Yugoslavia. R.I.P.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Fact remains that there was nothing in the article Partizan posted that in any way asserted that the former Yugoslavia should've existed or been maintained, so it's difficult to see what either your or his point is here.

As for using the actions of a single Welshman to claim that there is a history of animosity between the nations of Wales and Ireland.......

Without being a pain, can you avoid doing 6 responses in a row as well. Otherwise you may as well be having a thread discussion with yourself
I was trying to avoid giving you a long winded rambling answer which addressed several different points at once. If that is however what you would prefer in future that is what you will get !:D

[CollegeTillIDie]

Not perhaps, or even technically CTID. The Isle of Man is simply not part of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Full stop.

Falkland Islanders use British passports, but that don't make them part of the UK...

Well in the case of Las Malvinas they are on the Argentinian Continental Shelf :D

[CollegeTillIDie]

The elements within the former Yugoslavia were indeed united by shared history and ethnicity. But the things that divided them were of bigger importance - namely religion and language. When 2 parts of the same ethnic group living side by side use completely different alphabets for the same language, that begins to give you an idea of how different they are in terms of history, allegiances and world view, and how complex the situation is.

Well that too is changing as in Belgrade and major cities they have for some time used the Roman alphabet ( Slavonic variant ) for Serbian as used in Zagreb and other parts of Croatia, especially in printed matter such as Newspapers magazines etc. I have visited Serbia three times. I was in Nis in the South on two occasions where most printed matter was in Cyrillic but even here shopfronts etc were beginning to use Roman alphabet.


I for one am glad that Yugoslavia no longer exists. It was always going to be this way, so there is no RIP as far as I am concerned. Big powers need to stop forcing their own unworkable and unrealistic solutions upon peoples. A lot of countries are thoroughly artifical entities that don't reflect the genuine nature of on-the-ground ethnic, religious or linguistic groups, or fundamental politics. Countries do not have any form of sacred right or need to exist - if they don't work, we should not be afraid of recognising that and letting them change.

Your opinion and my opinion on whether Yugoslavia existence was a good thing or not is not the issue or indeed of any real importance. The fact remains most Serbs, Montenegrins and Macedonians I have met regretted it's passing and indeed some of the Bosnians I have encountered are not so sure the manner of their departure was handled at all correctly.
but at the end of the day even if you and me and all 21 million former Yugoslav citizens wanted it back in the morning, it is gone and gone for all time I would expect.

And by the same tokens a lot of countries especially outside Europe are random lines drawn on a map by colonial powers several centuries ago in some instances.


Even in 'established' areas like Western Europe we have such situations - i wouldn't be at all surprised if Belgium didn't last another 25 years in its current form, or of Spain fragmented partially in the next 50 years.
Spain will lose some of it's land as will SW France is Euskadi ever becomes independent and that is a much more economically viable entity to give an example than Crna Gora could ever be. Catalunya enjoys an unparalleled prosperity being with the Spanish federation. So for now they will hang on as an autonomous entity.Besides where will they get an opportunity to vent their anti Madrid spleen if they lose out on derby matches with Real in an independent Catalan Liga ?

As regards Belgium I once read an article in my studies about it written by a historian and political scientist. He quoted a local citizen who said the only things holding the country together are 1/ It's common religion 2/ It's respect for the Royal Family 3/ The Flemings distaste for being the butt of jokes told by Dutch people about them. 4/ The Walloons distaste for being the butt of jokes told by French people about them 5/ Their united miffed ness at not getting credit for inventing French Fries , having the best chocolate on earth or some of the best beer.

These are one could argue 5 tenuous things which unite the Belgians. But any Belgian I have met agrees that is what keeps them together.
Belgium has two departments for every one we have in Ireland for example
A Flemish speaking one and a French speaking one. It seems to work in spite of itself.

[Réiteoir]

Independence for Cork!!!

Thing is though - if that happened - Dublin would be the capital of the new Republic ;) :D

[Green Tribe]

Don't know if this was posted but how is it going to affect the draw for Euro 2008? :eek: :eek:

[Poor Student]

Don't know if this was posted but how is it going to affect the draw for Euro 2008? :eek: :eek:

Cork will probably be looking for a strong part of our seeding on the basis of Roy Keane.

