Dodik: Referendum to go ahead, Serbia picked wrong partner

This will cause a new war. Albos and bosnas have thousands of ISIS fighters on their side thistime. We all know 110 percent will vote yes.
(dontdoit, 4 November 2015 16:45)
===============================
Sure, be scared and be forever under Islam's control. That's exactly what you just said. Are we all supposed to just shut up and not upset Muslims in any way just so that they would leave us alone, even in our own countries? Western governments all over the world have already capitulated to Islam and that's a shame but someone has to put a stop to it.

Great news.

Bosnia is a fake state where the majority of individuals (Serbs + Croats) do not want to live.

This sentiment began in the 90's when non-Serbs decided to succeed from Yugoslavia.

BBB = Bye, Bye, Bosnia

This will cause a new war. Albos and bosnas have thousands of ISIS fighters on their side thistime. We all know 110 percent will vote yes.
(dontdoit, 4 November 2015 16:45)

You have been watching too many movies. Loved the part about thousands of ISIS fighters. Who do you think they are? supermen?
The Serbs have not made this announcement without the green light from Moscow mate.

Peggy "Do you really think that Muslims should have Bosnia at the expense of others"? NO I DO NOT; READ WHAT I WRITE!! I have made it very clear to anyone who understands basic English that I believe the country should be governed for the benefit of all not in the interests of one group or another. Bosniaks and Croats would tell you that what you are implying was exactly how Milosevic wanted to run Yugoslavia, in the narrow interests of Serbs at the expense of all others. The idea that life was 'better' for Muslims or Croats under the previous regime is not one that many would agree with in downtown Sarajevo or Zagreb. You seem to ignore the fact that Serbs constitute 33-35% of Bosnia's population but control 49% of the territory. The fact that you think this is somehow unfair says a lot. Please disagree with what I write but not with what I don't write.

Dodik has this strange idea that outsiders want a unitary Bosnia; they do not. They want a stable Bosnia where each national group respects the others even when they disagree. Dodik continually talks about BiH as a failed state as if he has been sat on the side-lines watching it fail rather than being an active participate in creating a series of logjams. He does not want the country to make progress on the road to EU or NATO membership because this would end his dream of an independent state once and for all. I wouldn't be worried about the Russian reaction to a potential loan from the US, I would be worried about the concessions that they (the US) will seek in lending the money.

He is Right !.

Future Serbia will come from the Serb entity in Bosnia.

Arn.Sweden.

Thank you Dodik for explaining the soft-headed Vucic's trip to Sarajevo.

Republika Srpska must be consulted when any deals are made with bosnia and in the balkans in general...

Serbian economic policy should always include RS as it is just as important as beograde... RS is a Serb entity in Bosnia and is able to create positive outcomes for all Serbs and people in the balkans... The power of RS should not be underestimated, and together RS, Serbia and Bosnia can create a very prosperous region where all slavic people can live in peace, work together and build again what was destroyed...

Without RS, No one can move forward, so it is imperative that we remain united, we move forward together, we do not look back, we see a future where we can all benefit, a future which will dwarf anything we have done before, our strength comes from our unity and together we will move forward and create something bigger and better that any Serb in our history has done before...

We now go forth, we will prosper, no Serb will be left behind...

Factman: ".and achieving your goals....". I don't have any goals other than to see my many friends in Bosnia of all national backgrounds work together to try to provide economic stability and continuing peace. I'm not interested in raking over the past as this will achieve nothing except a continuation of the present stalemate. Izetbegovic needs to accept the two entity structure as does Dodik. The idea promulgated today by Bakir that Vucic should have been recognising Srebrenica as genocide during his visit to Sarajevo shows that he has no real idea of the priorities that Bosnians have in their daily lives. They don't spend all day discussing the pros and cons of a unitary state or a breakaway of the RS. They are worried about jobs, food on the table, a clean environment, good quality healthcare for which one doesn't have to bribe the doctor, wide ranging education for their children that doesn't focus on historic animosities but prepares those children for the modern world.....and so on.

Dodik has the same priority today as he has always had: Milorad Dodik. Why is it that when he was PM almost no-one knew who the President of the RS was and now that he is the President almost no-one knows who the Prime Minister is and even if they do, this site NEVER carries that person's words?

Forget independence, forget a unitary state and forget a third entity. Get on and do everything possible to make daily life more bearable for everyone.

Njegos: How Serbs came to have control of 49% of the territory was not the point I was making. I was saying that it is hard to conclude that Serbs have had their land taken away, as suggested by Peggy, when you see this division of, as you put it, the spoils. You are suggesting that far from having be cheated out of their heritage the Serbs did well out of the settlement; I agree. The 1974 Constitution was unclear whether there was a right to unilateral secession as there had been in previous constitutions, saying that such a right belonged to "the nations of Jugoslavia". A precedent had been set by Slovenia and then Croatia with the consequence that others felt threatened by their isolation in trying to hold back Milosevic's plans for Serb hegemony. I don't begrudge the Bosnian Serbs the RS, but I take issue with the implication that they have been hard done to.

Njegos: I have never hurled insults, unless you have incredibly thin skin. The Badinter Commission gave a series of opinions, they did not create international law. In the case of Croatia, the Commission had concerns about minority rights. Upon receiving assurances about this deficit the EU recognised Croatia in Aug 1991. Bosnia had not held their referendum at this point so clearly the point was moot for them. With Macedonia and Slovenia the commission recommended acceptance of the requests for recognition. As can be seen by this, each case was assessed on its merits. A number of legal judgements have deemed that no secession was involved and that former Yugoslavia 'desolved'. Having desolved its territorial integrity could not be violated. The ICJ ruled, upon request for an opinion by Serbia itself forwarded by the UNGA, that the Kosovo declaration of independence did not breach international law and so recognition could not have done so either. Nothing is ever black or white in international law but getting back to the first point made, no UN resolution is required for recognition of a new country.

This will cause a new war. Albos and bosnas have thousands of ISIS fighters on their side thistime. We all know 110 percent will vote yes.

Dodik is right, be done with the fake creation called Bosna and finish the final chapter of Yu destruction. If old Yugoslavia could not work Bosnia will certainly fail too. It is just matter of time.

For Ned Taylor,

That is a rather one sided analysis.

You really dont understand the Serb mindset.

The Serb position is dictated by 3 things:

1. The breakup of Yugoslavia was very unfair and disrespectful to Serbs. Historic Serb lands were written away with the brush of a diplomat's pen based in Berlin and Rome. Territories which came into Yugoslavia with less square miles..... emerged with more square miles.

2. The central hypocrisy that "everyone else" had the right to succeed from Yugoslavia.... except for Serbs. And then, a yet greater hypocrisy, to support the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and then cynically seek to recreate a fake Yugoslavia in Bosnia. And then the final hypocrisy of Kosovo.

3. The 25 year demonization of all Serb people in all media across the world in order to mask one's own complicity in the violent dismembermenet of Yugoslavia.

Now, after all that, and achieving your goals, you want Serbs to forgive and forget what was done to them, and to be reconciled with the ongoing racism against them, and play nice?

Forget it.

First Establish a real Truth and Reconcilliation Commmission (without outside interference) that begins with the events of the 1930's and then lets talk about reconcilliation.

Until then it is BBB = Bye, Bye, Bosnia

(factman, 5 November 2015 15:19)
Your post is a bit confusing, you say everyone had the right to succeed from Yugoslavia other than Serbs.
It was the Serbs that wanted to stop everyone else from succeeding. If Serbia would have just succeeded themselves and went their own way then Yugoslavia may have lasted a bit longer, but it was doomed to fail. It was Serbs or Serbia that wanted to keep Yugo intact but with Serbs as the masters of the subhumans.
Apparently you have traveled outside or live outside of Serbia but yet you still have that "master race" mentality.
When you make statements like the negative image Serbia has been given for 25 years from the rest of the world should at least open your eyes a little.
If you go into a room and you find fault with one or two people that is normal, but if you walk out of the room because you cannot get along with any of them then it is time to look inward for the problem.

And the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law.
(njegos, 6 November 2015 22:26)

Hmm, where is this "international law" written that a UN Resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B? Or is this the Serbian "international law"?! The BS you guys come up with is truly amazing!!!

1. The breakup of Yugoslavia was very unfair and disrespectful to Serbs. Historic Serb lands were written away with the brush of a diplomat's pen based in Berlin and Rome. Territories which came into Yugoslavia with less square miles..... emerged with more square miles.
(factman, 5 November 2015 15:19)

Serbs should have thought about that when they wanted Yugoslavia to be created after WWI with the dream of making it a Serbian Empire. Unfortunately for them things didn't turn out that way and Serbs ended up shooting themselves on the foot!

