Printable View
But, Stu, what's all this got to do with a Russia-Serbia match? ;)
What happened with Zhirkov? I've heard he was subjected to booing and missiles being thrown at him before Advocaat had to substitute him. Something about it being related to his move to Anzhi Makhachkala. Any explanation for that? Presumably something to do with Dagestani separatism?
ask me that in 5 pages time!Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
That's interesting. So when would it become a state in its own right? Once the UN recognises it? Once Serbia acknowledges it? What if Serbia at some point remained the solitary state around the world not to recognise it? If I'm not mistaken, 122 states recognise Palestine as a state but the UN cannot recognise it as a state insofar as at least one of the permanent members on the security council are prepared to continue vetoing any decision to recognise it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
I save my reading for trains - oh, wait - :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Junior
Normally in Knin, but I'll not get back until the end of October but will spend 2 weeks in December and most of January. Lovely spot but still not home.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
You've simplified it perfectly - or rather summed it up. Kosovo Polje (Kosovo Meadow/Field) is an emotive place for Serbs, it's where they bravely took on the Turks, lost and a myth grew up surrounding it and the execution of (I think) King Lazar. The flashpoint for the increase in Serb nationalism came from - deep breath as this is all true - a Serb farmers pleasure time with a stick and coke bottle. He was caught on the job with said items and claimed it was a sexual assault by local Kosovars. So it gave Milosevic the excuse to go there, make a speech about how Serbs will no longer take it in such a manner and he would fight for their rights. At the same time his good buddy Tudjman was whipping up old Ustache memories and surrounding himself with gangsters, scaring moderate Croatian-Serbs into the arms of the extremists. Next up came the two strong men (Tudjman and Milosevic) who decided to carve up Bosnia between them while allowing Dubrovnik be a free city (a Monaco of the Adriatic). But vows were broken, hell arrived in Bosnia, Dubrovnik was bombed as the Croatians double-crossed their Serbian partners and we can point to Kosovo being the turning point - and point at which the "great powers" should have copped on. Instead they've handed a gangster state independence and poured funds in. All in all though, Kosovo is a stunning country/province/place.
No, I didn't see that, just that he played badly and the fans got on his back. When he left Russia he slagged off the league (that he was too big for it), so when he played badly he got it back. Nothing thrown, from what I saw. Dagestan is a strange issue in Russia, it's suffering from the general civil war in the Caucasus, though Moscow is committed to investing in the region because of the 2014 games.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
If it went about seeking independence from Serbia as Montenegro did, maybe more would recognise it. Kosovo suddenly declared themselves independent , Montenegro went the Czechoslovakia "Velvet Divorce" route, and held a referendum, before splitting. Belgrade didn't stand in their way.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I didnt know that about Dubrovnik. But I thought that the Bosniak president was involved in the discussions of a division of B&H and hoped to retain some lands for the Bosniaks... maybe he saw the writing on the wall and was looking to get what he could for him/his people when he could? The sad thing is that these guys - Milosevic, Tudjman, Karadzic etc - created the situation such that they were unwilling/unable to take a principled stand to end the forced unity that Tito imposed through "plantation". Easy for me to say obviously but they should have abandoned the complex idea of ethnicity and looked simply at borders. I think thats what "the people" were mostly concerned about, certainly the Croats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Though DannyInvincible, you are right - we should leave it at that!
I don't have an "informed" opinion like you given that your partner is croatian if i remember correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
however it reminds me of a story a teacher once told us in school, if we in roscommon decided we(lets say the demographics have changed here somewhat and the brazilians are the we) want to break away from Ireland set out own state, we could. The point is simple, bar the ethnicity issue, if I were serbian I would feel somewhat aggrieved.
And just because I don't take part in every single argument doesn't mean my point is any less valid. Time being a major factor for some of that. NOt that I don't have an opinion ;) :D But in these things on these kinda forums, I realise that there are more informed people on here than I, so sometimes it can be good to realise that :wink:
Well there is no hard and fast answer, but if the majority of UN nations recognised it then the case for a state coming into existance is very strong. Obviously there are problems as certain countries might always be opposed to recognition of another (due to loss of teritory etc), and there is the question of if a small country (e.g. Vatican) should have the same weight as massive countries (e.g. China), and the question of if a country makes a recognition based on the will of its people (e.g. via referendum) or just on the will of it's leader (e.g. North Korea). But if you accept that the number of UN countries (over 190) is sufficicently large to iron out these problems, then I think half (95) would be a reasonable starting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Well if all the other UN nations recognise it apart from Serbia then it would make sense to recognise it.Quote:
Once the UN recognises it? Once Serbia acknowledges it? What if Serbia at some point remained the solitary state around the world not to recognise it?
Well that is the problem with the out-of-datepermanent member system. I don't know the numerics of te Palestine situation, but if 122 of 193 UN countries recognise it then there is a strong case for recognition (i.e. well over half, even more when you assume some countries will abstain from voting, reducing the 193 number).Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, 122 states recognise Palestine as a state but the UN cannot recognise it as a state insofar as at least one of the permanent members on the security council are prepared to continue vetoing any decision to recognise it.