[lopez]

... but at the end of the day even if you and me and all 21 million former Yugoslav citizens wanted it back in the morning, it is gone and gone for all time I would expect...Yugoslavia could once more exist if cantons or whole republics pushed for such an accomodation. UN policy from WW2 has been to keep nation states intact. They've broken the rules in Yugoslavia (for obvious reasons) so there is justification for further redrawing of borders. As the vote proved, despite a nice bribe just over 50% of the population of Montenegro voted for 'independence'. Macedonia's vote for independence was however considerably larger at 71% with the Albanians boycotting the election, while Bosnia would have stayed in the FYR but for the aggressiveness of Serbia. Possibly, if Milosevic had tried to negotiate his way out of Yugoslavia at a reasonable pace, leaving the heavy handedness as a last resort to protect the Serbian majority districts bordering Serbia, the FYR may still be with us.

[Castle Barracks]

Lloyd George was acting for the British state,not a Welsh one!The reason that Wales just about voted for an assembly was that most of the people who reside here are probably not Welsh!A lot of people from my neck of the woods have a lot of admiration of the nationalist cause,and constantly try to compare traditions between the two countries!How can there be animosity between the two greatest nations on earth!

[Shelsman]

Another new opponent for our national team at some stage in the future.

Also easier opposition for our clubs in Europe if any of our clubs are drawn against their clubs -sweet :D

[dcfcsteve]

Also easier opposition for our clubs in Europe if any of our clubs are drawn against their clubs -sweet :D

Unless it's Longford...... :eek: :D

[CollegeTillIDie]

How can there be animosity between the two greatest nations on earth!

There isn't China and India have excellent diplomatic relations :D

[Closed Account 2]

Also easier opposition for our clubs in Europe if any of our clubs are drawn against their clubs -sweet :D

Just a sec, are we talking about the Corkonian Republic or Montenegro here ?

[Dassa]

Altough montenegro may not have much current say on its ruling, i would say for those people its enough to now have your own country and a sense of belonging. If people in majority vote for independance it has to be accepted.

[lopez]

...If people in majority vote for independance it has to be accepted.By this statement you surely must agree that there is a legitimate right for a 32 county Irish republic to exist where Unionists can either like it or....... well, in the phrase once used by The Sun, to refer to British born blacks who dared to protest against Zola Budd representing Britain, 'go back to your homelands.'

[Dassa]

By this statement you surely must agree that there is a legitimate right for a 32 county Irish republic to exist where Unionists can either like it or....... well, in the phrase once used by The Sun, to refer to British born blacks who dared to protest against Zola Budd representing Britain, 'go back to your homelands.'

Once again always goes back to same UI argument. If the majority of people in NI vote for UI I will accept it in the same way as peaceful Republicans accept the current set up.

[lopez]

Once again always goes back to same UI argument. If the majority of people in NI vote for UI I will accept it in the same way as peaceful Republicans accept the current set up.The majority of the country of Ireland voted in the 1919 election, in the absence of a plebiscite, for some form of separation on the lines at the very least that enjoyed by Australia and Canada. Despite this Britain partitioned the country, not least because of the threats made by Unionists who refused to accept democracy. Indeed, looking at the present scenario, I doubt that even if - and it's a big IF - the majority of the North voted for a UI in the future, unionists would once more look to carving up NI.

To cut to the chase, nation-breaking is a very select art. Iraq is another place prime for dissolution but such a scenario doesn't fit with either the occupiers or their chums (Turkey), never mind what the people say. Saying that I'm sticking to the view that countries that have had a nice peaceful relationship (Ireland isn't one of these countries; at no time in its history did anyone representing anybody else except a plantocracy voted to join a 'United Kingdom') with the country they've been united with for decades or centuries should not be allowed to bow out with a slim majority just because they will get fast tracked into the EU or that they've found oil and don't fancy sharing any of it. The majority must be overwhelming; at least 66% but I'd personally put it at 75%.

[Dassa]

I accept that ireland was once United politically, but it is no longer, NI is nearly 100 years old. times change. Im sure Unionists (Im not one) would protest against UI in the same manner that nationalists(looking UI) currently protest against the Union. there are many examples around the world of changes to nations and many will occur in the future.

Also this idea that Unionist wouldnt accept democracy. maybe true but that would be to ignore the fears That they had of the powerful church-state that may have occured and which did in ROI.

[lopez]

...Also this idea that Unionist wouldnt accept democracy. maybe true but that would be to ignore the fears That they had of the powerful church-state that may have occured and which did in ROI.I've always agreed with that argument. The ROI was church dominated and it's de facto President, and author of most of the Irish consitution, His (Dis)grace John McQuaid wanted to turn it into a Catholic Iran. It is no longer that way and McQuaid's iterference would have been seriously more curtailed by a strong Protestant minority. I think that Unionism also had at it's heart economic arguments as much as ethnic and religious concerns.