Why serbs support such a genocidal entity but do not accept kosovo? They call bosnia fake even though bosnia has a colorful history on the balkan but font call the RS fake which is a recent genocidal creation, the fact is RS will be eliminated, like it or not, if need be eliminated the same way it was created, if war is to come it will be a war started by serbs like dodik.

Njegos: Your point about UN resolutions was initially made about countries prematurely recognising Croatian, Slovenian and Bosnian independence. ICJ pointed out that no such resolution was required for one country to recognise another and he/she is of course correct in that. You then replied by changing the issue and thus the argument from one about recognition to whether or not a country can bomb another without a resolution. I am not sufficiently up on UN protocol to answer this question but that is not the point. You were caught out by ICJ and had the option of admitting that you were wrong or scrabbling about trying to find an entirely different issue to debate. My children do this, when they are losing an argument they completely change the subject. For the record I believed that the bombing of Serbia in 1999 was wrong at the time and still do now.

Njegos,

It is useless to engage icj1.
(factman, 8 November 2015 06:51)

Yup! He/she stands no chance lol not that you are faring any better :)

Ned Taylor: First, you did try to insult me when you drew an analogy to my comments with that of your children when they're losing an argument. No problem though, I can give it as good as I can take it.

Next, do you see the absurdity of your comments. You said that the Badinter Committee was formed to give opinions. Next you said that it was decided that Yugoslavia dissolved, therefore no secession took place. So, I guess if Germany decides to recognize Catalonia, Spain would be considered to be dissolved rather than Catalonia seceding, right? Or, perhaps if Italy recognized Istria and Dalmatia as separate countries then Croatia would be considered to have dissolved in your little mind. How utterly ridiculous.

The fact of the matter was that Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia & Croatia, their historical allies, and the rest of the dominos, read Bosnia, began to fall. No regard was paid to the Yugoslav constitution nor the Helsinki Accords which you conveniently failed to address.

When the ones making the rules, ie Germany & the US, break the rules, they are not held accountable. The weasel wording regarding secession vs dissolving is appalling and was done by Germany & the US to cover up their transgressions. As I mentioned earlier, Madeleine Albright even said international law was broken.

Maybe you and your buddy icj can come up with a better story, although I think the level of discussion has eclipsed the limited brain power he has already.

Factman: How does harping back to Ottoman times help anyone today? I am talking about peaceful co-existence and reconciliation and you are talking about "chickens coming home to roost"; there seems little point continuing this discussion.

Soon, all their neighbors will get exactly what they asked for and will seek to be day laborers for a few dinars a day to send back to their decrepit ghettos.
(factman, 8 November 2015 06:24)

Sure, and there is also a chance that soon an asteriod might hit the Earth and send us all to the creator... so let's live the present as much as we can :)

it's difficult to keep them all straight.
(njegos, 8 November 2015 18:29)

I hear you! It's very difficult to keep BS and lies straight and coherent!
----------

And the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law.
(njegos, 6 November 2015 22:26)

Hmm, where is this "international law" written that a UN Resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B? Or is this the Serbian "international law"?! The BS you guys come up with is truly amazing!!!
(icj1, 7 November 2015 01:25)

Now, back to icj's claim that international law wasn't broken when Bosnia was prematurely recognized. It most definitely was. Please pay attention:
(njegos, 8 November 2015 18:29)

You did not show any international law requiring that a UN resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B. This is very simple mate. You need to quote a legal document word-for-word that prohibits country A from recognizing country B without a UN resolution. You don't have to write a lengthy ramble on historical lectures as that's not a legal document.

I loved btw how you "authoritatively" stated that "thus, internatonal law was broken" without having shown a single article of international law that was allegedly broken!

Bosnia is referred to as a mini Yugoslavia because the Serbs, Croats and Muslims all live together in one country and each ethnic group has their own part which they govern...

It is interesting what Tito said in a comment below, to finish the yugoslav war off... The situation in Bosnia is a frozen conflict just as Kosovo is, which is why peacekeepers are still in the country as war can break out again... But this does not have to be the case, there is other ways to achieve an outcome which is beneficial to all...

Now let's take the case of China and Taiwan... Taiwan was recognised as a country after WWII, believe it or not, Taiwan was also part of the United Nations... But then something happened, Taiwan as a nation ceased to exist and do you know why? It was because China became to influential, to powerful, China opened up to the world and demanded that Taiwan be recognised as a part of China and that's exactly what happened... Taiwan is not a country and the Chinese have a saying for this "one country, two systems"...

Serbia can do exactly the same thing as China, we do not need a war to fix these problems, these things must be done delicately, like slicing a salami very thinly... Eventually you will have sliced all the salami.. Bosnia is not going anywhere, we have time...
Look how long the USSR and America were in a Cold War for, eventually things will turn out how we want without a confrontation, just like the Cold War and just like China and Taiwan...

Croats and Serbs are free to 'secede' any time they like. I'll even drive them to the border if they don't have a car.

Njegos: Although formally part of the same country, the majority of Serbs and Bosniaks already live separately so I don't believe that the break out of hostilities is inevitable. It only becomes so when leaders refuse to accept the status quo and push unilaterally for something beyond Dayton whether that be a unitary state or independence. The RS was not part of any Jugoslav constitution and therefore at no point in history has there been any formalised right of secession. Personally, I would ask Dodik and friends to identify 35% of BiH (corresponding to their share of the population) that they would like for their new country and then negotiate a separation. The international argument has always been about not rewarding ethnic cleansing/genocide so this way the RS would have to give up something (14% of their land) to achieve their goal. Of course this won't happen and neither will the unitary state. I'm not sure that even Vucic would want an independent RS with Dodik as kingpin of new neighbouring country.

From icj: "Serbs should have thought about that when they wanted Yugoslavia to be created after WWI with the dream of making it a Serbian Empire. Unfortunately for them things didn't turn out that way and Serbs ended up shooting themselves on the foot!"

icj, your paranoia about Serbs wanting to create a Greater Serbia dating back to WWI is comical. This seems to be the convenient argument when you guys disregard historical facts. The fact is that the Serbs could have created a Greater Serbia after WWI, but didn't. Instead, they accepted the defeated Croats into the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats & Slovenes only to be back stabbed by them as they sabotaged the country from day one.
(njegos, 7 November 2015 17:11)

Exactly. We're saying the same thing. Serbs shoot themselves on the foot by creating a country with Croats and Slovenes because of their dreams of grandeur and hoping to create a Serbian Empire. But, yes, it backfired. That's where greed leads...
----------

As an Albanian, discussions about war is lost on you as your countrymen assimilated with every occupier that ever crossed your path.
(njegos, 7 November 2015 17:11)

Not sure who are "my" countrymen you are referring too. The Serbs?
----------

Now you're trying to claim Serbian churches in Kosovo as yours. Shameful.
(njegos, 7 November 2015 17:11)

Where did I claim the Serbian churches as mine? And for what purpose I'd claim something worthless for me?!

Peaceful coexistence and reconciliation is great. I am all for it.

When will a real truth and reconciliation commission without foreign involvement be created? And will it begin with the events of 1941 (which are still unacknowledged and white-washed) and examine the background of the events in Srebrenica?

Do you support this same reconciliation for Kosovo? Croatia? When will the ethnically cleansed return to those places?

The former brethren of Yugoslavia all pursue a Titoist policy of a weak and broken Serbia because they need that to prosper and distinguish themselves going forward --- because they are not economically capable to create prosperity for their people.

Serbs are now doing it for Serbs - what they should have done in 1919 instead of investing so much equity in Yugoslavia (and people's who had no interest in it to begin with)

Factman: Firstly it is possible to be reconciled to the past without having commissions, especially as they are historically expensive and without foreign funding I doubt that anyone would want to pick up the tab. As a matter of principle, no, I am not against a commission if its remit and composition can be agreed upon by all parties involved. The point of such commissions is that they call witnesses who were involved as perpetrators or victims to give evidence and often offer immunity to those taking part. It would be virtually impossible to hold such a commission for the events of 1941 simply because most people would either be dead or would have been too young at the time for their evidence to be credible 75 years later. 2nd and 3rd hand accounts along the lines of "my father/grandfather told me that............." would not be acceptable at such a commission anymore than hearsay is in a criminal trial. Whilst I would not for a minute expect those who lost loved ones in 1941/1995/1999 to forget what happened, dwelling endlessly on the past achieves nothing. You can't change yesterday but you can affect tomorrow.

To icj & Ned Taylor: Forgive me for changing the subject when I referred to the illegal bombing of Serbia & Montenegro as an act which violated international law. You see, so many international laws were violated it's difficult to keep them all straight.

