taking bribes that they can't help their own people. Please, don't make untrue comments here.
Mr. Jones:
Serbia has been fighting for it's land and freedom long before the US existed. Maybe you could learn a thing or two from Serbia's fight for freedom.
Kosovo is Serbia forever!
Serbia needs to get the military back in Kosovo and police the lands.
(Another Canadian Serb, 28 January 2010 16:20)
Your friends in the east signed a resolution preventing such an event.
"Regarding the dispute about the northern, Serb part of Kosovo, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state said that America was committed to Kosovo’s “territorial integrity”."
To bad the americans were not as committed to Serbias territorial integrity!
If Kosovo is lost to the Serbs then the north is lost to the americans.
And again: why Kosovo and not RS?
Why Kosovo and not Abkhazia?
Why Kosovo and not Tibet?
By the way: why does Georgia not recognize Kosovo? If Kosovo is a unique case, then why not?
(Ron, 29 January 2010 03:21)
Ok Ron it seems you have always same answer and same questions I will try to answer to you.
Why Kosovo not RS- In Dayton and UN resolution for Bosnia it clearly states RS can not split its written clearly there We saw this in ICJ.
Tibet - Its a very sad situation and it should be but China will not let that happen and since that would cause WW III no one is going to challenge that. Is it fair no bu this is how it has been through out History.
As for Kurds and the rest this is all different case not that their struggle is less meaningful but doe snot mean that Kosovo should stay under Serbia and be open to abuse ( as in this site you can see Serbs want Kosovo the land without Albanians)
In our life time there will not be Kosovo under Serbia, some here have said that Serbia will wait 500years and still get it this shows how people think and they cant live together.
I was in Kosovo for xmas and people there are more concerned about Job's and the corrupt govarmant than Serbia to them is a distance past and no one is concerned what VUK or any one says.
Both Gov. are keeping this in the news as a distraction to people and have someone else to blame.
And more years pass the which is 11 now there is less and less interaction and people will not care.
So ron please stop bringing other regions even Palestine is saying we dont want to balkanise the situation.
I hope this helps you and you start putting other arguments in here.
-- See, he wins points here for at least ackowledging that agreeing to disagree is a rational (if the only) way forward. But it strikes me as odd that the same person then calls on Serbia to recognize Kosovo and defend Kosovo's "territorial integrity", even though Kosovo can't even claim legitimacy over its territory.
It's one thing to be pragmatic. It's quite something else to be dogmatic. Both words may sound the same, but they carry to entirely different connotations. The Assistant/Deputy Secretary of State should realize that because if you "agree to disagree", you're going to have to be liberal in supporting Kosovo's territorial integrity.
(Mike, 29 January 2010 00:13)
This is not a forum for teaching english to people. Nevertheless your logic is completely flawed. "Agreeing to disagree" means that there are other issues that Serbia and US should be talking about. However when it comes to Kosova, there is a clear disagreement including K-territorial integrity.
See, "let's agree to disagree on K-question but let's solve the other issues". The expression itself it is design to change the context while you keep blowing in the same flute hole by asking US to be "liberal towards K-integrity". Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the saying.
Who cares what Obama or the US thinks. It dead in the water and 2010 is the start of US contraction as a “world” power – even Obama was quoted as saying that this year was the beginning of major changes in the US which many of its citizens may not like.
Some of these comments he makes don't make any sense. He refers to territorial integrity only as it applies to this Kosovo project. Territorial integrity applies to all nations and should especially be important when mentioned in a UN resolution regardless of where it was mentioned at in the resolution. Serbia's claim to Kosovo is more legitimate than Kosovo's UDI. And as far as trends, 65 nations two years later doesn't look like much of a trend in Kosovo's favor. How much of this came at the expense of taxpayers having to give grants to the nations that recognized Kosovo's independence? Joining the IMF and World Bank aren't trends. Where are the UN and the EU? Those would be important trends but Kosovo can't even dream about the UN with Russia and China opposed to Kosovo's UDI. And with five EU nations against Kosovo's UDI and no visa liberalisation in the near future, I don't see Kosovo becoming a real nation. Just a failed state with corrupt politicians who promise a lot and deliver nothing.
"'The U.S. consider Kosovo to be a republic whose independence is irreversible. Our position is firm. Belgrade has got a different position – that Kosovo is still a part of Serbia. In the end we will have to come up with a solution,' added he."
-- See, he wins points here for at least ackowledging that agreeing to disagree is a rational (if the only) way forward. But it strikes me as odd that the same person then calls on Serbia to recognize Kosovo and defend Kosovo's "territorial integrity", even though Kosovo can't even claim legitimacy over its territory.
It's one thing to be pragmatic. It's quite something else to be dogmatic. Both words may sound the same, but they carry to entirely different connotations. The Assistant/Deputy Secretary of State should realize that because if you "agree to disagree", you're going to have to be liberal in supporting Kosovo's territorial integrity.
In our life time there will not be Kosovo under Serbia
(Bilbao, 29 January 2010 10:45)
You are wrong. North IS still under Serbia. Like some other enclaves.
(Milan, 29 January 2010 16:34)
Milan,
Let me remind you in case you forgot, there have not been Serbian troops in Kosova for over ten years and there will not be any in the future. That fact alone should convince any rational person that Kosova is independent, including the north. If Northern Mitrovica were under Serb rule, then there would be no Albabians living there. You can't claim Serb dominance since with help of the KPS, NATO controls all of Kosova and there will not be a change to that. Any military challenge by Serbia will be met with overwhelming force, just as it was in 1999. It should be obvious to anyone that northern Mitrovica is clearly secured and in the hands of NATO and the Kosova gov't.
Help of KPS? That's funny. Do you really think KPS helps NATO? Or that we need their help? They are so busy taking bribes that they can't help their own people. Please, don't make untrue comments here.
I hope this helps you and you start putting other arguments in here.
(Bilbao, 29 January 2010 10:45)
I see you would love nothing more than the truth go go away in the form of Ron not getting back to those questions time and time again.
Ron is right to keep reminding us of just how hypocritical America is and no, your answers do not make sense at all.
There is no reason why those other regions should not be separated if Kosovo is. Nothing new in Kosovo no matter how hard you and your masters try to say there is.
Albanians died fighting for Kosovo, but so did the Serbs. So what else have you got?
IMAGE SOURCE
18 Komentari
Sortiraj po: