printOur friend Nebojsa Malic appeared on Russian TV (fronted by American and British women) to discuss “the predictable and shocking” “decision of the International Court of Justice, made public on July 22, that the unilateral declaration of independence by the provisional government of Kosovo did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”
Read his complete analysis, where he states that “‘If there was one consistent theme to the U.S. position, it was that the Serbs should lose’ : Americans and Europeans [have insisted] that the integrity of Croatia and Bosnia trumped the Serbs’ right to self-determination. Yet when it came to Kosovo, the ‘principle’ shifted again, so the rights of Kosovo Albanians trumped the integrity of Serbia! … ‘If there was one consistent theme to the U.S. position, it was that the Serbs should lose.”
RT:
“Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” [George Washington – 1796 – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp ]
What America “believes”: Secession is GOOD when applied to Kosovo, Eritrea, and West Virginia but EVIL when applied to the Confederacy, Ossetia, and Vermont. Serbia is GOOD when using terrorism and assassination against the Evil (Hapsburg) Empire but EVIL when fighting against Moslem criminals. Sexist Neolithic Afghan Mujahideen fighting Soviet occupation in Afghanistan are GOOD but the same Sexist Neolithic Afghan Mujahideen fighting American occupation in Afghanistan are EVIL.
America gets to fight against its OWN weapons/equipment since we equipped some insurgents or government and then we/they turn against them/us. This is great for the trillion-dollar Warfare Leviathan – the WPA (Works Progress Administration) make-work equivalent of “national security”. As Walt “Pogo” Kelly put it, “we have met the enemy and it is us”.
Taking sides in the Balkans is something akin to taking sides in the Middle East. A useless excercise in short sightedness. Aside from supporting Israel in the middle east and the complications we must face because of said support we should leave both areas to their fates. Americans can’t even run their own ship much less a volatile, ethnic volcano such as the sore toe of the old Austro Hungarian empire.
It still befuddles me, the amount of hatred and spite that the political elites in America and Europe have for the Serbian people. Here are a people that were our allies against the fascist Germans, who never did any harm to our country. They are a people who would be a firm, natural ally against the Westward spread of Islamization in Eastern Europe. So how does our government approach them? It bombs them for attempting to defend their country against a narco-terrorist insurgency (one backed by bin Laden to boot) and forces the Serbian people to hand part of their country over to a a bunch of human and drug trafficking Albanian gangsters. I still believe that Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Madeleine Albright should be charged with war crimes for what they did to the Serbian people during the 1999 bombing of Belgrade. (It is also interesting to note that while Clinton was all gun-hoe in destroying the civilian infrastructure in Serbia and killing several hundred Serbians, he was very disinclined to assassinate Osama bin Laden, the guy who was behind the bombing of our two African embassies.)
To obtain a perspective that differs from many news outlets and government statements, please take notice of Julia Gorin at Political Mavens and her discussions of the Serbian situation.
The conservative blogger Julia Gorin brings our attention to an article posted at Jihad Watch written by Professor Miroljub Jevtiae in 2006:
The selling out of Serbia to the Albanians paves the way for the selling out of Israel to the “Palestinians”.
What I find incredible is that in the 21st century weaker, smaller countries appear to be gaining territory and influence at the expense of their larger, stronger neighbors. Albania is a poor country with around 3.5 million people. On the other hand Serbia has around 10 million people and is relatively prosperous. I have no doubt Serbia would maul Albania in a conventional war with no outside interference. Yet, Albania was able to send illegals across its border with Serbia for decades with the result being a majority Albanian presence in Kosovo. They were able to persuade the West to help them take Kosovo from Serbia.
Additionally, 50K Albanians fled into Macedonia and now they have to worry about a potential Albanian independence movement.
Even Greece with 10 million people is worried about the increasing number of illegal Albanians flooding into their country. I guess they don’t want to lose any of their northern territory.
Ditto Mexico. They have 1/3 the population of the USA. Their entire air force has 10 aging fighter jets. They could not hold up for 2 hours against a US onslaught. Yet, Mexico appears to be in a position to either gain possession over a chunk of US territory, or wield major influence over its larger, richer, stronger neighbor.
Has anything like this ever occurred in history? I always thought that stronger nations took land from the weaker, not the other way around.
Many thanks, Ilana!