Now, back to icj's claim that international law wasn't broken when Bosnia was prematurely recognized. It most definitely was. Please pay attention: When Croatia & Slovenia declared their independence in 1991, the US was initially against the breakup of Yugoslavia. Germany on the other hand, supported the breakup. The EU then set up the Badinter Committee which established certain criteria which had to be met before a member country could be dismembered. Before the committee was able to complete their due diligence, they were disregarded by Germany and recognition was granted to Croatia & Slovenia on December 23, 1991 by Germany violating the conditions set forth by the EU as it pertains to the breakup of EU countries. Thus, international law was broken. Additionally, the Helsinki Accord was also violated as the international sovereignty of a signer to this agreement was violated when the constitution of Yugoslavia was completely disregarded.

You both need to go back and research the topics you choose to comment on before hurling insults at the people you're debating. Your lack of education on the subject matter renders you both loudmouths with no credibility. Back to the books for you two.

To Ned Taylor: The next time your kids change the subject, don't assume they're losing an argument. Pay attention, you might learn something.

Forget independence, forget a unitary state and forget a third entity. Get on and do everything possible to make daily life more bearable for everyone.
(ned taylor, 5 November 2015 18:28)
========================
Sure, now that the west has taken everything away from the Serbs you expect Serbs to be OK with RS being engulfed in Bosnia too for the sake of unity.
Do you really think that is fair?
Where were you during the 90s to tell them to forget about breaking away and stay together for a better life? Do you really think that Muslims should have Bosnia at the expense of others? If you think that Bosnia should function well for everyone's sake why don't you think Yugoslavia should've been left intact for the same reason?
Do you think that Serbs deserved to be chased off their land in Croatia and parts of Bosnia only to give what is left too?
You either don't want to understand how things were and are for Serbs because of bias towards the others or can't because you have never been in their shoes.

To icj: A UN Resolution is needed before a UN member country can bomb another UN member country or any country for that matter. The bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro) was done without a UN Resolution. Even Madeleine Albright said that international law was broken. Are you saying she is lying too? She is as pro-Albanian and anti-Serb as you can get. Are you telling me that international law was not broken? Please comment icj.

From icj: "Serbs should have thought about that when they wanted Yugoslavia to be created after WWI with the dream of making it a Serbian Empire. Unfortunately for them things didn't turn out that way and Serbs ended up shooting themselves on the foot!"

icj, your paranoia about Serbs wanting to create a Greater Serbia dating back to WWI is comical. This seems to be the convenient argument when you guys disregard historical facts. The fact is that the Serbs could have created a Greater Serbia after WWI, but didn't. Instead, they accepted the defeated Croats into the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats & Slovenes only to be back stabbed by them as they sabotaged the country from day one. King Peter had 3 sons, Aleksander, Andreij and Tomislav. He gave one a Serbian name, one a Croat name and the third a Slovene name. Does this sound like something a proponent of a Greater Serbia would do? I think not. Moreover, the Serbian population was decimated after the war. They lost 30% of their entire population and nearly 50% of their male population. They were in no position to create a greater anything. As an Albanian, discussions about war is lost on you as your countrymen assimilated with every occupier that ever crossed your path. Thus we have Albanian Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim Albanians with no trace of a culture anywhere. Now you're trying to claim Serbian churches in Kosovo as yours. Shameful.

And the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law.
(njegos, 6 November 2015 22:26)

Hmm, where is this "international law" written that a UN Resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B? Or is this the Serbian "international law"?! The BS you guys come up with is truly amazing!!!
(icj1, 7 November 2015 01:25)

To icj: A UN Resolution is needed before a UN member country can bomb another UN member country or any country for that matter. The bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro) was done without a UN Resolution. Even Madeleine Albright said that international law was broken. Are you saying she is lying too? She is as pro-Albanian and anti-Serb as you can get. Are you telling me that international law was not broken? Please comment icj.
(njegos, 7 November 2015 16:51)

Hey mate, you appear to have some reading comprehension challenges to the point of not understanding your own writings. You were talking about "US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law" and I replied to what you wrote.

What does that have to do with the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999?!

Icj1,

I couldn't agree more. A great, great comment.

But Serbs won't make that same mistake again.

Soon, all their neighbors will get exactly what they asked for and will seek to be day laborers for a few dinars a day to send back to their decrepit ghettos.

You no doubt will bring into question Serbia's current economy. But, one should not boast if that is the worst that could be accomplished after 25 years of all forms of sanction and racism.

Njegos,

It is useless to engage icj1.

Soon good old-fashioned economic competition will push the former republics and territories deeper into the muck they first created for themselves.

Kosovo, Montenegro, and Bosnia will never become modern economies. Croatia is nothing but a big resort selling discounted room nights to tourists chasing newer places to vacation. Macedonia may surprise us and pull itself out. Slovenia will stay stuck.

If we're smart at that time, we'll make very big fences to keep them out.

Njegos: If several of the Spanish regions simultaneously decided that they were breaking away from Spain then yes, I think it would be fair to say that the country had dissolved. Only Montenegro showed any interest in remaining within Jugoslavia with a majority wanting out. It was simply not sustainable to continue with the illusion of a single united country run for the benefit of all. As for Madeleine Albright, she is of course entitled to an opinion but I think you will find that amongst international diplomats she was in a minority.

I would have thought that given the clear mutual animosity between Serbs and their former Jugoslav colleagues you would be pleased to be rid of them.

To Ned Taylor: The republics of Yugoslavia did not simultaneously break away as you allude to. Croatia & Slovenia declared independence and Germany prematurely recognized them without regard to the constitution of the country to which they belonged and to international agreements such as the Helsinki Accords and the Badinter Commission. Germany steamrolled the US & Britain, both of whom were against early recognition initially.

I have no problem with republics breaking away if that's what they wanted to do. However, there is a diplomatic process for such things. The constitution of Yugoslavia allowed for secession but Croatia never intended on following the diplomatic path. They armed themselves to the teeth, prepared for war and that's what they got. Germany's dubious history in the region with their WWII quisling Croatia coupled with their disregard for international agreements and state constitutions assured that the breakup would be bloody. Had a diplomatic path been followed, perhaps much of the death and destruction from the wars could have been avoided.

Funny how you continually side step my questions to you on the Helsinki Accords & the Yugoslav constitution. Why Ned? Do you agree with Germany being able to thumb their nose at agreements that they and their neighbors signed? Are you in favor of a Europe where rules and agreements can be broken when geopolitically efficient for some but not others? Who needs rules, right?

To icj: Just as I've asked your pen-pal ned taylor, I'll ask you....again: Please address the issue of Croatia & Slovenia violating the Yugoslav constitution. And then, please address the violation of the Helsinki Accord which mandated the borders of the countries who signed the agreement could not be changed by force. What's wrong mate, cat got your tongue? I believe the Helsinki Accord is an international agreement, wouldn't you agree mate????

To icj: You've proven to be slow in the past, but this is embarrassing. With regard to Croatia's/Germany's breaking of international law, I will try to spell it out for you again. I'll even do it in the format you used earlier. Ready? Here goes, I'll type real slow so that you can follow: Country A (Croatia) declares independence, country B (Germany) unilaterally recognizes them. A terrible war ensues and borders of country C (Yugoslavia) are changed. This is in direct violation to the Helsinki Accords to which Germany and Yugoslavia signed. This international law prevented the forcible changing of borders of the signatory countries.

Additionally, many legal scholars have argued that international law was also broken because the process of secession as spelled out in the Yugoslav constitution was ignored. Because Croatia and Germany interfered with the borders of a sovereign nation with no regard to their written laws, ie the constitution, it may be interpreted that international law was broken here as well.

I realize this is all above your level of comprehension, but I'd thought I'd give it try. Very clearly international law was broken as it relates to the Helsinki Accords when Croatia declared independence and Germany unilaterally granted recognition and a case can be made for international law being broken when the Yugoslav constitution was ignored. Check Mate...mate! LOL

this is embarrassing
(njegos, 11 November 2015 15:53)

yup, you have not provided any evidence to support your claim that a UN resolution is needed for a country to recognize another country, so yes that's embarrassing!
----

Additionally, many legal scholars have argued that international law was also broken because the process of secession as spelled out in the Yugoslav constitution was ignored. Because Croatia and Germany interfered with the borders of a sovereign nation with no regard to their written laws, ie the constitution, it may be interpreted that international law was broken here as well.
(njegos, 11 November 2015 15:53)

A violation of a country's constitution is a violation of international law?! That is now BS number 2! You are digging yourself in a deeper hole full of BS, mate :)
----

Very clearly international law was broken as it relates to the Helsinki Accords when Croatia declared independence and Germany unilaterally granted recognition and a case can be made for international law being broken when the Yugoslav constitution was ignored. Check Mate...mate! LOL
(njegos, 11 November 2015 15:53)

Yup, you have check-mated yourself mate when you said that US and Germany violated international law because "the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed". You still have not shown which international law mandates that a UN resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B.

