FINALMENTE A CRISE MOSTROU OS CULPADOS, MAS SEM CRIMES

Somente depois da recente reunião realizada na Basiléia, Suíça, sede dos BIS ou USB (Banco Central dos Bancos Centrais), com a presença de Governadores ou Presidentes dos Bancos Centrais dos países do Grupo do G-10, compreendendo Bélgica, Canadá, França, Itália , Japão, Holanda, Suécia, Suíça, Inglaterra e Estados Unidos, foi possível saber, de direito, porque de fato já sabíamos, que os responsáveis
Pela propalada e administrada “Crise Mundial...” são os Cartéis do Sistema Financeiro e os Bancos Centrais, por omissão.

Essa reunião da Basiléia deixou bem claro que os Bancos Centrais dos Países mais ricos do Mundo, venceram a queda de braço contra o Tesouro Nacional americano e mostraram, sem nenhum constrangimento, que são verdadeiros agentes do sistema financeiro mundial. Enquanto o Secretário americano defendia ajuda restrita às vítimas inocentes das subprimes, limitada aos USD 160 bilhões, o FED (banco central americano) cobrava a ampliação desses benefícios aos especuladores e aos Bancos, indistintamente e foi o grande vencedor da peleja, em prejuízo de bilhões de dólares a milhões de contribuintes. E o FED está fazendo redescontos de títulos com garantia de 85% do Valor de Face, quando é sabido que a cotação desses papéis não passa de 10%. E uma prova transparente de que as Raposas continuam Fiscalizando os Aviários.

O interessante é que o sistema financeiro , através dos Bancos Centrais, sem necessidade de compromisso com o povo ou de representatividade através de eleições populares diretas, conquistou poderes absolutos para manipular mercado , inflação, juros e ainda com a vantagem de sacar do Tesouro Nacional, sem limite, recursos para a cobertura de fabulosos prejuízos ( R$ 48 bilhões foram sacados recente pelo BC Brasil) FAZ BEM LEMBRAR o que disse THOMAS JEFFERSON, EX-PRESIDENTE AMERICANO: “Se o povo americano alguma vez permitir aos bancos controlarem a questão da nossa dívida, primeiro através da inflação, depois pela deflação, os bancos e as corporações que crescerão privarão o povo de toda a prosperidade até que os seus filhos acordem sem casa no continente que os seus pais conquistaram”. A profecia está se materializando e mais de dois milhões dos americanos (vítimas inocentes) estão abandonando as suas casas, porque foram enganados e manipulados pela ganância da especulação financeira.

A era Greenspan, de juros negativos e de excesso de liquidez, com os ganhos abusivos nos países em desenvolvimento (continua até hoje), alastrou a especulação habitacional e de outros ativos de risco, mostrando uma prosperidade irreal e deixou os Bancos totalmente livres para a manipulação do mercado financeiro Mundial . E os Bancos Centrais não estão sendo capazes ou não querem mostrar a dimensão dessa crise e até parece que desejam que a instabilidade e as incertezas continuem. De acordo com o IIF ( Instituto de Finanças Internacionais), os Emergentes devem receber um fluxo de capitais de mais de US$ 730 bilhões este ano, sendo somente que US$ 260 bilhões em investimentos Diretos e o restante para giro na especulação financeira volátil, que não gera mais produção , emprego ou renda. E esse capital nocivo continua vasculhando o planeta, em busca de atrativos ganhos em países como os do Brasil, que infelizmente sempre privilegiou esse capital em detrimento das prioridades maiores da Nação.

A fraqueza do Tesouro americano. demonstrada frente ao seu Banco Central , como vem anunciando alguns jornais, já despertou em muitos países a necessidade de devolver ao Congresso Nacional o controle do dinheiro e a sua volta às mãos do povo, mas com competência, seriedade e total TRANSPARENCIA. As lições valiosas do passado, a partir de 1929 de nada serviram ou estão servindo, exatamente porque os países democráticos continuam socializando prejuízos de bilhões de dólares (do povo) em favor de uma ínfima minoria de especuladores e banqueiros internacionais. Esperamos que o governo brasileiro tenha maturidade suficiente e não seja embevecido com o noticiário bajulador da imprensa internacional, mostrando o País como o berço da prosperidade para esse capital nocivo. Basta lembrar, com uma certa tristeza que o crescimento real estupendo das receitas do Tesouro não foi suficiente para conter uma dívida de US$ 157 bilhões em janeiro de 1991 que passou para R$ 1,333,8 trilhão em 2007 e deve chegar a R$ 1.540 trilhão em 2008, de acordo com projeções do Banco Central.Tudo isso, depois do pagamento, no mesmo período, de alguns bilhões de dólares em juros e encargos financeiros. Somente de 2007 para 2008 haverá um crescimento nominal da dívida em mais de R$ 200 bilhões, independentemente dos juros que serão pagos com o aproveitamento do superávit primário. E de 1991 para cá esses bilhões de reaias que estão gerando novos endividamentos estão sendo direcionados única e exclusivamente para alimentar a ciranda financeira ou o capital de “motel” e a concratação de riquezas. Esperávamos, sinceramente, que os Bancos Centrais e o FMI , na reunião da Basiléia apresentassem soluções concretas para o MONITORAMENTO DO SISTEMA FINANCEIRO, NA DEFESA DE BILHÕES DE PESSOAS.OS AMERICANOS E A UNIÃO EUROPEIA, EM NOME DA CRISE, ESTÃO GANHANDO ALGUNS BILHÕES DE DÓLARES ANUAIS, ROLANDO DÍVIDAS DE MAIS DE US$ 20 TRILHÕES A CUSTO ZERO OU MESMO NEGATIVO. NADA MAU PARA QUEM ESTÁ EM CRISE.