The trouble is the principle of self determination is complex. In a broad sense all peoples should be allowed to govern themselves, but where do you draw the line ? What if the north is united with Ireland, but say Antrim declares it wants to leave a united Ireland ? What if the Mormons of Utah want to leave the USA, as pretty much happened in the Mormon Wars of the 1830s? Should the Kleinfontien and Oriana be allowed to ceed from South Africa? Or on a more sinister note, what if David Kouresh and his hundreds of followers had legally attempted to declare the outskirts of Waco to be independent from the USA ? There has to be an element of due process and some sort of majority recognition makes the most sense. Don't forget in all of these examples there will be other people (minorities) in these "new states", there are Serbs living in Kosovo (there probably wont be in a decades time but that's another issue). They, and the gypsy (romani) inhabitants need to have guarentees about personal saftey, and assurances that their culture will be protected.
In any indepence situation / break-up of a country there is always the potential for massive problems, if due proceedure occurs there is chance this can be minimised, but if indepence is just rushed in with no regard for due international process then the risks are much greater.
It depends on local circumstances. I don't recognise Abkhazia, Transdniester, or Kosovo as "independent" states, because of either aggression, hostility, and/or simply giving the fingers to another sovereign state. They all belong to the relevant state.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
If any of you all want to watch something great mixing sports and sad Croatia/Serb/Yugoslavian stuff watch the ESPN 30 for 30 about Vlade Divac And the late (As A Nets fan Great, Great) Drazen Petrovic. I loved it. Brought a weird salty discharge to my eyes more than once. Couldn't believe how poignant it was.
Also I would point out that as per last weeks article in Sports Illustrated about the Palestinian Team, there are more countries in FIFA than the UN.... And also a lot more countries than people probably think already out of the WC. I know a lot of people know that but some definitely think being in the UN and FIFA is mutually exclusive when it is certainly not at all.
Im not invalidating any of your points Paul. In fact, you actually didnt make a point in the post i quoted. I just said it was poor form to chip in with a dig at me on something that i tried to offer an opinion on (as it turns out, one part of it was not very well informed) without making any contribution to the discussion yourself. Some would call it trolling, i call it rude.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
I do realise that some people are more informed than me. Your latest dig suggests that i dont. Nothing hammers that home as much as internet discussion. There is always someone out there who knows more than you. It still doesnt mean you should be afraid to say what you think. I dont mind being proven wrong.
I highlighted a portion of your post - i thought you said it was bad to simplify things... ;)
+1. It is my favourite of the 30 for 30's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
If you speak Dutch or Serbian/Croatian this is a very good thing to watch too, about the 1987 youth team and how they ended up playing against each other in 1999/2000 (we were also in that group as were macedonia), it was made by dutch tv.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu2EzPJhT94
I wasn't trying to offend you, I generally agree with most things you say actually, hence why I made it - as I also over-simplify quite a bit. :) Which to be fair can negate the point being made a lot of the time especially if those aren't aware of the overall/background info.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
I meant the point he was trying to make was simple...not the point itself was simple :)
Good thread. Just a quick question- why does refusing to join Russia & co in not recognising Kosova make Estonia and the other Baltic countries "politically supine"? I'm guessing most Estonians are interested in the politics of Finland and Sweden (their main trading partners?) but would consider pan-Slavic solidarity over Kosovo to be largely irrelevant to them.
Not considering themselves a Slavic people helps I suppose.
Slaven Bilic = Slavic
Did you see "The two Escobars" Stu?
Everyone thinks that Pablo had Andres killed but Pablo was already dead.
Biggie and Tupac.
But 2Pac was already dead.
It would seem the Baltic states (especially Estonia and Latvia) international policies have been narrowly focused on joining NATO and the EU. The three states have outsourced their air defence to other NATO members - French, Polish, American, Turkish and British (etc) Airforces have been policing Baltic Airspace over the last 8 years. They've sent troops to support NATO missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo itself presumably as part of the trade off, and they seem very keen on mirroring US / Western EU international relations. Whether this is a desire to counteract some bogus "Russian Airforce" threat, or whether it's another attempt to antagonise Russia (other examples include the Bronze Statue problems, and the citizenship issues for ex-Soviet people [not just Russians but also Ukrainians, Armenians and Tartars]) is hard to say. Personally I would see it as the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
On a slightly in between topics above, my estonian friend was telling me last night how all the Russian papers printed that the Estonian police killed a Russian in the ministry of Defences building, a few days ago. They tried to make it out to be a politically motivated murder :)
I didn't hear anything of the sort, just that the guy was protesting for having his apartment taken from him (granted as an ex-soldier) and had a grudge against some from the Defence Ministry. It's not surprising. The Baltic states can be a bit dodgy in their political actions - honouring those who fought with the Nazi's, removing Red Army memorials and mistreating ethnic Russians. However when push comes to shove they have very good relations with Moscow and seem to remain in their sphere.
The whole not recognising Kosovo aspect will always burn as it seemed very unfair. Montenegro would be the epitome of a gangster state (and remains so) yet they did thing the right way and were respected. Plus the sizeable minorities there were respected and protected. Kosovo, led by people who led ethnic cleansing against Serbs and Croats, was a different matter. To the very top they were steeped in blood and as has been shown this year, the darlings of Washington and Downing Street - the KLA - actively participated in the murder of Serb, Kosovar and Croat civilians and the organ harvesting. However they're stuck with the monster they created and it will be a long, long time until they state is universally recognised.