To icj: As I've previously stated, so many international violations occurred during the wars of the 90s that it's hard to keep track of all of them. As such, I have no problem retracting my statement about a UN resolution being needed to recognize another country. The point I was making, and have done so over and over, is that international law was broken (Helsinki Accords) when Croatia declared independence and Germany prematurely and unilaterally granted recognition. Are you stating that no international law was violated? Please answer. And, a UN resolution is needed for a member country to bomb another. No such resolution was ever sought nor granted in the bombing of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. Are you denying as your little sister ned has, that this was a violation of international law? Please answer.

You can knit pick and attempt to obfuscate the facts in an effort deflect a subject to another all you want. But the point I was making as you well know, is that international law was broken before any hostilities broke out. Again I ask, are you denying that Croatia & Germany broke international law? This is the crux of the issue. As much as you would like to avoid the issue, please answer the question. Obfuscation and deflection are tactics used in a debate when arguing from a weak position. And your position is very, very weak...mate.

I can't speak for ICJ but yes, I am denying that Croatia or Germany broke international law. You have previously had my answer so there is no point going over that. As for the bombing of Serbia in 1999, it is widely regarded, even in NATO countries themselves, that both the UN Charter and NATO's own charter were broken. I have previously stated that I disagreed with the bombing campaign when it occurred and nothing has been said since that has changed my mind. OK, I'm off to wash my hair and vacate the shower for my big brother.

Well now, we're making progress. Ned has agreed that international law as violated when the NATO countries bombed Serbia, Montenegro & Kosovo. However, he maintains that no violation of international law occurred when Croatia declared independence and Germany granted recognition. I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion if you are familiar with the Helsinki Accords, but be that as it may, we will agree to disagree on that point.

Still waiting for icj to chime in with his position. Ned, you may want to help explain the issue again to icj. I tried not to use too many big words so that he would understand, but he is challenged, you know. LOL

Ned,

Why then is Dodik elected, re-elected, and re-elected again?

If he could run again, he would probably be re-elected again.

What you are proposing is not going to happen.

If the people of Bosnia could magically vote today (without fear of consequences) all Crots would vote to succeed to Croatia and all Serbs would vote to succeed to Serbia.

You gonna build a country on that?

From ned taylor: "You seem to ignore the fact that Serbs constitute 33-35% of Bosnia's population but control 49% of the territory."

If you recall, Karadzic presented a plan to partition B-H before any hostilities broke out and the proposed Serb entity was much smaller than what it is today. Izetbegovic, on the recommendation of Warren Zimmerman, rejected the plan and decided to prematurely secede and by doing so broke the Yugoslav constitution and international law. Because he had the backing of the US and Germany, he thought he could be the undisputed leader of a unified B-H. Karadzic warned that there would be war if the premature secession occurred. The rest is history. Serbs in B-H wound up with 49% of the territory. In a war, to the victors go the spoils.

The people have spoken. The people of B-H don't want to live with each other. The Muslims, out of necessity, are trying to hang on to a unified country because they will disappear as an ethnic group should B-H fall apart. Too bad. They wanted war and they got it. Don't cry about the results.

Ned: I don't mean to speak for Peggy, but when she refers to what was taken away from the Serbs, I believe she is referring to Krajina and Kosovo. Although Serb land in B-H is greater now than prior to the war, many Serbs did lose their homes, jobs and lives (as did Muslims and Croats). However, to take Peggy's point further, the Serbs were denied secession while the Croats and Kosovars were granted separation. This double standard stinks to high heaven and as long as these peoples are forced to live together, it is only a matter of time before hostilities break out again.

Regarding the Yugoslav constitution, it did allow for secession, but only if the majority of the country approved it. Such a vote never took place. And the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law. But nobody holds the US and Germany accountable for their misdeeds because they are super powers. Shameful.

food for thought,

i am asking if bosnians and croats could succeed from yugoslavia, why could serbs not succeed from them at that time?

And why oh why cant they do it now? Especially since every Croat would do the same?

Why were more than 2 million serbs forced to be separated from 8 million other Serbs and without gaurantee of their ethnic rights? Where were their gaurantees and concern for their historic sensitivities of holocaust excercised by their slavic brethren in Croatia and Bosnia?

Master race mentality? That's nice convenient "spin"

The mistake of Serbs was to ever accept these stateless, borderless Slavic brethren into Yugoslavia. All they ever did was use it to create borders so to only leave.

Read from the 1980's when the Albanians were the bad guys and Serbs were good guys before the masters of spin and war stepped in:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/benworks/1980news.html

Ned,

Bosnians, Croats, Slovenes, and Albanians began positioning themselves for a Yugo exit in the 80's conspiring to separate 25% or 2 million Serbs from their motherland.

And as such They are complicit in the creation of Milosevic.

Of course serbs control more land, they own it. They hisorically are farmers. bosniaks were always city dwellers under the ottomans (because thats where the opportunity was).

Thanks for the offer to succeed, but Serbs will take the land too because its theirs.

You sure are funny, what you said (i'll drive you to the border) is exactly what Milosevic said to bosnians wanting to succeed from yugoslavia :)

Bosnia began by Western hypocrisy and all Serbs (worldwide) will ensure it goes down in ashes, ..... and as Njegos points out they made that situation, not us. what they did to Serbs was very unfair and underhanded, and now the chickens will come home to roost.

Everyone can succeed from Yugoslavia and Serbia, but Serbs cannot succed from anyone else? Fu&k that noise.

Finally, you err, Milosevic did not run pre-split Yugoslavia.

Or, perhaps if Italy recognized Istria and Dalmatia as separate countries then Croatia would be considered to have dissolved in your little mind. How utterly ridiculous.
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

Yup, that's ridiculous, regardless of what a Committee says or doesn't say
----------

The fact of the matter was that Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia & Croatia
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

"Prematurely" is different from "in violation of international law"
----------

When the ones making the rules, ie Germany & the US
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

Nobody appointed the US & Germany to make rules
----------

As I mentioned earlier, Madeleine Albright even said international law was broken.
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

I would have normally asked you to provide evidence of the above, but it really does not matter. Albright is not a Court and nobody has appointed her to be the judge interpreting international law.
----------

Maybe you and your buddy icj can come up with a better story
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

Better story about what mate?! I don't have time to write conspiracy theories. I just pointed out the BS in your statement that a UN resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B.

To icj: Just as I've asked your pen-pal ned taylor, I'll ask you....again: Please address the issue of Croatia & Slovenia violating the Yugoslav constitution. And then, please address the violation of the Helsinki Accord which mandated the borders of the countries who signed the agreement could not be changed by force. What's wrong mate, cat got your tongue? I believe the Helsinki Accord is an international agreement, wouldn't you agree mate????
(njegos, 10 November 2015 19:03)

Hey mate, I did not make any claims on the above so I don't have to address anything. Not sure why you are asking me to address things that I didn't make any claim about!!!

But you DID make a claim, namely that US and Germany violated international law because "the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed". You still have not shown which international law mandates that a UN resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B.

You had a chance to recognize that you made an error (which is OK; humans make errors especially when educated with myths since their childhood) and move on, but you didn't. Which means that you deliberately stated a lie with the hope that you would not get caught, but you got caught. So now regardless of how much you attempt to divert the topic to other matters it won't undo the fact that you stated a lie!

Njegos: You have asked me about various accords and I gave you an answer, that the country was dissolving and therefore those accords did not apply. (I also wrote down for you the opinions of the Badinter Commission which wholly accepted Slovenia's declaration of independence and asked Croatia for assurances that it received). This dissolution theory is not something I invented, it was widely promulgated at the time. You may not like the answer and you may not agree but you have an answer. Now, the question to which I have not yet had an answer (because you changed the subject). On what do you base your previous claim that recognition of a country requires a UN resolution, or can we now assume that you are retracting this claim?

To icj: As I've previously stated, so many international violations occurred during the wars of the 90s that it's hard to keep track of all of them.
(njegos, 12 November 2015 15:37)

I did not say that did not happen. Of course I know of many examples where it's been determined beyond reasonable doubt that that happened!
----------

As such, I have no problem retracting my statement about a UN resolution being needed to recognize another country.
(njegos, 12 November 2015 15:37)

Ok, good. Thank you. And I also retract my statement that you lied since it appears it was just a mistake.
----------

You can knit pick and attempt to obfuscate the facts in an effort deflect a subject to another all you want.
(njegos, 12 November 2015 15:37)

Mate, I did not knit pick anything and I did not deflect the subject. You chose to make the incorrect claim that a UN resolution is needed for a country to recognize another country, so I replied to what you wrote, it's not that I came up with a new subject

Njegos: I'm sorry to nit pick (note correct spelling), but I stated that the 1999 bombing was wrong on 8th November, see previous posts. I was simply reiterating this in my latest post, so 'progress' was made several days ago at my own instigation not as a result of our exchange.

