“Solving of Kosovo issue is Serbia’s priority”

US/EU/NATO want Serbia to betray Kosovo Serbs.

I am impressed of Kosovo Serbs' heroic struggle for their land and freedom.

Some common sense at last.

Finally the right man for the job.. well said. And may God watch over you and all the Serbs in Kosovo in the years to come. These albos dont want to compromise..fine.. throw it right back in their face.

Bob, 24 July 2012 13:54)
Which UNSC member was under duress at the time??
(a New Day, 25 July 2012 03:24)

Russia was under duress.
(aaayyy)
-------------------------------
Serbs need to expand their population considerably - without sending vast numbers abroad - and so then the population pressure from Albania can be countered.
(Bob, 24 July 2012 13:54)

And who’s going to feed those additional mouths, dear… Didn’t you see the tragic news yesterday that there are already 10000 children in Serbia who have only one meal per day? You want to add thousands of other children to that ?
(icj1, 25 July 2012 05:14)

Very noble of icj1 to care only about Serbian children. Somehow icj1 doesn't care who always has to feed so many additional Albanian mouths.

Nice picture of him. I clicked on the article just because of the picture.

"Finding a solution for Kosovo is a priority." And what exactly does that mean? The only acceptable "solution" is the reestablishment of Serbian authority in Serbia's southern province. Since that is undeniably years away, what's the rush? What the statement is, is code for partition. So is "a united position on Kosovo." What united position could exist with the DS and the LDP? Let us be honest about what is happening, delusion is a luxury the Serbian people can not afford at this moment.

To a New Day:

I DID read the Rambouillet Accords, did you?
(aaayyy)
------------------------------
it was to allow the Albanians the to self govern within Yugoslavia
(a New Day)

the negotiations have led to a consensus on substantial autonomy for Kosovo, including on mechanisms for free and fair elections to democratic institutions, for the governance of Kosovo, for the protection of human rights and the rights of members of national communities; and for the establishment of a fair judicial system.

On 23 March, the Serbian assembly accepted the principle of autonomy for Kosovo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Agreement

So Albanians were allowed to self govern. Serbia DID make an action that gave more than the faintest hint that an Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia.
(aaayyy)
-----------------------
origninal goal was never to TAKE land away
(a New Day)

Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities,...
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html

It means referendum in three years = Kosovo independence. So the original goal WAS to take the land away.

same old crap, same old bs .... what a waste ...

Russia was under duress.
(aaayyy)
Don't know if this was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment, but Russia was under duress at the time (of its own doing) not from the bombing, but you cannot discount 1244 because of Russian problems. They still held veto power if they disagreed with it.
But Bob was implying that Serbia was under duress from the bombing in which he erroneously said when Serbia signed it. But the fact is at the end of every war the losing side is under duress when they sign an agreement to end the war.

Keep on "digging" for the kind of solutions.....within Serbia's constitution as you will find in your lifetime....I doubt. Look at the peaceful Vojvodina....they are loving Serbian constitution.....))))

To a New Day:

Just read NATO's explanation - it wasn't war for new territories, actually it wasn't war at all - it was gumanitarian operation. If NATO seizes new territory as a result of humanitarian operation - then what is the difference between an agressive war over lands and a humanitarion operation?

Just read NATO's explanation - it wasn't war for new territories, actually it wasn't war at all - it was gumanitarian operation. If NATO seizes new territory as a result of humanitarian operation - then what is the difference between an agressive war over lands and a humanitarion operation?
(aaayyy, 25 July 2012, 21:06)
That would be if the reason for war was just to acquire the land. However, why would we be at year 13, they could have pushed that through in year 2 when Russia still in chaos. This is just one of the many motives that blind Serbs use to deny the fact that the bombing was actually a humanitarian act. IF you read the Rambouillet Accords the origninal goal was never to TAKE land away, it was to allow the Albanians the to self govern within Yugoslavia, comprised of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo. 2 things ended that, the montenegro-Serbia split and the fact that Serbia has never ever, even remotely made an action that gave the faintest hint that an Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia.
The first thing you need to do is realize the campaign was not to place Bondsteel, it was not to make the land a NATO state, it was not for the mines, it was not for the pipelines, it was because Milosevic's plan was to rid Kosovo of all Albanians, by whatever means needed. Then you can see reality.

Serbia has never ever, even remotely made an action that gave the faintest hint that an Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia.

(a New Day, 25 July 2012, 21:35)

Why do you lie? Since 1999 Serbia has been doing everything possible to assure everybody that BTW not-only-Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia. Do you remember "more than autonomy, less than independence" proposal? According to you Tadic wasn't democratic leader? He DID offer several proposals concerning Kosovo.

Why do you lie? Since 1999 Serbia has been doing everything possible to assure everybody that BTW not-only-Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia. Do you remember "more than autonomy, less than independence" proposal? According to you Tadic wasn't democratic leader? He DID offer several proposals concerning Kosovo.
(aaayyy, 26 July 2012, 00:38)
I guess that question would be the one I would ask you. Why do you lie? I remember the more than autonomy less than independence, it was a phrase without meaning that suddenly popped up after the UN declared that further negotiations were futile and the Kosovo authorities had already announced their intent at a unilateral DOI. It did not appear any where in the negotiations. Also no one, not a single person in Serbia govt or civilian has ever defined what that means. Also Rambouillet says nothing of any referendum.
As far as Serbia agreeing to autonomy for Kosovo but rejected any type of military presence to insure it. Everyone knew this was simply a stall tactic by Milosevic to get NATO to not act and give him more time to expell the Albanians. Without insurance by a military presence Serbia would have never lived up to such an agreement.

same old crap, same old bs .... what a waste ...