The US got involved in this Balkan feud as a re-
sult of The Stainmeister's antics in the Oval Of-
fice. Wag the dog, so to speak.

Various nineteenth century treaties threw differ-
ent ethnic groups into one pile, and now they want
to dissentangle themselves. This, of course, may
not always suit the dominent group; so you have
conflict.

As it happens, the US supported the Moslem group
here, for which we were nicely repaid with 9/ll.

As for the Russians, inveterate spoilers that they
are, how ironical that a bunch of KGB atheists are
shedding crocodile tears over their fellow Ortho-
dox Christians. Have they no shame?

"Spend time in bed with your wives" do not killed and bomb.Iran for example.
Iran and USA were good partners in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. They fought against Serbs on side of muslims(Bosnia) and Albaniens-muslims (Kosovo)
These were "clean wars", now says Hillari. Bil Klinton had a "clean hands". Serbia had not nuclear bombs, no "tomahawk", no "visible" no "invisible". Serbia was bombed 78 days and nights. It was very safe attacks Serbs. After that Klinton's "great result" Bush had not choice. He had to jump into "dirty war". So, war against Serbs was not a real test. It was illusion-american dream.

why people have nothing to do instead of sitting and posting nonsense thoughts and valueless info to use up internet computers memories!

Spend time in bed with your wives if you have many to please them as you should be a good husband for them!
All wives are waiting for you to please them! all the times! believe it or not you must please your wives first before please strangers here!

Abkhazia is a beatiful country. It must be Russian!

FF says:

"You don't seem to have anything relevant to add to the conversation, and are only interested in using it as a platform for regurgitating cheap invective about America being evil."

American Observer comments:

Your comments are intelligent and comprehensive. Thanks for sharing them.

"who the hell is “we”? Are you presuming to speak for all Americans?"

That was the editorial we.

"What you call “cynical view of American foreign policy”, I call it “fair and balanced”,"

Uh... making a list of exclusively negative aspects of American foreign policy doesn't strike me as particularly balanced. Anyway, call it whatever you want: your shrillness and inability to stay on-topic speak louder than any labels you could insist on.

"(I believe most of the world would agree with me)."

Ah, so you speak for the entire world now. Well, God told me that I'm right, so nah-nah-nah!

Can we please move past the juvenile assertions of authority? It's not fooling anyone. Your inputs will be judged on their merits.

"As an American I’m deeply ashamed of the hypocrisy with which the US deals with the rest of the world – especially since Bush and his warmongering cronies came to power. Personally, I think Bush would be on trial at the Hague for war crimes had he been the president of any other country!! But I digress…"

Indeed you do. While you've made it abundantly clear that you believe America behaves hypocritically, you have been pathologically unable to demonstrate how this applies to Kosovo. What are America's motivations in the Balkans, if not the stated ones? What is the right thing to do regarding Kosovo, if not what we're doing? As I made clear in my first response to you, unless you can answer these question, your portrait of American hypocrisy is, at best, irrelevant.

"So you couldn’t address any of the points I made, but callously dismissed them as “taking cheap shots at America”. Talk about cynical!! "

Unbacked assertions do not carry much weight. Rather than persist in the fiction that I'm unable to respond to you (and abuse the word "cynical"), it would behoove you to consider my input seriously and phrase an appropriate response. Simply shouting "nuh-uh!" didn't work in elementary school, and it won't work now.

"Pointing out what the US did wrong does not make me look petty."

Well, to be specific, it's the pointing out of mistakes *unrelated* to Kosovo or the Balkans that makes you look petty. You don't seem to have anything relevant to add to the conversation, and are only interested in using it as a platform for regurgitating cheap invective about America being evil. This is petty. A detailed, insightful analysis of mistakes in Americans policy towards the Balkans, on the other hand, would be highly relevant and interesting. Unfortunately, you seem too distracted by questions relating to the Middle East and more interested in reinforcing an essentialist view of the United States.

"On the contrary, defending the indefensible by people like you and A.O is what sullies American reputation around the world."

Right, it's anonymous posts on the internet that determine America's reputation. If only people would stop challenging your childish rhetoric, the world would love us again. Anyway, exactly what have I defended? Objecting to your incoherent, divisive tactics does not amount to a defense of anything other than reasoned discourse.

Anyway, I said it last time, and I may as well repeat it: the way to get people to take you seriously is to respond with a clear, reasoned argument detailing what the right course of action in the Balkans would be, and why America is not pursuing such a course. You might even find that my previous post on NATO expansion would be very helpful in constructing such an argument.

