Kosovo

[brooksieb]

Should Kosovo be independent or part of serbia and why?

I personally think Kosovo should be independent becuase of the ethnic cleansing that happened there under the old Yugoslavia under the hands of Milosevic and his cronies if there was no ethnic cleansing i would say Kosovo should of stayed in the hands of serbia but considering we can't change the past Kosovo must be independent for the safety of it's citizens, the northern part of Kosovo (mainly inhabited by the serbs) should be part of serbia for the serbs safety too. To conclude my reasons i've fought in the balkans for the independence of countries like Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and so on... but i've worked for the safety of everyone in the balkans including serbs, albanians, croats, bosniaks, the UN, UK and US army and so on.

As for the poll i've chosen choice 2 primarily for the safety of the serbs but also for Kosovo's independence.

[MeDeFe]

The population in any given area can declare themselves an independent state if the whole procedure is carried through democratically (in the strong sense of the word, which is more than just "rule of the majority", but taking every person and their viewpoint equally into account and mutually respecting everyone's rights, including the minorities'). Regardless of history.

[Juan_Bottom]

Isn't what you just described what happened before the American Civil War? Or did I miss something by way of definition?

[MeDeFe]

Isn't what you just described what happened before the American Civil War? Or did I miss something by way of definition?

You mean what I described? Possibly, but was it truly a democratic process in the sense I intend the word? Although that might be a bit too much to expect against the historical background.

[Juan_Bottom]

Democratic in the sense that the southern states seceded from the Union. The Northern States weren't going for it, and a war resulted. But the Southern states all voted to secede...

Is it just me, or are we the only CCers who even know were Kosovo is?

[muy_thaiguy]

Democratic in the sense that the southern states seceded from the Union. The Northern States weren't going for it, and a war resulted. But the Southern states all voted to secede...

Is it just me, or are we the only CCers who even know were Kosovo is?

I do.

[pancakemix]

Democratic in the sense that the southern states seceded from the Union. The Northern States weren't going for it, and a war resulted. But the Southern states all voted to secede...

Is it just me, or are we the only CCers who even know were Kosovo is?

I do.

[Juan_Bottom]

I see.... so no one cares about Kosovo then?

[Skittles!]

I see.... so no one cares about Kosovo then?

Pretty much.

[muy_thaiguy]

I see.... so no one cares about Kosovo then?

Cares about wha?

[PLAYER57832]

Democratic in the sense that the southern states seceded from the Union. The Northern States weren't going for it, and a war resulted. But the Southern states all voted to secede...

Is it just me, or are we the only CCers who even know were Kosovo is?

I do.

Me, too.

But, to quote my grandmother, that region has been at odds for thousands of years.

I believe that Molosovitch made it pretty impossible for Kosovo to remain part of Serbia. There is just too much hatred and antagonism. But, I am not sure that Serbia will ever see it that way.

In a way, the Civil War ... or as it is called down south the "War Between the States" (because the south seperated and therefore was, to them, no longer part of the union at the time). Is relevant. However, all the anger and hatred that existed between the north and the south were like friendly kisses compared to the deep divisions in the Baltic/Yugoslav region. Also, the north needed the south and the south needed the north. (though how much of each is debated).

[MeDeFe]

Democratic in the sense that the southern states seceded from the Union. The Northern States weren't going for it, and a war resulted. But the Southern states all voted to secede...

Not everyone got to vote though, in fact, I think the majority of the population hadn't yet gained that particular civil right.

[Juan_Bottom]

Democratic in the sense that the southern states seceded from the Union. The Northern States weren't going for it, and a war resulted. But the Southern states all voted to secede...

Not everyone got to vote though, in fact, I think the majority of the population hadn't yet gained that particular civil right.

Strange though... Every book I've ever read on the subject tells that the southern slaves were all for where they were at. That they were actually afraid of being free.

They had two large attemps at slave rebellions in the South before the War of Northern Agression. One was the Browns rebelion(?) and the other I can't place.... anyway, for the most part, slaves refused to fight.
Even during the Civil War the South had black troopers.

But anyway, those with the legal right voted pro-secession.

[jonesthecurl]

I see.... so no one cares about Kosovo then?

Not so: in my case, I just don't feel competent to have an opinion on this one. It's difficult.
I know that many forum posters don't feel that they need much knowledge to have a strong opinion, but I'm a wimp that way.

[Juan_Bottom]

I see.... so no one cares about Kosovo then?

Not so: in my case, I just don't feel competent to have an opinion on this one. It's difficult.
I know that many forum posters don't feel that they need much knowledge to have a strong opinion, but I'm a wimp that way.

You know.. me too.. I just say hey! If you want it, it isn't going to be given to you. Kosovo isn't controlled by England or anything, right?

[brooksieb]

I see.... so no one cares about Kosovo then?

Not so: in my case, I just don't feel competent to have an opinion on this one. It's difficult.
I know that many forum posters don't feel that they need much knowledge to have a strong opinion, but I'm a wimp that way.

You know.. me too.. I just say hey! If you want it, it isn't going to be given to you. Kosovo isn't controlled by England or anything, right?

Part of it was controlled not by England but by the UK between 1999/2000 part was controlled by the US and part of it by france. The UN then took over and now it has claimed (or in some countries) seeking independence.

[jonesthecurl]

I think there's a reason that breaking countries up into samller and smaller units is called "Balkanising".
The question becomes how small a unit can be economically viable as a self-governing unit. Going too far is sometimes jokingly referred to as creating "another Flyspeckistan".
I don't think that the answer when the inhabitants of an area have not been getting on too well is necessarily to split them up - sometimes (as with india and pakistan) this just perpetuates the problem.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't know.... I would prefer we find a safe alternative to any form of genocide. And if splitting up the country is the best way to acheive that goal. Then lets do it.

Of course this probably wont happen. They'll have to fight for it.

[Ray Rider]

I voted for the second option. The independent journalist just wrote an article about it which you can read on his website (I really enjoy reading his stuff).

[cutebastard71]

It is illegal to separate part of the country just like that. In that case you will have different regions in different countries all over the world asking for separation. Basks in Spain, Russians in many of the former Soviet Union States. Do you really want to go into a mess like that ?

[MeDeFe]

It is illegal to separate part of the country just like that. In that case you will have different regions in different countries all over the world asking for separation. Basks in Spain, Russians in many of the former Soviet Union States. Do you really want to go into a mess like that ?

Well, why's it illegal?

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't get it either. What makes it illegal exactly?