Keep on "digging" for the kind of solutions.....within Serbia's constitution as you will find in your lifetime....I doubt. Look at the peaceful Vojvodina....they are loving Serbian constitution.....))))

Just read NATO's explanation - it wasn't war for new territories, actually it wasn't war at all - it was gumanitarian operation. If NATO seizes new territory as a result of humanitarian operation - then what is the difference between an agressive war over lands and a humanitarion operation?
(aaayyy, 25 July 2012, 21:06)
That would be if the reason for war was just to acquire the land. However, why would we be at year 13, they could have pushed that through in year 2 when Russia still in chaos. This is just one of the many motives that blind Serbs use to deny the fact that the bombing was actually a humanitarian act. IF you read the Rambouillet Accords the origninal goal was never to TAKE land away, it was to allow the Albanians the to self govern within Yugoslavia, comprised of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo. 2 things ended that, the montenegro-Serbia split and the fact that Serbia has never ever, even remotely made an action that gave the faintest hint that an Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia.
The first thing you need to do is realize the campaign was not to place Bondsteel, it was not to make the land a NATO state, it was not for the mines, it was not for the pipelines, it was because Milosevic's plan was to rid Kosovo of all Albanians, by whatever means needed. Then you can see reality.

Bob, 24 July 2012 13:54)
Which UNSC member was under duress at the time??
(a New Day, 25 July 2012 03:24)

Russia was under duress.
(aaayyy)
-------------------------------
Serbs need to expand their population considerably - without sending vast numbers abroad - and so then the population pressure from Albania can be countered.
(Bob, 24 July 2012 13:54)

And who’s going to feed those additional mouths, dear… Didn’t you see the tragic news yesterday that there are already 10000 children in Serbia who have only one meal per day? You want to add thousands of other children to that ?
(icj1, 25 July 2012 05:14)

Very noble of icj1 to care only about Serbian children. Somehow icj1 doesn't care who always has to feed so many additional Albanian mouths.

Serbia has never ever, even remotely made an action that gave the faintest hint that an Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia.

(a New Day, 25 July 2012, 21:35)

Why do you lie? Since 1999 Serbia has been doing everything possible to assure everybody that BTW not-only-Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia. Do you remember "more than autonomy, less than independence" proposal? According to you Tadic wasn't democratic leader? He DID offer several proposals concerning Kosovo.

Some common sense at last.

US/EU/NATO want Serbia to betray Kosovo Serbs.

I am impressed of Kosovo Serbs' heroic struggle for their land and freedom.

Russia was under duress.
(aaayyy)
Don't know if this was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment, but Russia was under duress at the time (of its own doing) not from the bombing, but you cannot discount 1244 because of Russian problems. They still held veto power if they disagreed with it.
But Bob was implying that Serbia was under duress from the bombing in which he erroneously said when Serbia signed it. But the fact is at the end of every war the losing side is under duress when they sign an agreement to end the war.

Nice picture of him. I clicked on the article just because of the picture.

Finally the right man for the job.. well said. And may God watch over you and all the Serbs in Kosovo in the years to come. These albos dont want to compromise..fine.. throw it right back in their face.

To a New Day:

Just read NATO's explanation - it wasn't war for new territories, actually it wasn't war at all - it was gumanitarian operation. If NATO seizes new territory as a result of humanitarian operation - then what is the difference between an agressive war over lands and a humanitarion operation?

"Finding a solution for Kosovo is a priority." And what exactly does that mean? The only acceptable "solution" is the reestablishment of Serbian authority in Serbia's southern province. Since that is undeniably years away, what's the rush? What the statement is, is code for partition. So is "a united position on Kosovo." What united position could exist with the DS and the LDP? Let us be honest about what is happening, delusion is a luxury the Serbian people can not afford at this moment.

To a New Day:

I DID read the Rambouillet Accords, did you?
(aaayyy)
------------------------------
it was to allow the Albanians the to self govern within Yugoslavia
(a New Day)

the negotiations have led to a consensus on substantial autonomy for Kosovo, including on mechanisms for free and fair elections to democratic institutions, for the governance of Kosovo, for the protection of human rights and the rights of members of national communities; and for the establishment of a fair judicial system.

On 23 March, the Serbian assembly accepted the principle of autonomy for Kosovo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Agreement

So Albanians were allowed to self govern. Serbia DID make an action that gave more than the faintest hint that an Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia.
(aaayyy)
-----------------------
origninal goal was never to TAKE land away
(a New Day)

Three years after the entry into force of this Agreement, an international meeting shall be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo, on the basis of the will of the people, opinions of relevant authorities,...
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html

It means referendum in three years = Kosovo independence. So the original goal WAS to take the land away.

Why do you lie? Since 1999 Serbia has been doing everything possible to assure everybody that BTW not-only-Albanian Kosovo would be allowed to exist within Serbia. Do you remember "more than autonomy, less than independence" proposal? According to you Tadic wasn't democratic leader? He DID offer several proposals concerning Kosovo.
(aaayyy, 26 July 2012, 00:38)
I guess that question would be the one I would ask you. Why do you lie? I remember the more than autonomy less than independence, it was a phrase without meaning that suddenly popped up after the UN declared that further negotiations were futile and the Kosovo authorities had already announced their intent at a unilateral DOI. It did not appear any where in the negotiations. Also no one, not a single person in Serbia govt or civilian has ever defined what that means. Also Rambouillet says nothing of any referendum.
As far as Serbia agreeing to autonomy for Kosovo but rejected any type of military presence to insure it. Everyone knew this was simply a stall tactic by Milosevic to get NATO to not act and give him more time to expell the Albanians. Without insurance by a military presence Serbia would have never lived up to such an agreement.