Yugoslavia. R.I.P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

Yes Free Wales, Free Cornwall and Free the Isle Of Man now.
Vive L'Ecosse Libre! :D

---

The Isle of Man isn't part of the United Kingdom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

A bit of perspective here. There has never been a history of animosity at all between Serbia and Montenegro. On previous occasions when Montenegro was independent and Serbia under foreign rule, the Montenegrins provided a welcome haven from foreign domination for Serbs. When Serbia had it's independence it enjoyed neighbourly relations with it's coastal cousins. Under Yugoslavia (1919 - 1992) Montenegro was the benificiary of hefty financial investments in it's infrastructure. Investments I would wager, that an independent Montenegro given it's miniscule population ,( 650,000 current estimate) would have been incapable of doing. 45% approximately of the Montenegrins themselves did not wish to see the break up of the federation. It is also significant that the Montenegrins allowed emigres to return home and vote. And this is a crucial thing I am against emigres having the right to vote on issues such as constitutional status or choosing a government for one simple reason! THEY DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE UNDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR DECISION! But those unfortunates left behind after the plebiscite on the other hand Do!

In the final Yugoslavia ( 1992 to date) Montenegro was an equal partner in the federation, punching above it's weight. It had self-determination in most areas. The only thing the Federal government actually effected in Montenegro was it's defence and it's consular and foreign affairs representation.
And you can be sure that the Montenegrins will most like rent a floor in the Serbian Embassies currently in place around the world.
Belgrade continued to bankroll projects proposed by the Podgorica administration, that source of income will now be cut off. They will still receive Serbian tourists and receive revenue from them but it will not compensate them for the loss of " Federal Funding" .

I fail to see how a country with a population less than the North side of Dublin can hope to launch itself into the 21st Century without serious amounts of foreign aid. ( For the record I do acknowledge that Luxembourg and Liechtenstein and Andorra have been independent for centuries)

---

Those darn plucky Montenegrans ! How dare they vote for independence - They don't know how good they had it under us !! :rolleyes:

Northern Ireland also does much better for funding under the UK than it would probably do within a United Ireland. Definitely better than it would've done under any unification prior to the Celtic Tiger. But these things are rarely ever about money.

Bottom line is that Montenegro is now independent and will have to make it's own way in the world. A majority of the population wanted it to be that way. Maybe not precisely the 55+% required, but a majority none-the-less. I refuse to believe that sufficiently large numbers of emigres were shipped in etc etc to deliver a 5+% swing in the vote. So a majority wanted it that way.

As for the assertio that Montenegro and Serbia never had any history of animosity - even if that was the case, that changes nothing. Ireland and Wales never had any history of animosity, but that didn't stop the Irish from looking to leave the United Kingdom. If the UK slowly dissolved, until it was merely a Union between Wales and Scotland, the break-up of that would not in-of-itself need to be evidence of past animosity.

Montenegro clearly has its eye on the EU goal. They probably also understood that there may well be a race for membership of that body from now on. There is a growing sense in many of the established EU countries that expansion is happening too fast. If Serbia's inability to sort out its war criminals lead to both them and Montenegro missing out on the EU, then that would be an intolerable price for the Montenegrans to pay.

If they get EU membership, their size and population will become irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

The Isle of Man isn't part of the United Kingdom

---

Perhaps technically. But they do use Brit passports!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Those darn plucky Montenegrans ! How dare they vote for independence - They don't know how good they had it under us !! :rolleyes:

Northern Ireland also does much better for funding under the UK than it would probably do within a United Ireland. Definitely better than it would've done under any unification prior to the Celtic Tiger. But these things are rarely ever about money.

Bottom line is that Montenegro is now independent and will have to make it's own way in the world. A majority of the population wanted it to be that way. Maybe not precisely the 55+% required, but a majority none-the-less. I refuse to believe that sufficiently large numbers of emigres were shipped in etc etc to deliver a 5+% swing in the vote. So a majority wanted it that way.

