Minister denies "offering mines to Americans"

Told you... serbia cannot steal from Kosova no longer....those days are Over with a capital O.

Ohhh, what a surprise. But still a good April's joke where some fools were indeed believing it. Well, not their first and not their last mistake..

Where is Zoran and the likes of him/her that were so sure that;the news few days ago was real? Despite the fact that it was nothing but tabloid news and April's fool day.

Told you... serbia cannot steal from Kosova no longer....those days are Over with a capital O.
(Dardania flag, 14 March 2013 17:50)

First off what is KosovA
Second did u read that the mines are owned by us?So how can and why would we steal something that is ours?Busted again.

Did he also secure Municipality Status for all the Serbs in Illinois?

I am sure former Governor Blagovic made it all OFFICIAL!

NOW Americian-Serbs would be the new owners?

Wake up ..............

So how can and why would we steal something that is ours?Busted again.
(Daniel, 14 March 2013 19:17)

The only thing that is yours is a special prison to keep the likes in this place called Hague.
Little serbia awaits....

Will you answer her call?

Tung,

such a shame...

the guy is great seller just as Toto'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T1mv1XPQu4

maybe next time he could offer to sell the mines of Siberia???

The Tuesday issue of the Belgrade-based tabloid Informer said that the United States could soon take over the majority shares in all mines in Kosovo and Metohija formally owned by Serbia, while our country would be left with 49 percent of shares in the mines.

FORMALLY OWNED BY SERBIA. I guess thats why 8 of 9 comments on each article considering serbs, Serbia and serb owned property are from jealous and complex filled albanians. And a croat (Lenard)once in a while.

(Ardi Asllani, 14 March 2013 19:42)

I don't know, but where are those that were under the impression US states could not enter into cultural or economic compacts with foreign countries.

PS From what I cited, Zoran was never fooled by that article but always displayed his reservations. Me thinks he always lead his statement with "if true". You on the other hand are another customer.

Come again.

don't know, but where are those that were under the impression US states could not enter into cultural or economic compacts with foreign countries.

Come again.
(Shh, 15 March 2013 05:26
You have other news. To my knowledge there is no Serbian version of the US Constitution so you cannot claim it says things the English version says as ismost popular when Serbs quote UNSC1244.
If you have other proof I would love to hear it.

You have other news. To my knowledge there is no Serbian version of the US Constitution so you cannot claim it says things the English version says as ismost popular when Serbs quote UNSC1244.
If you have other proof I would love to hear it.
(pss, 15 March 2013 13:01)

Ok then one link for you,

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/states_with_MOUs.html

One in there I found interesting was a security treaty between a US state and a nation state. Even I thought that was generally supposed to be against the constitution.

Also there is no Serbian version of the US constitution but there is a translated one in Serbian.

Enjoy.

Enjoy.
(Shh, 15 March 2013 17:25)
I did not see anything in there that I would say was out of line if you read them carefully. Most are MOU's and MOI's to promote business's or the cooperation of educational institutes for exchange of research(all of non threatening matter),these are normal. A lot are by organizations not actually state organs. I did not find any mention of a treaty, I did see one with the Homeland Security of one state that had agreed to share "best practice" ideas on combating terrorism.
Remember there is a difference in promoting business's between 2 states (however the state cannot negotiate tariffs) and and promoting business between the state and Israel.
Now if the original article would have been about Indpendent Mining Inc "located" in Illinois that would be legal, but an agreement for interest of a mine with the state of Illinois would not.
But trust me any of these agreements would have to pass the muster with the US State Dept (federal govt).
Also just because someone prints something on the internet does not mean it is 100% accurate or true.

I am sure there is a US Constitution that has been translated into Serbian as it is studied around the world as one of the longest living state constitutions in the world. The remark was meant as a joke as people on this forum like to continually say that UNSC 1244 says things that are not there, and the running joke is everyone would like to see that Serbian version as it must be different.