This will cause a new war. Albos and bosnas have thousands of ISIS fighters on their side thistime. We all know 110 percent will vote yes.

Great news.

Bosnia is a fake state where the majority of individuals (Serbs + Croats) do not want to live.

This sentiment began in the 90's when non-Serbs decided to succeed from Yugoslavia.

BBB = Bye, Bye, Bosnia

This will cause a new war. Albos and bosnas have thousands of ISIS fighters on their side thistime. We all know 110 percent will vote yes.
(dontdoit, 4 November 2015 16:45)
===============================
Sure, be scared and be forever under Islam's control. That's exactly what you just said. Are we all supposed to just shut up and not upset Muslims in any way just so that they would leave us alone, even in our own countries? Western governments all over the world have already capitulated to Islam and that's a shame but someone has to put a stop to it.

Republika Srpska must be consulted when any deals are made with bosnia and in the balkans in general...

Serbian economic policy should always include RS as it is just as important as beograde... RS is a Serb entity in Bosnia and is able to create positive outcomes for all Serbs and people in the balkans... The power of RS should not be underestimated, and together RS, Serbia and Bosnia can create a very prosperous region where all slavic people can live in peace, work together and build again what was destroyed...

Without RS, No one can move forward, so it is imperative that we remain united, we move forward together, we do not look back, we see a future where we can all benefit, a future which will dwarf anything we have done before, our strength comes from our unity and together we will move forward and create something bigger and better that any Serb in our history has done before...

We now go forth, we will prosper, no Serb will be left behind...

From ned taylor: "You seem to ignore the fact that Serbs constitute 33-35% of Bosnia's population but control 49% of the territory."

If you recall, Karadzic presented a plan to partition B-H before any hostilities broke out and the proposed Serb entity was much smaller than what it is today. Izetbegovic, on the recommendation of Warren Zimmerman, rejected the plan and decided to prematurely secede and by doing so broke the Yugoslav constitution and international law. Because he had the backing of the US and Germany, he thought he could be the undisputed leader of a unified B-H. Karadzic warned that there would be war if the premature secession occurred. The rest is history. Serbs in B-H wound up with 49% of the territory. In a war, to the victors go the spoils.

The people have spoken. The people of B-H don't want to live with each other. The Muslims, out of necessity, are trying to hang on to a unified country because they will disappear as an ethnic group should B-H fall apart. Too bad. They wanted war and they got it. Don't cry about the results.

For Ned Taylor,

That is a rather one sided analysis.

You really dont understand the Serb mindset.

The Serb position is dictated by 3 things:

1. The breakup of Yugoslavia was very unfair and disrespectful to Serbs. Historic Serb lands were written away with the brush of a diplomat's pen based in Berlin and Rome. Territories which came into Yugoslavia with less square miles..... emerged with more square miles.

2. The central hypocrisy that "everyone else" had the right to succeed from Yugoslavia.... except for Serbs. And then, a yet greater hypocrisy, to support the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and then cynically seek to recreate a fake Yugoslavia in Bosnia. And then the final hypocrisy of Kosovo.

3. The 25 year demonization of all Serb people in all media across the world in order to mask one's own complicity in the violent dismembermenet of Yugoslavia.

Now, after all that, and achieving your goals, you want Serbs to forgive and forget what was done to them, and to be reconciled with the ongoing racism against them, and play nice?

Forget it.

First Establish a real Truth and Reconcilliation Commmission (without outside interference) that begins with the events of the 1930's and then lets talk about reconcilliation.

Until then it is BBB = Bye, Bye, Bosnia

Dodik has this strange idea that outsiders want a unitary Bosnia; they do not. They want a stable Bosnia where each national group respects the others even when they disagree. Dodik continually talks about BiH as a failed state as if he has been sat on the side-lines watching it fail rather than being an active participate in creating a series of logjams. He does not want the country to make progress on the road to EU or NATO membership because this would end his dream of an independent state once and for all. I wouldn't be worried about the Russian reaction to a potential loan from the US, I would be worried about the concessions that they (the US) will seek in lending the money.

He is Right !.

Future Serbia will come from the Serb entity in Bosnia.

Arn.Sweden.

This will cause a new war. Albos and bosnas have thousands of ISIS fighters on their side thistime. We all know 110 percent will vote yes.
(dontdoit, 4 November 2015 16:45)

You have been watching too many movies. Loved the part about thousands of ISIS fighters. Who do you think they are? supermen?
The Serbs have not made this announcement without the green light from Moscow mate.

Thank you Dodik for explaining the soft-headed Vucic's trip to Sarajevo.

Dodik is right, be done with the fake creation called Bosna and finish the final chapter of Yu destruction. If old Yugoslavia could not work Bosnia will certainly fail too. It is just matter of time.

Bosnia is referred to as a mini Yugoslavia because the Serbs, Croats and Muslims all live together in one country and each ethnic group has their own part which they govern...

It is interesting what Tito said in a comment below, to finish the yugoslav war off... The situation in Bosnia is a frozen conflict just as Kosovo is, which is why peacekeepers are still in the country as war can break out again... But this does not have to be the case, there is other ways to achieve an outcome which is beneficial to all...

Now let's take the case of China and Taiwan... Taiwan was recognised as a country after WWII, believe it or not, Taiwan was also part of the United Nations... But then something happened, Taiwan as a nation ceased to exist and do you know why? It was because China became to influential, to powerful, China opened up to the world and demanded that Taiwan be recognised as a part of China and that's exactly what happened... Taiwan is not a country and the Chinese have a saying for this "one country, two systems"...

Serbia can do exactly the same thing as China, we do not need a war to fix these problems, these things must be done delicately, like slicing a salami very thinly... Eventually you will have sliced all the salami.. Bosnia is not going anywhere, we have time...
Look how long the USSR and America were in a Cold War for, eventually things will turn out how we want without a confrontation, just like the Cold War and just like China and Taiwan...

Ned: I don't mean to speak for Peggy, but when she refers to what was taken away from the Serbs, I believe she is referring to Krajina and Kosovo. Although Serb land in B-H is greater now than prior to the war, many Serbs did lose their homes, jobs and lives (as did Muslims and Croats). However, to take Peggy's point further, the Serbs were denied secession while the Croats and Kosovars were granted separation. This double standard stinks to high heaven and as long as these peoples are forced to live together, it is only a matter of time before hostilities break out again.

Regarding the Yugoslav constitution, it did allow for secession, but only if the majority of the country approved it. Such a vote never took place. And the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law. But nobody holds the US and Germany accountable for their misdeeds because they are super powers. Shameful.

From icj: "Serbs should have thought about that when they wanted Yugoslavia to be created after WWI with the dream of making it a Serbian Empire. Unfortunately for them things didn't turn out that way and Serbs ended up shooting themselves on the foot!"

icj, your paranoia about Serbs wanting to create a Greater Serbia dating back to WWI is comical. This seems to be the convenient argument when you guys disregard historical facts. The fact is that the Serbs could have created a Greater Serbia after WWI, but didn't. Instead, they accepted the defeated Croats into the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats & Slovenes only to be back stabbed by them as they sabotaged the country from day one. King Peter had 3 sons, Aleksander, Andreij and Tomislav. He gave one a Serbian name, one a Croat name and the third a Slovene name. Does this sound like something a proponent of a Greater Serbia would do? I think not. Moreover, the Serbian population was decimated after the war. They lost 30% of their entire population and nearly 50% of their male population. They were in no position to create a greater anything. As an Albanian, discussions about war is lost on you as your countrymen assimilated with every occupier that ever crossed your path. Thus we have Albanian Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim Albanians with no trace of a culture anywhere. Now you're trying to claim Serbian churches in Kosovo as yours. Shameful.

Forget independence, forget a unitary state and forget a third entity. Get on and do everything possible to make daily life more bearable for everyone.
(ned taylor, 5 November 2015 18:28)
========================
Sure, now that the west has taken everything away from the Serbs you expect Serbs to be OK with RS being engulfed in Bosnia too for the sake of unity.
Do you really think that is fair?
Where were you during the 90s to tell them to forget about breaking away and stay together for a better life? Do you really think that Muslims should have Bosnia at the expense of others? If you think that Bosnia should function well for everyone's sake why don't you think Yugoslavia should've been left intact for the same reason?
Do you think that Serbs deserved to be chased off their land in Croatia and parts of Bosnia only to give what is left too?
You either don't want to understand how things were and are for Serbs because of bias towards the others or can't because you have never been in their shoes.

Ned,

Bosnians, Croats, Slovenes, and Albanians began positioning themselves for a Yugo exit in the 80's conspiring to separate 25% or 2 million Serbs from their motherland.

And as such They are complicit in the creation of Milosevic.

Of course serbs control more land, they own it. They hisorically are farmers. bosniaks were always city dwellers under the ottomans (because thats where the opportunity was).