As for the assertio that Montenegro and Serbia never had any history of animosity - even if that was the case, that changes nothing. Ireland and Wales never had any history of animosity, but that didn't stop the Irish from looking to leave the United Kingdom. If the UK slowly dissolved, until it was merely a Union between Wales and Scotland, the break-up of that would not in-of-itself need to be evidence of past animosity.

Montenegro clearly has its eye on the EU goal. They probably also understood that there may well be a race for membership of that body from now on. There is a growing sense in many of the established EU countries that expansion is happening too fast. If Serbia's inability to sort out its war criminals lead to both them and Montenegro missing out on the EU, then that would be an intolerable price for the Montenegrans to pay.

If they get EU membership, their size and population will become irrelevant.

---

Fact remains Steve that Partizan's article was spot on !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Pan Slavic and pan Yugoslav movements and thought did exist long before the 20th century. Napoleon joined roughly the area of Slovenia and Croatia into one satellite state called the Illyrian provinces. For a while there was a belief that the peoples of that region descended from the ancient people of Illyria and had a common linguistic and cultural heirtage. There was a strong enough Illyrian movement in Slovenia and Croatia in the first half of the 19th century. The Stokavski dialect of Croatia was chosen for the official Croatian language as it was the one which was most similar to Serbian, with some sort of possible unity in mind. It wasn't entirely some madey uppey idea, but an experiment which ultimately proved to be a failure, and a bloody and costly one.

---

Pan Slavic and Yugoslavic ideas were actually thought up in Zagreb by Croatian intellectuals. So in the same way that Yugoslavism was a Croatian idea, Irish republicanism was dreamed up by Ulster Presbyterians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Those darn plucky Montenegrans ! How dare they vote for independence - They don't know how good they had it under us !! :rolleyes:

Northern Ireland also does much better for funding under the UK than it would probably do within a United Ireland. Definitely better than it would've done under any unification prior to the Celtic Tiger. But these things are rarely ever about money.

---

Yes but Northern Catholic Nationalists were victims of virtual apartheid for 50 years! Montenegrins were never second class citizens in ex Yugoslavia.

Steve

I gave as an example of panculturalism a Celtonia consisting of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Brittany , Cornwall and the Isle of Man. I also mentioned that there would be massive religious differences in such a federation. But I will ask you a serious question .
Do you think such a Celtonia would be governable?
I don't, given the number of recalcitrant Pro-English residing in both Ulster and Scotland it would be completely unworkable. Not to mention the wishy washy nature of Welshness, which while culturally strong is politically feeble, and which barely registered enough votes to gain themselves an assembly a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

As for the assertio that Montenegro and Serbia never had any history of animosity - even if that was the case, that changes nothing. Ireland and Wales never had any history of animosity, but that didn't stop the Irish from looking to leave the United Kingdom.

---

That's a pathetic Example. Wales has never been top dog in the UK so as an example it is a nonsense! Welsh rule of Ireland has never occurred. Wales has not been a sovereign state since 1072. Strongbow arrived over A hundred years later!

England dominates the UK and we have a whole 800 years worth of history with them and we couldn't get out of the UK quick enough.

Serbia dominated Yugoslavia having the largest single population bloc within the federation.

As for no animosity between Wales and Ireland..........how does that explain David Lloyd George's machinations which are the root cause of everything awful that happened in your neck of the woods during the 20th Century. That wasn't an act free of animosity! He didn't seem to like us Irish and he was a Welshman!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

Perhaps technically. But they do use Brit passports!

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

Fact remains Steve that Partizan's article was spot on !

---

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.......! :o

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 :p ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Independence for Cork!!!

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Tribe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

... 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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paudie

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shelsman

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Castle Barracks

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shelsman

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 ?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dassa

...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.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dassa

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%.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dassa

...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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Lopez, does your time machine go forwards...?

---

It does....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

...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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

http://antiwar.com/malic/

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

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