What's becoming clear, however, is that you are emotionally committed to an essentialist view of America as evil. Hence the implicit assumption that demonstrating American failures in unrelated times and places is sufficient to prove that America's motivations in the Balkans (whatever they may be) are necessarily nefarious and, as a corollary, any stated good intentions are simply propaganda. After all, Iraq proves that America (or the government, anyway) is inherently evil, right? And so it follows that any policy America pursues is an instantiation of its evil inner nature. Thus, there's is no need for any understanding or analysis of the Balkans as such: the priority is to oppose America. And never mind that various forces will exploit your myopia for their own ends: after all, they aren't America, and so they aren't evil.

Well, if that's your agenda, I suggest you go find an audience that hasn't already heard it a thousand times. Like high school students, maybe...

American Observer says:

Unfortunately, I am not in Pristina, so I can't do that? Why don't you find a source for me, or admit that all of your numbers are fantasies?

Gandra replies
State Department declared that there are 250.000 murdered in Kosovo by Milosevic's forces. Pope believed in that and asked Klinton to bomb Serbia (it said Klinton when pope died, or it is fantasy?). American observer come to 10.000 victims(Albaniens) Total number (without NATO) of murdered (Serbs, Albaniens, Roms, muslims...=Kosovars) does not nearly reachd level 10.000.
There was a public session Security Council of U.N. Prime minister Kostunica publicly declared that in Pristina 1999. lived 40.000 Serbs, now there only "living" (it is more than ghetto) 10-20 Serbs. It is not fantasy, it is brutal ethnic cleaning, it is shame for U.N. and all West and all people which thinking by CNN brain.

Krajina says:

"So you couldn’t address any of the points I made, but callously dismissed them..."

American Observer replies:

I addressed them very nicely, 'Krajina,' but you failed to thank me for it, so I can easily understand why FF thought your 'points' were not worth his time.

'Krajina' says:

"Personally, I think Bush would be on trial at the Hague for war crimes had he been the president of any other country!"

American Observer says:

If you are an American, then you understand the term 'yadda-yadda-yadda.' 'Krajina,' would should we have done in Iraq? Yes, nobody likes the situation there now, but what would Iraq be like today if we had left Saddam in power, so he could rule for the rest of his life and then give power to Uday and Quasay and then Mustapha, thus ensuring the same kind of rule for another half-century after time itself caught up with Saddam? You feel like you have the moral authority to blame America for overthrowing Saddam, so tell me -- would you like to take the moral responsibility for having left him in power?

We have a similar question in the former Yugoslavia. What should we have done there? You seem to feel like you have enough moral authority to blame America for stopping the Serbs and allowing their victims to escape; but tell me, what would those nations be like today if we had lowered ourselves so low as to have 'kept our big noses out'? Would you like to be responsible for the dozens of Srebrenica massacres that the Serbs would have perpetrated on millions of people?

Oh, and by the way -- how is it that an 'American' chose the screen name 'Krajina?' Krajina is the region in Bosnia where the Serbs did some of their most evil crimes, and where the Serbs suffered some of their most humiliating defeats. Why would a politically-correct American choose that screen name? Do you have Serbian ancestors, or what?

FF,
Your posts are complete nonsense.

“Even if we accept your cynical view of American foreign policy” – who the hell is “we”? Are you presuming to speak for all Americans? If that’s the case I can tell you right now - you don’t speak for me! What you call “cynical view of American foreign policy”, I call it “fair and balanced”, (I believe most of the world would agree with me). As an American I’m deeply ashamed of the hypocrisy with which the US deals with the rest of the world – especially since Bush and his warmongering cronies came to power. Personally, I think Bush would be on trial at the Hague for war crimes had he been the president of any other country!! But I digress…
So you couldn’t address any of the points I made, but callously dismissed them as “taking cheap shots at America”. Talk about cynical!! Pointing out what the US did wrong does not make me look petty. On the contrary, defending the indefensible by people like you and A.O is what sullies American reputation around the world.

Krajina, your post is incoherent. Even if we accept your cynical view of American foreign policy, it doesn't add up to an argument that recognizing Kosovo wasn't the right thing to do, or that America shouldn't try to do the right thing now. Taking cheap shots at America (wherein you presume to speak for the Iraqi people, no less) doesn't do your cause any good. It just makes you look petty and vindictive. Also, as much moral authority as the United States may have lost over the years, we still possess vastly more than Serbia or Russia, neither of whom ever aspired to any in the first place. You need to at least propose some plausible alternative motivations for America if you want to be taken seriously.

Gandra says:

"Why believe or not believe that Pristina increase from 200.000-250.000 (1999. y.) to 600.000 today.
Ask US office in Pristina"

American Observer:

Unfortunately, I am not in Pristina, so I can't do that? Why don't you find a source for me, or admit that all of your numbers are fantasies?

Krajina says:

"The right thing to do would be helping the oppressed Palestinian people against its Israeli oppressors."

American Observer says:

Actually, I agree. The sad fact about the Middle East is that both sides have such bad intentions. The Israelis actually believe that they can drive the Palestinians to Finland, and the Arabs actually believe that they can 'erase the Israeli state' and drive the Israelis into the sea. America has always tried to negotiate between these two sides, and then both sides betray us. A good example is how close Clinton came to a comprehensive peace in 2000. The treaty was almost signed; and then the Israelis withdraw from Lebanon, and Arafat decided that the withdrawal proved that the Israelis were weak. This inspired Arafat to believe that more violence could get him more concessions, so Arafat stopped the negotiations and started a new intifada. I have always said that you if you want to understand the Arab point of view, you have to speak to an Israeli, and if you want to understand the Israeli point of view, you have to speak to an Arab.