I did not see anything in there that I would say was out of line if you read them carefully. Most are MOU's and MOI's to promote business's or the cooperation of educational institutes for exchange of research(all of non threatening matter),these are normal. A lot are by organizations not actually state organs. I did not find any mention of a treaty, I did see one with the Homeland Security of one state that had agreed to share "best practice" ideas on combating terrorism.

(pss, 15 March 2013 18:59)

---------------

Ok, now remember the constitution, “No State shall, without the “CONSENT OF CONGRESS“, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Even the MOU's, MOI's fall into the category of “any agreement” and yes if certain R&D successes materialise a contract between the state and nation state to develop that industry in a certain STATE is an agreement. In other words yes states can enter into agreement.

Give it up already.

Remember there is a difference in promoti ng business's between 2 states (however the state cannot negotiate tariffs) and and promoting business between the state and Israel.
Now if the original article would have been about Indpendent Mining Inc "located" in Illinois that would be legal, but an agreement for interest of a mine with the state of Illinois would not.

(pss, 15 March 2013 18:59)

--------------

Yes states don’t negotiate tariffs (big whoop avg 1.3%) that’s not the argument they still pay the relevant duties to the Fed regardless.

BTW you better let the North Dakota Trade mission to scratch the state owned mill representatives from it’s mission. As I’m aware while we post to each other they have been in China as part of that mission promoting economic and business links to Chinese state owned food processors.

But trust me any of these agreements would have to pass the muster with the US State Dept (federal govt).

------------

As I’m aware congress approves those (Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress responsibility to provide for the common defense and to regulate commerce with foreign nations), if it is challenged ie through SCOTUS, they will weigh up FED loss to STATE gain. In the mines hypothetical I cannot see loss on either side the only thing is that if the Fed has cold feet it might insist on a FED intermediary overseeing that trade to reasure itself in the eyes of other states.

Also just because someone prints something on the internet does not mean it is 100% accurate or true.
(pss, 15 March 2013 18:59)

That is a given, I understand not to believe anything before it can be proved, it also does not exclude things are not possible either, that is why I challenged and still do on your statement/quote that US States cannot enter into agreements with Nation states.

Told you... serbia cannot steal from Kosova no longer....those days are Over with a capital O.
(Dardania flag, 14 March 2013 17:50)

First off what is KosovA
Second did u read that the mines are owned by us?So how can and why would we steal something that is ours?Busted again.

Told you... serbia cannot steal from Kosova no longer....those days are Over with a capital O.

Did he also secure Municipality Status for all the Serbs in Illinois?

I am sure former Governor Blagovic made it all OFFICIAL!

NOW Americian-Serbs would be the new owners?

Wake up ..............

Where is Zoran and the likes of him/her that were so sure that;the news few days ago was real? Despite the fact that it was nothing but tabloid news and April's fool day.

Ohhh, what a surprise. But still a good April's joke where some fools were indeed believing it. Well, not their first and not their last mistake..

So how can and why would we steal something that is ours?Busted again.
(Daniel, 14 March 2013 19:17)

The only thing that is yours is a special prison to keep the likes in this place called Hague.
Little serbia awaits....

Will you answer her call?

Tung,

The Tuesday issue of the Belgrade-based tabloid Informer said that the United States could soon take over the majority shares in all mines in Kosovo and Metohija formally owned by Serbia, while our country would be left with 49 percent of shares in the mines.

FORMALLY OWNED BY SERBIA. I guess thats why 8 of 9 comments on each article considering serbs, Serbia and serb owned property are from jealous and complex filled albanians. And a croat (Lenard)once in a while.

(Ardi Asllani, 14 March 2013 19:42)

I don't know, but where are those that were under the impression US states could not enter into cultural or economic compacts with foreign countries.

PS From what I cited, Zoran was never fooled by that article but always displayed his reservations. Me thinks he always lead his statement with "if true". You on the other hand are another customer.

Come again.

don't know, but where are those that were under the impression US states could not enter into cultural or economic compacts with foreign countries.