Thanks for the offer to succeed, but Serbs will take the land too because its theirs.

You sure are funny, what you said (i'll drive you to the border) is exactly what Milosevic said to bosnians wanting to succeed from yugoslavia :)

Bosnia began by Western hypocrisy and all Serbs (worldwide) will ensure it goes down in ashes, ..... and as Njegos points out they made that situation, not us. what they did to Serbs was very unfair and underhanded, and now the chickens will come home to roost.

Everyone can succeed from Yugoslavia and Serbia, but Serbs cannot succed from anyone else? Fu&k that noise.

Finally, you err, Milosevic did not run pre-split Yugoslavia.

Ned,

Why then is Dodik elected, re-elected, and re-elected again?

If he could run again, he would probably be re-elected again.

What you are proposing is not going to happen.

If the people of Bosnia could magically vote today (without fear of consequences) all Crots would vote to succeed to Croatia and all Serbs would vote to succeed to Serbia.

You gonna build a country on that?

To icj: A UN Resolution is needed before a UN member country can bomb another UN member country or any country for that matter. The bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro) was done without a UN Resolution. Even Madeleine Albright said that international law was broken. Are you saying she is lying too? She is as pro-Albanian and anti-Serb as you can get. Are you telling me that international law was not broken? Please comment icj.

To icj & Ned Taylor: Forgive me for changing the subject when I referred to the illegal bombing of Serbia & Montenegro as an act which violated international law. You see, so many international laws were violated it's difficult to keep them all straight.

Now, back to icj's claim that international law wasn't broken when Bosnia was prematurely recognized. It most definitely was. Please pay attention: When Croatia & Slovenia declared their independence in 1991, the US was initially against the breakup of Yugoslavia. Germany on the other hand, supported the breakup. The EU then set up the Badinter Committee which established certain criteria which had to be met before a member country could be dismembered. Before the committee was able to complete their due diligence, they were disregarded by Germany and recognition was granted to Croatia & Slovenia on December 23, 1991 by Germany violating the conditions set forth by the EU as it pertains to the breakup of EU countries. Thus, international law was broken. Additionally, the Helsinki Accord was also violated as the international sovereignty of a signer to this agreement was violated when the constitution of Yugoslavia was completely disregarded.

You both need to go back and research the topics you choose to comment on before hurling insults at the people you're debating. Your lack of education on the subject matter renders you both loudmouths with no credibility. Back to the books for you two.

To Ned Taylor: The next time your kids change the subject, don't assume they're losing an argument. Pay attention, you might learn something.

Ned Taylor: First, you did try to insult me when you drew an analogy to my comments with that of your children when they're losing an argument. No problem though, I can give it as good as I can take it.

Next, do you see the absurdity of your comments. You said that the Badinter Committee was formed to give opinions. Next you said that it was decided that Yugoslavia dissolved, therefore no secession took place. So, I guess if Germany decides to recognize Catalonia, Spain would be considered to be dissolved rather than Catalonia seceding, right? Or, perhaps if Italy recognized Istria and Dalmatia as separate countries then Croatia would be considered to have dissolved in your little mind. How utterly ridiculous.

The fact of the matter was that Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia & Croatia, their historical allies, and the rest of the dominos, read Bosnia, began to fall. No regard was paid to the Yugoslav constitution nor the Helsinki Accords which you conveniently failed to address.

When the ones making the rules, ie Germany & the US, break the rules, they are not held accountable. The weasel wording regarding secession vs dissolving is appalling and was done by Germany & the US to cover up their transgressions. As I mentioned earlier, Madeleine Albright even said international law was broken.

Maybe you and your buddy icj can come up with a better story, although I think the level of discussion has eclipsed the limited brain power he has already.

Factman: ".and achieving your goals....". I don't have any goals other than to see my many friends in Bosnia of all national backgrounds work together to try to provide economic stability and continuing peace. I'm not interested in raking over the past as this will achieve nothing except a continuation of the present stalemate. Izetbegovic needs to accept the two entity structure as does Dodik. The idea promulgated today by Bakir that Vucic should have been recognising Srebrenica as genocide during his visit to Sarajevo shows that he has no real idea of the priorities that Bosnians have in their daily lives. They don't spend all day discussing the pros and cons of a unitary state or a breakaway of the RS. They are worried about jobs, food on the table, a clean environment, good quality healthcare for which one doesn't have to bribe the doctor, wide ranging education for their children that doesn't focus on historic animosities but prepares those children for the modern world.....and so on.

Dodik has the same priority today as he has always had: Milorad Dodik. Why is it that when he was PM almost no-one knew who the President of the RS was and now that he is the President almost no-one knows who the Prime Minister is and even if they do, this site NEVER carries that person's words?

Forget independence, forget a unitary state and forget a third entity. Get on and do everything possible to make daily life more bearable for everyone.

Croats and Serbs are free to 'secede' any time they like. I'll even drive them to the border if they don't have a car.

food for thought,

i am asking if bosnians and croats could succeed from yugoslavia, why could serbs not succeed from them at that time?

And why oh why cant they do it now? Especially since every Croat would do the same?

Why were more than 2 million serbs forced to be separated from 8 million other Serbs and without gaurantee of their ethnic rights? Where were their gaurantees and concern for their historic sensitivities of holocaust excercised by their slavic brethren in Croatia and Bosnia?

Master race mentality? That's nice convenient "spin"

The mistake of Serbs was to ever accept these stateless, borderless Slavic brethren into Yugoslavia. All they ever did was use it to create borders so to only leave.

Read from the 1980's when the Albanians were the bad guys and Serbs were good guys before the masters of spin and war stepped in:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/benworks/1980news.html

Njegos,

It is useless to engage icj1.

Soon good old-fashioned economic competition will push the former republics and territories deeper into the muck they first created for themselves.

Kosovo, Montenegro, and Bosnia will never become modern economies. Croatia is nothing but a big resort selling discounted room nights to tourists chasing newer places to vacation. Macedonia may surprise us and pull itself out. Slovenia will stay stuck.

If we're smart at that time, we'll make very big fences to keep them out.

Peaceful coexistence and reconciliation is great. I am all for it.

When will a real truth and reconciliation commission without foreign involvement be created? And will it begin with the events of 1941 (which are still unacknowledged and white-washed) and examine the background of the events in Srebrenica?

Do you support this same reconciliation for Kosovo? Croatia? When will the ethnically cleansed return to those places?

The former brethren of Yugoslavia all pursue a Titoist policy of a weak and broken Serbia because they need that to prosper and distinguish themselves going forward --- because they are not economically capable to create prosperity for their people.

Serbs are now doing it for Serbs - what they should have done in 1919 instead of investing so much equity in Yugoslavia (and people's who had no interest in it to begin with)

it's difficult to keep them all straight.
(njegos, 8 November 2015 18:29)

I hear you! It's very difficult to keep BS and lies straight and coherent!
----------

And the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law.
(njegos, 6 November 2015 22:26)

Hmm, where is this "international law" written that a UN Resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B? Or is this the Serbian "international law"?! The BS you guys come up with is truly amazing!!!
(icj1, 7 November 2015 01:25)

Now, back to icj's claim that international law wasn't broken when Bosnia was prematurely recognized. It most definitely was. Please pay attention:
(njegos, 8 November 2015 18:29)

You did not show any international law requiring that a UN resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B. This is very simple mate. You need to quote a legal document word-for-word that prohibits country A from recognizing country B without a UN resolution. You don't have to write a lengthy ramble on historical lectures as that's not a legal document.

I loved btw how you "authoritatively" stated that "thus, internatonal law was broken" without having shown a single article of international law that was allegedly broken!

Or, perhaps if Italy recognized Istria and Dalmatia as separate countries then Croatia would be considered to have dissolved in your little mind. How utterly ridiculous.
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

Yup, that's ridiculous, regardless of what a Committee says or doesn't say
----------

The fact of the matter was that Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia & Croatia
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

"Prematurely" is different from "in violation of international law"
----------

When the ones making the rules, ie Germany & the US
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

Nobody appointed the US & Germany to make rules
----------

As I mentioned earlier, Madeleine Albright even said international law was broken.
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

I would have normally asked you to provide evidence of the above, but it really does not matter. Albright is not a Court and nobody has appointed her to be the judge interpreting international law.
----------

Maybe you and your buddy icj can come up with a better story
(njegos, 9 November 2015 14:49)

Better story about what mate?! I don't have time to write conspiracy theories. I just pointed out the BS in your statement that a UN resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B.