[Dassa]

well for what ever reason, the island is now two countries. With the right of NI to decide were there future lies just like the montenegrans were allowed to decide on their future.

[dcfcsteve]

The majority of the country of Ireland voted in the 1919 election, in the absence of a plebiscite, for some form of separation on the lines at the very least that enjoyed by Australia and Canada. Despite this Britain partitioned the country, not least because of the threats made by Unionists who refused to accept democracy. Indeed, looking at the present scenario, I doubt that even if - and it's a big IF - the majority of the North voted for a UI in the future, unionists would once more look to carving up NI.

To cut to the chase, nation-breaking is a very select art. Iraq is another place prime for dissolution but such a scenario doesn't fit with either the occupiers or their chums (Turkey), never mind what the people say. Saying that I'm sticking to the view that countries that have had a nice peaceful relationship (Ireland isn't one of these countries; at no time in its history did anyone representing anybody else except a plantocracy voted to join a 'United Kingdom') with the country they've been united with for decades or centuries should not be allowed to bow out with a slim majority just because they will get fast tracked into the EU or that they've found oil and don't fancy sharing any of it. The majority must be overwhelming; at least 66% but I'd personally put it at 75%.

1919 was 87 years ago Lopez. Unless you're willing to share your time-machine with the rest of us, we're stuck with the current constitutional arrangeemts re the North.

Harping back to what happened generations ago, when horse-drawn buses/trams were a common sight and the TV and international air-travel weren't even featuring in the dreams of mad men, is just ludicrous.

[CollegeTillIDie]

1919 was 87 years ago Lopez. Unless you're willing to share your time-machine with the rest of us, we're stuck with the current constitutional arrangeemts re the North.

Harping back to what happened generations ago, when horse-drawn buses/trams were a common sight and the TV and international air-travel weren't even featuring in the dreams of mad men, is just ludicrous.

The Treaty of Versailles was implemented that self same year and it's impact is still being felt. John Logie Baird invented television already by this date. Using your own argument.... 1690 was even longer ago but the impact of events that year is still being felt annually!

[CollegeTillIDie]

The majority of the country of Ireland voted in the 1919 election, in the absence of a plebiscite, for some form of separation on the lines at the very least that enjoyed by Australia and Canada. Despite this Britain partitioned the country, not least because of the threats made by Unionists who refused to accept democracy. Indeed, looking at the present scenario, I doubt that even if - and it's a big IF - the majority of the North voted for a UI in the future, unionists would once more look to carving up NI.

To cut to the chase, nation-breaking is a very select art. Iraq is another place prime for dissolution but such a scenario doesn't fit with either the occupiers or their chums (Turkey), never mind what the people say. Saying that I'm sticking to the view that countries that have had a nice peaceful relationship (Ireland isn't one of these countries; at no time in its history did anyone representing anybody else except a plantocracy voted to join a 'United Kingdom') with the country they've been united with for decades or centuries should not be allowed to bow out with a slim majority just because they will get fast tracked into the EU or that they've found oil and don't fancy sharing any of it. The majority must be overwhelming; at least 66% but I'd personally put it at 75%.

The British Parliament itself was a property owners club exclusively until the Third Reform Bill which wasn't passed until Gladstone's time in the late 1880's.
The plain punter in Britain did not have the vote until early in the 20th Century when universal sufferage was introduced and women had to go through hoops to get the vote. So by no means can the Act Of Union decision of 1800 be deemed to have been in any real way democratic.

[lopez]

Harping back to what happened generations ago, when horse-drawn buses/trams were a common sight and the TV and international air-travel weren't even featuring in the dreams of mad men, is just ludicrous.What's ludicrous is your statement, even more so as you are discussing a subject which, not as you point out, has its origins in the treaty of Versailles (The Croatian, Slovenian, Bosnian and Vojvodina constituents of the FYR were created at the Treaty of St. Germain and Trianon which dealt with Austria and Hungary respectively: Germany (Versailles) never lost any land to Yugoslavia) but in a plebiscite where the people (who were eligible I confess I do not know) freely voted to dump their king and join the union. In the case of Montenegro, noone forced them to join Yugoslavia against their will.