Krajina says:

"I don't recall the US government ever appologized to the people of Iraq for invading their country, depite the fact the ostensible reason for invasion proved to be complete false."

American Observer says:

We never should and we never will apologize to the Iraqis for overthrowing Saddam or the Ba'ath, but I hope we all agree that the Iraqi people should thank America. Even today the Shia and the Kurds are glad that we overthrew Saddam; only the Sunni feel differently. As an America, I am proud that we kicked the asses of Saddam and his dogs just as I am proud that we kicked the asses of Milosovic and his dogs; and I hope we always keep our boots laced for that kind of kicking.

American observer says:
if the Serbs slaughtered around 10,000 Kosovars,
Gandra replies: It is not truth. Total number (without NATO) of murdered (Serbs, Albaniens, Roms, muslims...=Kosovars) does not nearly reachd level 10.000. It is manipulation, as many other (Irak and Sadam's weapons, say). First number was 250.000 slaugtered Albaniens. Did you not remember?
The bigest ethnic cleanings in Yugoslavia are 250.000-300.000 Serbs from Croatia, and 250.000 from Kosovo. Unbelievable? Yes, but it is truth.
Why believe or not believe that Pristina increase from 200.000-250.000 (1999. y.) to 600.000 today.
Ask US office in Pristina

A.O. is nothing but full of you-know-what. Since when does the US ever care about "the right thing to do"!! The right thing to do would be helping the oppressed Palestinian people against its Israeli oppressors. The right thing to do would be to get an UN resolution before launching an invasion against Iraq on false pretense. I don't recall the US government ever appologized to the people of Iraq for invading their country, depite the fact the ostensible reason for invasion proved to be complete false. That would have been the right thing to do. The right thing to do would be supporting the democractically elected governments in Iran (in the 50s) and a host of countries in Latin America ( in the 70s and 80s), instead of subverting them and then orchstrated their overthrow. And list goes on and on....

The US has surrendered its moral high ground (if it ever had) a long time ago. So don't go around and preaching to people that recognizing Kosvo is the "right thing to do"!!

maybe I do not fully understand this issue; but my first reaction has been, if the Serbs slaughtered around 10,000 Kosovars, and aggressively pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing in the region . . . . .that to me is about sufficient to support K's independence. I realize that is ignoring all of the more delicate ins and outs of the regional relationships. . . but doesn't the ethnic cleansing history count for something ?

Gandra says:

"Before 1999. in Prishtina (The capital of Kosovo) lived 40.000 Serbs (of 200.000 citizens). Now in Prishtina "living" only 10-20 Serbs (of 600.000 citizens)."

American Observer replies:

From 200,000 to 600,000? Are you seriously suggesting that the population of Pristina rose from 200,000 to 600,000? I am sorry, I find it hard to believe that the population of that city has tripled in less than ten years. Where do you get your figures?

Before 1999. in Prishtina (The capital of Kosovo) lived 40.000 Serbs (of 200.000 citizens). Now in Prishtina "living" only 10-20 Serbs (of 600.000 citizens). Only in Prishtina, Albaniens grab 10.000 private apartments of Serbs. There are 250.000 refugees from Kosovo(Serbs, Roms). So, it is not blah-blah, it is shame for democray and dead human rights. It is not question between Russia and USA it is question of modern civilization.

N Bhanu Kishore says:

"language or religion should not be taken in to consideration before a smaller state is to be created."

American Observer replies:

Why not?

N Bhanu Kishore says:

"there must be some criteria to do justification for independence seeking smaller countries."

American Observer replies:

What do you suggest?

supporting creation of smaller states is not good for the world's future. all the cases are not one and the same. the countries should respond according to the situation prevailing in the troubled regions.

language or religion should not be taken in to consideration before a smaller state is to be created. there must be some criteria to do justification for independence seeking smaller countries.

international intervention is however unavoidable to resolve this type of problems.

The Kosovo matter has diverse complexities to be sure. However, the U.S. public has little knowledge of any of them. Lipman is quite correct in her assessment of the "moderate",i.e.non-nationalist, Russians. The U.S. government continues its Clinton-Bush/Council on Foreign Relations policy for what was Yugoslavia, that being FRAGMENTATION, ECONOMIC PENETRATION & DOMINANCE, PRIVATIZATION ( for multi-national firms' gains). Further, the Israelists in Washington posture to show that they are not really anti-Muslim & that an overpopulated Albanian community with well over 70% unemployment can really be a viable state with Wall Street & The City as proper directors of the project. Finally, Kosovo can become yet another operations base for the U.S. imperial war machine to transport its forces & supplies to the Middle east & Israel.

Thank you, American Observer.