Peggy "Do you really think that Muslims should have Bosnia at the expense of others"? NO I DO NOT; READ WHAT I WRITE!! I have made it very clear to anyone who understands basic English that I believe the country should be governed for the benefit of all not in the interests of one group or another. Bosniaks and Croats would tell you that what you are implying was exactly how Milosevic wanted to run Yugoslavia, in the narrow interests of Serbs at the expense of all others. The idea that life was 'better' for Muslims or Croats under the previous regime is not one that many would agree with in downtown Sarajevo or Zagreb. You seem to ignore the fact that Serbs constitute 33-35% of Bosnia's population but control 49% of the territory. The fact that you think this is somehow unfair says a lot. Please disagree with what I write but not with what I don't write.

Njegos: Although formally part of the same country, the majority of Serbs and Bosniaks already live separately so I don't believe that the break out of hostilities is inevitable. It only becomes so when leaders refuse to accept the status quo and push unilaterally for something beyond Dayton whether that be a unitary state or independence. The RS was not part of any Jugoslav constitution and therefore at no point in history has there been any formalised right of secession. Personally, I would ask Dodik and friends to identify 35% of BiH (corresponding to their share of the population) that they would like for their new country and then negotiate a separation. The international argument has always been about not rewarding ethnic cleansing/genocide so this way the RS would have to give up something (14% of their land) to achieve their goal. Of course this won't happen and neither will the unitary state. I'm not sure that even Vucic would want an independent RS with Dodik as kingpin of new neighbouring country.

And the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law.
(njegos, 6 November 2015 22:26)

Hmm, where is this "international law" written that a UN Resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B? Or is this the Serbian "international law"?! The BS you guys come up with is truly amazing!!!
(icj1, 7 November 2015 01:25)

To icj: A UN Resolution is needed before a UN member country can bomb another UN member country or any country for that matter. The bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro) was done without a UN Resolution. Even Madeleine Albright said that international law was broken. Are you saying she is lying too? She is as pro-Albanian and anti-Serb as you can get. Are you telling me that international law was not broken? Please comment icj.
(njegos, 7 November 2015 16:51)

Hey mate, you appear to have some reading comprehension challenges to the point of not understanding your own writings. You were talking about "US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law" and I replied to what you wrote.

What does that have to do with the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999?!

Icj1,

I couldn't agree more. A great, great comment.

But Serbs won't make that same mistake again.

Soon, all their neighbors will get exactly what they asked for and will seek to be day laborers for a few dinars a day to send back to their decrepit ghettos.

You no doubt will bring into question Serbia's current economy. But, one should not boast if that is the worst that could be accomplished after 25 years of all forms of sanction and racism.

Factman: Firstly it is possible to be reconciled to the past without having commissions, especially as they are historically expensive and without foreign funding I doubt that anyone would want to pick up the tab. As a matter of principle, no, I am not against a commission if its remit and composition can be agreed upon by all parties involved. The point of such commissions is that they call witnesses who were involved as perpetrators or victims to give evidence and often offer immunity to those taking part. It would be virtually impossible to hold such a commission for the events of 1941 simply because most people would either be dead or would have been too young at the time for their evidence to be credible 75 years later. 2nd and 3rd hand accounts along the lines of "my father/grandfather told me that............." would not be acceptable at such a commission anymore than hearsay is in a criminal trial. Whilst I would not for a minute expect those who lost loved ones in 1941/1995/1999 to forget what happened, dwelling endlessly on the past achieves nothing. You can't change yesterday but you can affect tomorrow.

Njegos,

It is useless to engage icj1.
(factman, 8 November 2015 06:51)

Yup! He/she stands no chance lol not that you are faring any better :)

To icj: Just as I've asked your pen-pal ned taylor, I'll ask you....again: Please address the issue of Croatia & Slovenia violating the Yugoslav constitution. And then, please address the violation of the Helsinki Accord which mandated the borders of the countries who signed the agreement could not be changed by force. What's wrong mate, cat got your tongue? I believe the Helsinki Accord is an international agreement, wouldn't you agree mate????
(njegos, 10 November 2015 19:03)

Hey mate, I did not make any claims on the above so I don't have to address anything. Not sure why you are asking me to address things that I didn't make any claim about!!!

But you DID make a claim, namely that US and Germany violated international law because "the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed". You still have not shown which international law mandates that a UN resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B.

You had a chance to recognize that you made an error (which is OK; humans make errors especially when educated with myths since their childhood) and move on, but you didn't. Which means that you deliberately stated a lie with the hope that you would not get caught, but you got caught. So now regardless of how much you attempt to divert the topic to other matters it won't undo the fact that you stated a lie!

Njegos: You have asked me about various accords and I gave you an answer, that the country was dissolving and therefore those accords did not apply. (I also wrote down for you the opinions of the Badinter Commission which wholly accepted Slovenia's declaration of independence and asked Croatia for assurances that it received). This dissolution theory is not something I invented, it was widely promulgated at the time. You may not like the answer and you may not agree but you have an answer. Now, the question to which I have not yet had an answer (because you changed the subject). On what do you base your previous claim that recognition of a country requires a UN resolution, or can we now assume that you are retracting this claim?

To icj: As I've previously stated, so many international violations occurred during the wars of the 90s that it's hard to keep track of all of them. As such, I have no problem retracting my statement about a UN resolution being needed to recognize another country. The point I was making, and have done so over and over, is that international law was broken (Helsinki Accords) when Croatia declared independence and Germany prematurely and unilaterally granted recognition. Are you stating that no international law was violated? Please answer. And, a UN resolution is needed for a member country to bomb another. No such resolution was ever sought nor granted in the bombing of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. Are you denying as your little sister ned has, that this was a violation of international law? Please answer.

You can knit pick and attempt to obfuscate the facts in an effort deflect a subject to another all you want. But the point I was making as you well know, is that international law was broken before any hostilities broke out. Again I ask, are you denying that Croatia & Germany broke international law? This is the crux of the issue. As much as you would like to avoid the issue, please answer the question. Obfuscation and deflection are tactics used in a debate when arguing from a weak position. And your position is very, very weak...mate.

I can't speak for ICJ but yes, I am denying that Croatia or Germany broke international law. You have previously had my answer so there is no point going over that. As for the bombing of Serbia in 1999, it is widely regarded, even in NATO countries themselves, that both the UN Charter and NATO's own charter were broken. I have previously stated that I disagreed with the bombing campaign when it occurred and nothing has been said since that has changed my mind. OK, I'm off to wash my hair and vacate the shower for my big brother.

Well now, we're making progress. Ned has agreed that international law as violated when the NATO countries bombed Serbia, Montenegro & Kosovo. However, he maintains that no violation of international law occurred when Croatia declared independence and Germany granted recognition. I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion if you are familiar with the Helsinki Accords, but be that as it may, we will agree to disagree on that point.

Still waiting for icj to chime in with his position. Ned, you may want to help explain the issue again to icj. I tried not to use too many big words so that he would understand, but he is challenged, you know. LOL

(factman, 5 November 2015 15:19)
Your post is a bit confusing, you say everyone had the right to succeed from Yugoslavia other than Serbs.
It was the Serbs that wanted to stop everyone else from succeeding. If Serbia would have just succeeded themselves and went their own way then Yugoslavia may have lasted a bit longer, but it was doomed to fail. It was Serbs or Serbia that wanted to keep Yugo intact but with Serbs as the masters of the subhumans.
Apparently you have traveled outside or live outside of Serbia but yet you still have that "master race" mentality.
When you make statements like the negative image Serbia has been given for 25 years from the rest of the world should at least open your eyes a little.
If you go into a room and you find fault with one or two people that is normal, but if you walk out of the room because you cannot get along with any of them then it is time to look inward for the problem.

Njegos: How Serbs came to have control of 49% of the territory was not the point I was making. I was saying that it is hard to conclude that Serbs have had their land taken away, as suggested by Peggy, when you see this division of, as you put it, the spoils. You are suggesting that far from having be cheated out of their heritage the Serbs did well out of the settlement; I agree. The 1974 Constitution was unclear whether there was a right to unilateral secession as there had been in previous constitutions, saying that such a right belonged to "the nations of Jugoslavia". A precedent had been set by Slovenia and then Croatia with the consequence that others felt threatened by their isolation in trying to hold back Milosevic's plans for Serb hegemony. I don't begrudge the Bosnian Serbs the RS, but I take issue with the implication that they have been hard done to.

And the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed, thereby violating international law.
(njegos, 6 November 2015 22:26)

Hmm, where is this "international law" written that a UN Resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B? Or is this the Serbian "international law"?! The BS you guys come up with is truly amazing!!!

1. The breakup of Yugoslavia was very unfair and disrespectful to Serbs. Historic Serb lands were written away with the brush of a diplomat's pen based in Berlin and Rome. Territories which came into Yugoslavia with less square miles..... emerged with more square miles.
(factman, 5 November 2015 15:19)

Serbs should have thought about that when they wanted Yugoslavia to be created after WWI with the dream of making it a Serbian Empire. Unfortunately for them things didn't turn out that way and Serbs ended up shooting themselves on the foot!