My point with Dassa (presuming incorrectly that he was a unionist, which I must add there is absolutely nothing wrong there, because I too am a unionist in not wanting chunks of either the country I live in or the country I'm a citizen of being broken up and ruled by chancers) is that this same argument is sidelined by certain people. Yes I know it was all a long, long time ago, and yes we have a constitutional agreement implemented, but it still doesn't mean that partition was justified.
The British Parliament itself was a property owners club exclusively until the Third Reform Bill which wasn't passed until Gladstone's time in the late 1880's.
The plain punter in Britain did not have the vote until early in the 20th Century when universal sufferage was introduced and women had to go through hoops to get the vote. So by no means can the Act Of Union decision of 1800 be deemed to have been in any real way democratic.The expansion and incorporation of most nation states was done on behalf of unelected elites. I can't say that this justifies having referendums in every former kingdom across Europe like Kent or Mercia in England for example. Basques and Catalans were never invaded by Castille, despite what anybody says. These kingdoms were incorporated into a greater Spain by elites, and the vast majority of serfs and then citizens peacefully accepted the situation at least until the Spanish Civil War.

[Dassa]

there arent many who were born in a UI now alive, Partition happened. I care very deeply about being Northern Irish now. I completely accept that if it hadnt occured I may now feel that pride in Ireland (32 county) but I dont. The wrong or rights of whats great grandparents did are of little concern to me and I have no interest in Unification of Ireland. It could have been different but for the incorporation of religion with a feeling of nationalism by both nationalities and religions. It happened NI is a country now and the people of NI like Montenegro will decide their future,cant live in the past.

[Gather round]

Lopez, does your time machine go forwards and do you hire out? I only want to go as far as July 10, to see if that €5 I spent backing Serbia etc. at 100/1 was wasted.

You're right about the end of Church domination. I read in a paper last week (Indo, I think) that only four priests were ordained in the Republic in 2004.

[lopez]

Lopez, does your time machine go forwards...?It does....
...I only want to go as far as July 10, to see if that €5 I spent backing Serbia etc. at 100/1 was wasted....and it is. :D

[dcfcsteve]

My point with Dassa (presuming incorrectly that he was a unionist, which I must add there is absolutely nothing wrong there, because I too am a unionist in not wanting chunks of either the country I live in or the country I'm a citizen of being broken up and ruled by chancers) is that this same argument is sidelined by certain people. Yes I know it was all a long, long time ago, and yes we have a constitutional agreement implemented, but it still doesn't mean that partition was justified.

I'm not sure which part of my post even came close to suggesting that partition was justified, but to address the posts of yourself and CTID - partition did happen, many, many years ago, and we're dealing with the consequences now.

Ireland would probably be a much simpler place politically had it not happened. Hell - we might even all get on now if it didn't, but it did happen and we have to deal with the reality of the situation. Acknowledging that you have to get on with living within the confines of the reality of life doesn't in anyway even imply that you are therefore justifying everything that happens in life.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Lopez, does your time machine go forwards and do you hire out? I only want to go as far as July 10, to see if that €5 I spent backing Serbia etc. at 100/1 was wasted.


Gather round

If Serbia-Montenegro can get out of the group, you will get great value for your bet ;). They have the best defence in Europe, one of the better keepers and in 6 foot 7 inch striker Nicola Zigic, my dark horse for surprise packet of the World Cup.

[Partizan]

http://antiwar.com/malic/

The hypocrisy by the US/EU/UN/NATO is spellbinding.

[anto eile]

aw poor sebia, losing control over more land it shouldnt occupy
and theres no simple "good guys" in serbia. theyve massacring each other for years.the whole region is a mess

[anto eile]

Then there is the role of the IMF and the World Bank. These two unelected bodies have, with the EU, sought to impose Thatcherite neo-liberal solutions on Serbia-Montenegro, ever since the fall of Yugoslavia's Socialist-led government in 2000. Thousands of socially owned enterprises have already been privatised, but the west is still not satisfied - the IMF has made further economic help dependent on Belgrade selling off the valuable NIS oil company.

Montenegro's tiny economy is even more dominated by foreign capital than Serbia's, with the privatisation process having started much earlier. The selling off of nationally owned assets will have serious implications for the country's future economic viability and even with the tourist potential of its attractive coastline, it is difficult to see how Montenegro can afford to pay its way, without further surrender to western financial institutions. In doing so, it will be following the path of its neighbours.