Come again.
(Shh, 15 March 2013 05:26
You have other news. To my knowledge there is no Serbian version of the US Constitution so you cannot claim it says things the English version says as ismost popular when Serbs quote UNSC1244.
If you have other proof I would love to hear it.

such a shame...

the guy is great seller just as Toto'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T1mv1XPQu4

maybe next time he could offer to sell the mines of Siberia???

You have other news. To my knowledge there is no Serbian version of the US Constitution so you cannot claim it says things the English version says as ismost popular when Serbs quote UNSC1244.
If you have other proof I would love to hear it.
(pss, 15 March 2013 13:01)

Ok then one link for you,

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/states_with_MOUs.html

One in there I found interesting was a security treaty between a US state and a nation state. Even I thought that was generally supposed to be against the constitution.

Also there is no Serbian version of the US constitution but there is a translated one in Serbian.

Enjoy.

Enjoy.
(Shh, 15 March 2013 17:25)
I did not see anything in there that I would say was out of line if you read them carefully. Most are MOU's and MOI's to promote business's or the cooperation of educational institutes for exchange of research(all of non threatening matter),these are normal. A lot are by organizations not actually state organs. I did not find any mention of a treaty, I did see one with the Homeland Security of one state that had agreed to share "best practice" ideas on combating terrorism.
Remember there is a difference in promoting business's between 2 states (however the state cannot negotiate tariffs) and and promoting business between the state and Israel.
Now if the original article would have been about Indpendent Mining Inc "located" in Illinois that would be legal, but an agreement for interest of a mine with the state of Illinois would not.
But trust me any of these agreements would have to pass the muster with the US State Dept (federal govt).
Also just because someone prints something on the internet does not mean it is 100% accurate or true.

I am sure there is a US Constitution that has been translated into Serbian as it is studied around the world as one of the longest living state constitutions in the world. The remark was meant as a joke as people on this forum like to continually say that UNSC 1244 says things that are not there, and the running joke is everyone would like to see that Serbian version as it must be different.

I did not see anything in there that I would say was out of line if you read them carefully. Most are MOU's and MOI's to promote business's or the cooperation of educational institutes for exchange of research(all of non threatening matter),these are normal. A lot are by organizations not actually state organs. I did not find any mention of a treaty, I did see one with the Homeland Security of one state that had agreed to share "best practice" ideas on combating terrorism.

(pss, 15 March 2013 18:59)

---------------

Ok, now remember the constitution, “No State shall, without the “CONSENT OF CONGRESS“, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Even the MOU's, MOI's fall into the category of “any agreement” and yes if certain R&D successes materialise a contract between the state and nation state to develop that industry in a certain STATE is an agreement. In other words yes states can enter into agreement.

Give it up already.

But trust me any of these agreements would have to pass the muster with the US State Dept (federal govt).

------------

As I’m aware congress approves those (Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress responsibility to provide for the common defense and to regulate commerce with foreign nations), if it is challenged ie through SCOTUS, they will weigh up FED loss to STATE gain. In the mines hypothetical I cannot see loss on either side the only thing is that if the Fed has cold feet it might insist on a FED intermediary overseeing that trade to reasure itself in the eyes of other states.

Also just because someone prints something on the internet does not mean it is 100% accurate or true.
(pss, 15 March 2013 18:59)

That is a given, I understand not to believe anything before it can be proved, it also does not exclude things are not possible either, that is why I challenged and still do on your statement/quote that US States cannot enter into agreements with Nation states.

Remember there is a difference in promoti ng business's between 2 states (however the state cannot negotiate tariffs) and and promoting business between the state and Israel.
Now if the original article would have been about Indpendent Mining Inc "located" in Illinois that would be legal, but an agreement for interest of a mine with the state of Illinois would not.

(pss, 15 March 2013 18:59)

--------------

Yes states don’t negotiate tariffs (big whoop avg 1.3%) that’s not the argument they still pay the relevant duties to the Fed regardless.

BTW you better let the North Dakota Trade mission to scratch the state owned mill representatives from it’s mission. As I’m aware while we post to each other they have been in China as part of that mission promoting economic and business links to Chinese state owned food processors.