If you want some insight into Russia's attitude with this development, take a look at a map of NATO members. The recent expansions form a continuous wall of allies from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, effectively cutting Russia off from the Balkans. Furthermore, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia are set to join NATO later this year, with Montenegro and possibly Bosnia not far behind. Bear in mind that Russia has historically considered the Balkans to be in 'their sphere of influence,' and you see that they are alarmed at being pushed out of the region, and so have been making a full-court press for influence there. The swing state in all of this is Serbia: the most influential single Balkan state, and a historical ally of Russia. Thus, Russia's staunch (some might say overweening) support for Serbia throughout the conflicts of the 90's, and their backing today. If Russia loses its relationship with Serbia, or if Serbia is marginalized, then Russian influence in the Balkans will be effectively finished. The alarm at Kosovo independence, then, stems not so much from concerns over Kosovo per se (much less the laughable peans to international legal precedent), but rather from unease at the dimunition of Serbia (both territorially and politically) and the creation of yet another Balkan state that is sure to join NATO.

Frankly, things don't look so great for Russia on this front. Kosovo or not Kosovo, it's unlikely that the United States, or NATO, would be able to peel Serbia away from Russia (especially with Russia prepared to do just about anything to keep Serbia friendly). But it is very much possible that the lure of EU membership could draw Serbia into the fold.

Darden Cavalcade asks:

"Does our recognition improve our public standing in Europe? or anywhere else (the Muslim world)?"

American Observer replies:

Darden, it was the right thing to do. After years of genocide and years of divorce, it was obvious that the Serbs and the Kosovars do not love each other or respect each other, and the only thing that could hold Kosovo inside the Serb Republic was simple violence. Helping Kosovo become independent means that the Serbs and the Kosovars can start building their own cultures and societies on something except war.

How does that help America? It helps America because we can now been seen standing where we have always stood -- doing what is right, and helping the weak protect themselves from the strong. The Serbs and the Russians may hate us, for a time; but make no mistake, the Russians have never thanked us for letting the Russians run roughshod over Chechnya; instead, the Russians have sneered at us and made trouble everywhere else; and the Serbs would never have thanked us for allowing them to hold Kosovo through more violence. Recognizing Kosovo has given us nothing except intangibles, but pretending that Kosovo is still part of Serbia would have given us even less. As it stands, America remains the mainstay of freedom and safety in Europe. That is where Europe expects us to be, and that is why Nato still exists and that is why we still lead Nato.

Darden Cavalcade says:

"Does our recognition address an important US geopolitical objective in the region? Is there realpolitik behind this boon granted to Kosovars?"

American Observer replies:

No. Serbia has very little to offer and Kosovo has less. If we were simply operating from our own self-interest, we would have helped the strongest Balkan power -- the Serbs -- dominate their neighbors. Nonetheless, as I said above, doing the right thing puts us in the position where Europe and the world expect us to be.

Darden Cavalcade says:

"....right now I don't see why we should care whether one group of goons or another is in charge of Kosovo."

American Observer replies:

I think you are oversimplifying. When the Serbian goons ruled Kosovo, the Serbs filled ten meat truck full of dead civilians and drove them into the Daunube; and the Serbs would have done a lot more if Nato had not stopped them. I will be the first to admit that the Kosovars are one of the most primitive races in Europe; but even primitives have rights, and I see no reason to believe that independence will inspire the Kosovars to massacre anyone. After all, the Kosovars have centuries of grudges of their own, but the Kosovars want to be part of Europe and they need to live within limits that Nato and the European Union establish.

Very interesting posts.

For those who believe the US was correct in recognizing Kosovar independence, can you explain to me what American national interest was served with our recognition? I reject as implausible the idea that poking Russia early and often is an American national interest.

Does our recognition improve our public standing in Europe? or anywhere else (the Muslim world)?

Does our recognition address an important US geopolitical objective in the region? Is there realpolitik behind this boon granted to Kosovars?

It would be helpful to understand how our position helps the United States, because right now I don't see why we should care whether one group of goons or another is in charge of Kosovo.

I can not help but see the parallel between Kosovo and Chechnya – in one case Russia was able to retake its rebel republic with its full military might, in the case of Kosovo, Nato intervened and now Kosovo has declared independence – illegally I might add. There are two operative lessons here.

1) If a country wants its sovereignty respected – by the west, it must be strong enough and its people must have the will to fight for it. While I am not an apologist for Milosevic – he shares some of the blame (along with people like Tudman) for what happened in the bloody break up of Yugoslavia, although he had been made a convenient scapegoat in the western media, he was ABSOBLUTELY right in fighting the terrorists from KLA, an organization that the US state department once branded as terrorist organization!! NATO’s argument of intervening on humanitarian grounds was baseless. No doubt, there were civilian casualties in the conflict, but there are civilian casualties in every conflict. So why is that Kosovo Albanians died at the hands of Serbia security force were considered victims of Serb “genocide”, while innocent Iraqis, by the thousands, met their death at the hands of their foreign occupiers are called collateral damage? Why is NATO not moved by the plight of Palestinian people – are Palestinians less human than Kosovo Albanians? Talk about hypocrisy!!

2) There are no international laws, but the laws of jungle that governs the international relations today. The west and US, in particular, can twist and turn any and all UN resolution to suit its needs. The talk of western respect for rule of law is nothing but a myth perpetuated by a sophisticated western propaganda machine – aka western media.

Finally, a great analysis of the situation. Bravo Masha.