For all the novelties of statehood, the brutal truth is that today's "independent" Balkan republics had, if anything, more independence when they were autonomous republics inside the Yugoslav Federation. In place of one militarily strong, internationally respected, non-aligned nation, there now exists a number of weak, economically unviable EU/IMF/Nato protectorates.

paragraphs one and two there are good. 3 is interresting.maybe debatable.

i dont understand the pro-serbia/yugoslavia sympathies.saying a unified yugolsavia should still exist is like saying ireland should rejoin the uk.

thers no good guys in the blakans. theyve being massacring each other for centuries. let them get on with having their own countries.
perhaps ina few decades through a system of EU style loose memberships of independent separate republics will do more to bring them together than teh previous 80 years of forced unfication in the yugoslav state did to help them live with each other

good post by dcfcsteve on page 2 of thei thread

[CollegeTillIDie]

There's no good guys in the Balkans. They've being massacring each other for centuries.
Well finally someone has come around to a reasonable viewpoint. Yes there are and were no good guys in the Balkans. Which is why it is important that this message is circulated. The Western Media portrayed the Bosnians and Croats as the good guys in the Bosnia-Herzegovinian Civil War and Serbs were portrayed as the bad guys. Serbs , Bosnians and Croats were all massacred during the Civil War. And for the record the Kosovar Albanians were as guilty of ethnic cleansing of Serbs as anyone else was guilty of ethnic cleansing against them. But of course it doesn't suit the agenda of certain Western States to acknowledge that fact and so it is scarcely if ever reported .

And this is also why none of them should be demonised any more than the other. I have met people from all sides of this conflict since the 1990's. On a one to one basis , Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks alike are all decent people pretty much like the Irish or any other people for that matter.


Let them get on with having their own countries.Perhaps in a few decades through a system of EU style loose memberships of independent separate republics will do more to bring them together.....
By your own logic, the United Kingdom should be dismantled. I agree with you Wales and Scotland are separate peoples to the English and also deserve their own states. And there has been an attempt to form an Ex-Yugoslavia Economic Area



than the previous 80 years of forced unfication in the Yugoslav state did to help them live with each other
There was more consent involved in forming Yugoslavia than the so-called United Kingdom, plus there was constitutional provisions written down in a single document, to enable those Republics who voted to secede, a system for doing so. Most of the problems involved in the break up of Yugoslavia stemmed from two things 1/ The borders of the constituent Republics 2/ The failure of the Outside World to abide by the provisions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Constitution by recognising the states of Bosnia and Croatia as independent ... too soon in the process.

[dcfcsteve]

There was more consent involved in forming Yugoslavia than the so-called United Kingdom

So ? The UK was set-up between 1535 and 1800. Nothing got done in those days in the 'right' ways or for the 'right' reasons. That doesn't make Yugoslavia any more or less legitimate or justifiable as a state. You can't assert the legitimacy of one illegitimate state by saying it's b@stard origin is less than other illegitimate states !


plus there was constitutional provisions written down in a single document, to enable those Republics who voted to secede, a system for doing so.

Which they've all finally opted to do now. Proof that Yugoslavia wasn't wanted - regardless of how much blame for it's break-up you subscribe to the UN/EU.

Yugoslavia is gone - end of story. Hurrah.

[Dassa]

Its allways hard to make a point on a situation until you have lived there and not involved one way or another. The propaganda that each country recieves will always be determined by some force and must be interpreted carefully.

[Poor Student]

aw poor sebia, losing control over more land it shouldnt occupy

They didn't occupy Montenegro. The two states have been united from before Yugoslavia.


and theres no simple "good guys" in serbia.

There's plenty of good people there. What are you on about?

[anto eile]

They didn't occupy Montenegro. The two states have been united from before Yugoslavia.



There's plenty of good people there. What are you on about?
thaks very much for wasting my time by misinterpreting my post.thanks a lot.
what i meant was the same as when i said

"There's no good guys in the Balkans. They've being massacring each other for centuries.
to which your ucd(d) mate pretty much agreed when he replied by saying
Well finally someone has come around to a reasonable viewpoint. Yes there are and were no good guys in the Balkans. Which is why it is important that this message is circulated. The Western Media portrayed the Bosnians and Croats as the good guys in the Bosnia-Herzegovinian Civil War and Serbs were portrayed as the bad guys. Serbs , Bosnians and Croats were all massacred during the Civil War. And for the record the Kosovar Albanians were as guilty of ethnic cleansing of Serbs as anyone else was guilty of ethnic cleansing against them. But of course it doesn't suit the agenda of certain Western States to acknowledge that fact and so it is scarcely if ever reported
And this is also why none of them should be demonised any more than the other. I have met people from all sides of this conflict since the 1990's. On a one to one basis , Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks alike are all decent people pretty much like the Irish or any other people for that matter.

[anto eile]

They didn't occupy Montenegro. The two states have been united from before Yugoslavia.




fair enough. but montenegro spliting from serbia is a good thing imo. completely and finally breaking up the old yugoslavia is a good thing

[Closed Account 2]

Well whatever you say about the politics of it, they would have had some football team in the 1990s.

[dcfcsteve]

So would a UK team in the late 1980's and 1990's - if such a one existed and Ireland hadn't gained independence....!