Why serbs support such a genocidal entity but do not accept kosovo? They call bosnia fake even though bosnia has a colorful history on the balkan but font call the RS fake which is a recent genocidal creation, the fact is RS will be eliminated, like it or not, if need be eliminated the same way it was created, if war is to come it will be a war started by serbs like dodik.

Factman: How does harping back to Ottoman times help anyone today? I am talking about peaceful co-existence and reconciliation and you are talking about "chickens coming home to roost"; there seems little point continuing this discussion.

From icj: "Serbs should have thought about that when they wanted Yugoslavia to be created after WWI with the dream of making it a Serbian Empire. Unfortunately for them things didn't turn out that way and Serbs ended up shooting themselves on the foot!"

icj, your paranoia about Serbs wanting to create a Greater Serbia dating back to WWI is comical. This seems to be the convenient argument when you guys disregard historical facts. The fact is that the Serbs could have created a Greater Serbia after WWI, but didn't. Instead, they accepted the defeated Croats into the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats & Slovenes only to be back stabbed by them as they sabotaged the country from day one.
(njegos, 7 November 2015 17:11)

Exactly. We're saying the same thing. Serbs shoot themselves on the foot by creating a country with Croats and Slovenes because of their dreams of grandeur and hoping to create a Serbian Empire. But, yes, it backfired. That's where greed leads...
----------

As an Albanian, discussions about war is lost on you as your countrymen assimilated with every occupier that ever crossed your path.
(njegos, 7 November 2015 17:11)

Not sure who are "my" countrymen you are referring too. The Serbs?
----------

Now you're trying to claim Serbian churches in Kosovo as yours. Shameful.
(njegos, 7 November 2015 17:11)

Where did I claim the Serbian churches as mine? And for what purpose I'd claim something worthless for me?!

Njegos: Your point about UN resolutions was initially made about countries prematurely recognising Croatian, Slovenian and Bosnian independence. ICJ pointed out that no such resolution was required for one country to recognise another and he/she is of course correct in that. You then replied by changing the issue and thus the argument from one about recognition to whether or not a country can bomb another without a resolution. I am not sufficiently up on UN protocol to answer this question but that is not the point. You were caught out by ICJ and had the option of admitting that you were wrong or scrabbling about trying to find an entirely different issue to debate. My children do this, when they are losing an argument they completely change the subject. For the record I believed that the bombing of Serbia in 1999 was wrong at the time and still do now.

Soon, all their neighbors will get exactly what they asked for and will seek to be day laborers for a few dinars a day to send back to their decrepit ghettos.
(factman, 8 November 2015 06:24)

Sure, and there is also a chance that soon an asteriod might hit the Earth and send us all to the creator... so let's live the present as much as we can :)

Njegos: I have never hurled insults, unless you have incredibly thin skin. The Badinter Commission gave a series of opinions, they did not create international law. In the case of Croatia, the Commission had concerns about minority rights. Upon receiving assurances about this deficit the EU recognised Croatia in Aug 1991. Bosnia had not held their referendum at this point so clearly the point was moot for them. With Macedonia and Slovenia the commission recommended acceptance of the requests for recognition. As can be seen by this, each case was assessed on its merits. A number of legal judgements have deemed that no secession was involved and that former Yugoslavia 'desolved'. Having desolved its territorial integrity could not be violated. The ICJ ruled, upon request for an opinion by Serbia itself forwarded by the UNGA, that the Kosovo declaration of independence did not breach international law and so recognition could not have done so either. Nothing is ever black or white in international law but getting back to the first point made, no UN resolution is required for recognition of a new country.

Njegos: If several of the Spanish regions simultaneously decided that they were breaking away from Spain then yes, I think it would be fair to say that the country had dissolved. Only Montenegro showed any interest in remaining within Jugoslavia with a majority wanting out. It was simply not sustainable to continue with the illusion of a single united country run for the benefit of all. As for Madeleine Albright, she is of course entitled to an opinion but I think you will find that amongst international diplomats she was in a minority.

I would have thought that given the clear mutual animosity between Serbs and their former Jugoslav colleagues you would be pleased to be rid of them.

To Ned Taylor: The republics of Yugoslavia did not simultaneously break away as you allude to. Croatia & Slovenia declared independence and Germany prematurely recognized them without regard to the constitution of the country to which they belonged and to international agreements such as the Helsinki Accords and the Badinter Commission. Germany steamrolled the US & Britain, both of whom were against early recognition initially.

I have no problem with republics breaking away if that's what they wanted to do. However, there is a diplomatic process for such things. The constitution of Yugoslavia allowed for secession but Croatia never intended on following the diplomatic path. They armed themselves to the teeth, prepared for war and that's what they got. Germany's dubious history in the region with their WWII quisling Croatia coupled with their disregard for international agreements and state constitutions assured that the breakup would be bloody. Had a diplomatic path been followed, perhaps much of the death and destruction from the wars could have been avoided.

Funny how you continually side step my questions to you on the Helsinki Accords & the Yugoslav constitution. Why Ned? Do you agree with Germany being able to thumb their nose at agreements that they and their neighbors signed? Are you in favor of a Europe where rules and agreements can be broken when geopolitically efficient for some but not others? Who needs rules, right?

To icj: Just as I've asked your pen-pal ned taylor, I'll ask you....again: Please address the issue of Croatia & Slovenia violating the Yugoslav constitution. And then, please address the violation of the Helsinki Accord which mandated the borders of the countries who signed the agreement could not be changed by force. What's wrong mate, cat got your tongue? I believe the Helsinki Accord is an international agreement, wouldn't you agree mate????

To icj: You've proven to be slow in the past, but this is embarrassing. With regard to Croatia's/Germany's breaking of international law, I will try to spell it out for you again. I'll even do it in the format you used earlier. Ready? Here goes, I'll type real slow so that you can follow: Country A (Croatia) declares independence, country B (Germany) unilaterally recognizes them. A terrible war ensues and borders of country C (Yugoslavia) are changed. This is in direct violation to the Helsinki Accords to which Germany and Yugoslavia signed. This international law prevented the forcible changing of borders of the signatory countries.

Additionally, many legal scholars have argued that international law was also broken because the process of secession as spelled out in the Yugoslav constitution was ignored. Because Croatia and Germany interfered with the borders of a sovereign nation with no regard to their written laws, ie the constitution, it may be interpreted that international law was broken here as well.

I realize this is all above your level of comprehension, but I'd thought I'd give it try. Very clearly international law was broken as it relates to the Helsinki Accords when Croatia declared independence and Germany unilaterally granted recognition and a case can be made for international law being broken when the Yugoslav constitution was ignored. Check Mate...mate! LOL

this is embarrassing
(njegos, 11 November 2015 15:53)

yup, you have not provided any evidence to support your claim that a UN resolution is needed for a country to recognize another country, so yes that's embarrassing!
----

Additionally, many legal scholars have argued that international law was also broken because the process of secession as spelled out in the Yugoslav constitution was ignored. Because Croatia and Germany interfered with the borders of a sovereign nation with no regard to their written laws, ie the constitution, it may be interpreted that international law was broken here as well.
(njegos, 11 November 2015 15:53)

A violation of a country's constitution is a violation of international law?! That is now BS number 2! You are digging yourself in a deeper hole full of BS, mate :)
----

Very clearly international law was broken as it relates to the Helsinki Accords when Croatia declared independence and Germany unilaterally granted recognition and a case can be made for international law being broken when the Yugoslav constitution was ignored. Check Mate...mate! LOL
(njegos, 11 November 2015 15:53)

Yup, you have check-mated yourself mate when you said that US and Germany violated international law because "the US and Germany prematurely recognized Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia before a UN resolution was ever passed". You still have not shown which international law mandates that a UN resolution is needed for country A to recognize country B.

To icj: As I've previously stated, so many international violations occurred during the wars of the 90s that it's hard to keep track of all of them.
(njegos, 12 November 2015 15:37)

I did not say that did not happen. Of course I know of many examples where it's been determined beyond reasonable doubt that that happened!
----------

As such, I have no problem retracting my statement about a UN resolution being needed to recognize another country.
(njegos, 12 November 2015 15:37)

Ok, good. Thank you. And I also retract my statement that you lied since it appears it was just a mistake.
----------

You can knit pick and attempt to obfuscate the facts in an effort deflect a subject to another all you want.
(njegos, 12 November 2015 15:37)

Mate, I did not knit pick anything and I did not deflect the subject. You chose to make the incorrect claim that a UN resolution is needed for a country to recognize another country, so I replied to what you wrote, it's not that I came up with a new subject

Njegos: I'm sorry to nit pick (note correct spelling), but I stated that the 1999 bombing was wrong on 8th November, see previous posts. I was simply reiterating this in my latest post, so 'progress' was made several days ago at my own instigation not as a result of our exchange.