Russia needs to enter the 21st century and stop with the 19th century diplomacy which sees the world as a threat to its borders. Now hear this Putin, no country out there wants to invade your country. They are interested in developing their own countries and economies by permitting their people the freedom to pursue their personal creative destiny. A free Kosovo, a democratic Kosovo might mean a successful, thriving country on Russia's border exposing this autocratic Russian government as the failure it is and will remain. Not a comparison Putin's gang wants Russia's people to see up close.

This Russia is similar to all of the previous Russias going back centuries, a managing armed gang leverages fear of the rest of the world to maintain a choke hold on its population for the benefit of the few at the top. Thus, the Russian people will fall farther and farther behind most of the world's modern states culturally, economically, etc.. Eventually, this oil gusher will end and when it does it will become clear that Russian has once again misunderstood and ignored its true national resource: its people.

The U. S. should recognize Kosovo because it is the right thing to do. It might not benefit the current Russian thugs running the country, but in the long run, it will be beneficial to the people who live in today's Russia as a future argument for true democracy and a free market economy. South Korea vs. North Korea? Not exactly, but the same idea. Iraq vs. Saudi Arabia? Closer, same idea.

DANILOD writes:
"CD has his/her heart in place, but does not exhibit enough knowledge of facts or Sherlockian mind to cut through all the crap, smoke, and falsehoods in order to come to the just and true conclusion."

Well Sherlock, the facts themselves are in dispute. This is a century old conflict in which at least two living generations are not willing to give any ground and compromise. So what is the just conclusion and who will make that determination? Clearly the Serbs and Kosovars have two different ideas as to what is just. All I'm submitting is that I believe this generation of Serbs and Kosovars are too angry and hurt to make amends right now. Furthermore I think it's unrealistic to think that a century old conflict will be resolved in such a short time frame. As we've seen so many times throughout history, it can take decades to resolve generational struggles like this. I think that both sides should embrace this time apart and look inward. If a just resolution is out there, it will take time and reflection on all sides to find it. Everyone will know when that time has arrived, but it clearly isn't now.

I'm Dutch and my point off view on this case?

The US can expect bodybags coming from Europe, be prepared for US soldier dying in insurgent attack's.

Plain and simple, the Kosovo quistion has not ended, it has just begun.

CD writes"
"For the first time, I think I believe the negotiators. All of whom seemed to indicate that they just couldn't find any common ground. With so much finger pointing happening between the Serbs and Kosovars, it was just impossible to untangle the mess. Sometimes it's just best to start over."

CD has his/her heart in place, but does not exhibit enough knowledge of facts or Sherlockian mind to cut through all the crap, smoke, and falsehoods in order to come to the just and true conclusion.

The Ahtissari plan was part and parcel of the whole plot of deception from the ottset to get Molisevic and punish the Serbs. According to it, IF there was no agreement between KLA and Serbia within a prescribed time, then independence would be declared. THEREFOR, why in heaven's name would the Abanians agree? The USA was THE guarantor, sealed by a kiss by the US Secretary of state for the whole world to see on TV at Rambouillet>

The recognition of Kosovo arises from one incontrovertible fact: there is nothing that Serbia can so or say that will interest or scare other nations in the least. It is a weak, inconsequential country. Don't overthink the analysis, pseudo-intelligentsia.

As for precedent, the entire 20th century is filled with tales of nations interfering with each other's internal affairs, recognizing and aiding secessionist movements. Kosovo hardly comes out of the blue.

Of course nobody is going to start recognizing every region that would want to break off from Russia or China. That would be absurd.

Kosovo is for the people of Kosovo. If Russia can give humanitarian aid to improve the lives of the people of Kosovo, send money not bullets. Let them live in peace.

How many can point to mistreatment somewhere in their family tree? History has not been kind to every generation. Can we afford to make right every injustice? Or should our efforts concentrate on getting it right going forward? Better world governance should trump unilateralist/exceptionalist with a coalition of vested interests. When will the world see true multilateral leadership from United States?

Would it be heresy to simply admit that none of us really knows what's going on in the minds of Putin, Bush, etc -- and that therefore we really don't have a clue as to why these fellows are making such a big deal over a patch of insignificant dirt? Aren't a lot of us simply speculating why the leaders do what they do, hypothesizing about how their minds work, and guessing about how each party thinks it will benefit by backing one side or the other? I for one am willing to simply say, 'I don't know what makes government leaders tick... and I probably never will'.... The other obvious question, 'Should I care?' I leave to others....

For the first time, I think I believe the negotiators. All of whom seemed to indicate that they just couldn't find any common ground. With so much finger pointing happening between the Serbs and Kosovars, it was just impossible to untangle the mess. Sometimes it's just best to start over.

Frankly, it's both of their faults. In situations like this it's hard to believe that one side is all wrong and one side is right. I'll concede that maybe that was the case. Maybe Kosovars are victims in this. But there didn't seem to be a "Rwandan" moment from anyone in Serbia forthcoming. The only way that Kosovo was going to remain under control of Serbia is if Serbia came forth with a major conciliatory gesture from it's leadership all the way down to the grass roots level. With the wounds still open, that just wasn't going to happen.

But good fences make good neighbors. With time apart, maybe the next generation or two will find a way to turn a good neighborly relationship into a reunification. People are people and sometimes two people need to take a step back, let emotions subside, reflect and take responsibility for his or her own actions, then reach out and try to make it work again later. In the case of nations, that time apart can be generations. But it is what it is.

I don't think there's any need to even argue about it. It's just not going to happen any other way.

Poster says:

"Poster replies:

If the U.S. responds to a Latino secessionist movement in California by terrorizing civilians in Los Angeles, San Diego, and California, dumping thousands of Latino bodies in mass graves, driving the Latino population from their homes, creating a refugee crisis; and the international community intervenes to prevent another massacre of the kind it witnessed just a few years earlier in the breakaway Republic of Texas; and after intervening, if the international community sets up a process to resolve final status of California, and the U.S. fails to negotiate in good faith, while California, under an international peacekeeping force, establishes democratic institutions, and its people vote in a referendum for independence, and finally---after nine years---if California declares its independence, then it would be OK for the international community to recognize California's independence, even if California has a problem with criminal gangs and the drug trade."

American Observer says:

What a wonderful tour-de-force, Poster. I was going to write something like it, but I am at work and too many things have gotten in the way. Good job!

Let's stop pretending that the US or even NATO is interested in defending anyone for reasons other than profit and greed. Why did we attack Iraq? Because they had weapons? That was the first lie. The second lie was saying we attacked because the Iraqi people were being oppressed. That was never why. If we care about oppressed people, there are lots of places in this world we should bomb. Or maybe the outdated organization called NATO went to 'defend' Kosovo so they could gain control over the Trepca Mine? Thats the real reason we went in there. Stop pretending America has any good intentions in this world other than to rape it of it's resources.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/trep-j28.shtml

Holbrooke on the floor of a Kosovo Albanian home, discussing with KLA leaders some time BEFOR the USA/NATO bombing.

To disregard the Dayton agreement and UN Resolution 1244 a document was submitted to Milosevic and the KLA. No self-respecting statesman would have signed such a document, nor indeed would KLA.

At this point, on the stairs of the entrance to Rambouillet palace, the US Secretary of State Albright hugged and kissed Hashim Tachi, leader of KLA, following which he signed the document, and thus provided a semi-legal right to bomb Kosovo and Serbia.

Prior to that, a huge refugee camp was constructed in Macedonia, and when the bombings started, the Yu army began its operations in Kosovo. KLA was provided with satellite phones to provide "intelligence" to USA/NATO. And, mass exodus of Kosovo inhabitants started, of Albanians and non-Albanians.

Even without encouragement by KLA, the exodus should be no surprise to any one who has any idea of the small area of Kosovo. And the intensity of USA/NATO bombing could frighten and horrify any sensitive and intelligent viewer of the TV broadcasts.

Independence was promised to people formerly regarded by America authorities as terrorists and common criminals before all this has started.

To speak of "negotiations" about the future of Kosovo was hypocrisy and deception. The endgame was ready years earlier.

The fall of the USSR allowed America and its "satellites" free to expand the USA super-empire.

I am very sad to see to what low level have fallen my World War II Allies together with the former enemies. During that war, I was dreaming of a better world even as at least 90% of my Battalion perished on the front in in Srem, fighting the Hitler's and his puppet Ustasha army. And I was stupid enough to dream again when the Soviet Empire collapsed with the Berlin wall.

Most of all Russia is afraid of the numerous nationalities within their own country. If these groups all wanted to become independent, there wouuld be a major reduction in size of the country now known as Russia. Consider the cis-caucasus for example.

This is an interesting article. Given Russia's nuclear arsensal, oil reserves, and geopolitical importance for nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran, and Europe, the U.S. must take internal Russian opinion into account in making its foreign policy decisions. Our decision to recognize Kosovo was right on the merits - Kosovo was de facto independent already and was a recent victim of ethnic cleansing. But this decision probably made little sense from a real-politic perspective. The U.S. got no tangible benefit from the recognition, and further antagonized a vital partner in many U.S. national security interests.

1. Islamic terrorism is BAD, except when it's the KLA in Kosovo.

2. The U.S. Constitution considers treaties, such as United Nations treaty, the supreme law of the land. The U.S. respects its treaty obligations, except when the U.S. attacks a sovereign nation without the authority of the U.N. Security Council, as was done with the bombing of Serbia.

3. War in Bosnia could have been prevented by an agreement reached among the three parties in 1991, except that the U.S. told the Bosniaks they could get a better deal, so Izetbegović withdrew his consent. The Dayton agreement was basically the same as the 1991 Carrington-Cutileiro peace plan, except the Dayton agreement was brokered by the U.S. and the 1991 agreement was not.

4. Any group supported by the terrorist government of Iran is BAD, except when Iranian policy agrees with U.S. policy, such as promoting a Muslim Bosnia.

5. The U.S. will prevent ethnic cleansing under a policy of humanitarian intervention, except when the victims are Serbs, as when Croatia expelled 300,000 from Krajina.

6. The U.S. main stream media will present both sides of any important foreign policy issue, except in the Balkans, where the Serbs are always BAD, and everybody else is always GOOD, even the Islamic terrorists.

I've always considered Russians a hearty group, certainly among the toughest, most resilient peoples in the world. Yet, reading this article makes them sound rather insecure. I remember quite clearly President Bush's attmepts to form a close relationship with President Putin during his first term. At times Bush was so effusive in his adoration for Putin that it was akward if not embarrassing for Americans. I think most Americans have become frustrated with its government's continued acceptance of Russia's own anti-democratic tendnancies, including political assassinations at home and abroad. The Russian government should be able to manage Russia however they see fit and without American interference, but to suggest we should not stand up to a monster like Slobadon Milosevic, or to now smother our democratic ideals so as not to appear to be bullying Russia is ridiculous.

ChuckB wrote:

"American Observer, so when the percentage of Latinos in California reaches 75 percent (some predictions say this could be by 2050, or earlier), a new independent nation should be created?"

Poster replies:

If the U.S. responds to a Latino secessionist movement in California by terrorizing civilians in Los Angeles, San Diego, and California, dumping thousands of Latino bodies in mass graves, driving the Latino population from their homes, creating a refugee crisis; and the international community intervenes to prevent another massacre of the kind it witnessed just a few years earlier in the breakaway Republic of Texas; and after intervening, if the international community sets up a process to resolve final status of California, and the U.S. fails to negotiate in good faith, while California, under an international peacekeeping force, establishes democratic institutions, and its people vote in a referendum for independence, and finally---after nine years---if California declares its independence, then it would be OK for the international community to recognize California's indenpendence, even if California has a problem with criminal gangs and the drug trade.

Interesting that according to this article the US fully endorses breaking up other countries by helping secessionist, especially in light of out own history when well know civil war over that tore our country apart to prevent such an action.

I'd like to think I'm an open-minded person who tries to look at things from neither a western or eastern, but human attitude. The situation in Kososvo is not unlike what we've seen before in eastern Europe. The breaking apart of a hastily thrown together conglomerate of peoples in what the world knew as Yugoslavia has been a hard thing for most of us to watch. Like with Charles Darwin's natural selection, we witnessed the stronger groups and alliances within oppress the weaker to the detriment of millions of people who neither chose or pushed their own ethnicity on others. For the better part of 3 decades, we've seen a gradual regression of a once-civilized part of Europe back to an existence that was probably less civilized than the area had been during the Renaissance! Out of all this, we are now FINALLY witnessing the re-birth of that civilization in the form of a resurgent minority that could care less what western or eastern politicians think regarding its effects on them. On one side, you have a powerful west that sees a newly-independent Kososvo as another playing card that changes the dynamic of it's monied interests in the region and on the other side is a weak, paranoid east that sees itself losing yet another playing card in an already west-heavy stacked deck. Maybe these political poker players might best be served by taking a step out of their iron boots and walking a mile in some Kosovan sandals....maybe then, and only then, might they see themselves in the mirror of human spirit that shines now in Kosovo as it did when their own nations were born!

If you want to know what it's like to have the shoe on the other foot, have Russia recognize Quebec's independence (after all, there are already signs at the main highway entrances to Quebec City that read, "Welcome to the Nation's Capital"). Then have Russia offer to support and nurture the new independent state of Quebec, encourage its pursuit of Russian values and culture, and perhaps offer to train the fledgling Quebec Armed Forces from a new Russian military base.

How do you think that'd go over in Washington? Russia sees Washington creeping closer, closer every day, agitating the restive among satellite populations and stirring up revolution, negotiating for new American military bases on their doorstep. After claiming to be a friend to Russia, and then continuing to follow the same old cold war prescription, it is hardly astonishing or ungrateful that Russia does not trust America - and there, they are comfortably with the majority. Unchallenged American domination of every aspect of world affairs was a stated goal of the Bush administration when it assumed power; it's not as if America's "enemies" were making it up.

Russia's done some horrible things during its own foreign policy and expansionist efforts, and they have a lot to answer for. However, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I agree. We should not have recognized Kosovo. How would we like it in say 100 years when California or Texas are a majority Mexican and China or Russia acknowledged the demands of these people to make and independent state. Not very far reaching. We should not have gotten involved in Kosovo from the beginning. No wonder Russia is taking an adverserial position with Iran and Syria.

"Observer" says:

"The ill- advised recognition of breakaway Kosovo is a pathetic appeasement by some western powers to the Muslim world, which perceives them as hostile to Muslims and Islam. The West figures that by "liberating" Kuwait and egging Kosovo on to secede from its motherland will wipe out all that hostility that have been building against them since the First Crusade War."

American Observer:

I have never heard anyone say any of that. I have never heard anyone say that the liberation of Kuwait was an attempt to 'appease' the Moslems. After all, most Moslem radicals supported Saddam and wanted Saddam to control Kuwait and the rest of the Persian Gulf as well. If anything, our liberation of Kuwait had the effect of provoking and enraging a lot of Moslem radicals. As for Kosovo, only the Russians and the Serbs have suggested that the West 'encouraged' the Kosovars to leave Serbia. Everyone else recognizes that helping Kosovo has cost a lot of time and money, and all independent experts agree that the West has practically begged the Kosovars to find a way to reconcile with the Serbs. Unfortunately, the Serbs have murdered too many Kosovars for the Kosovars to forget.

"Observer," we both know that Putin is a gangster and Putin tells a lot of lies. Where did you get your stories? Did you invent your stories yourself, or did you get them from one of Putin's propaganda rags?

The basic error here is the confounding of Serbian war crimes with its legitimate national interests.
Yes, we should be concerned about ethnic Albanians being abused by some Serbs. This is a tragic theme in the 1990s. Why there could n