• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has time came for unification?

Please, name one. :)

Is it not obvious?! You helped us kick the dictator Slobodan Miloschevitch in 1999. When did we "backfire?" against you since then?

Hell! We are eager to join the liberation train with you ever since instead!
 
The EU over-reached and I don't see them having another drastic expansion for a long time.

The EU just got the Czech Republic in a month or two ago.
 
Is it not obvious?! You helped us kick the dictator Slobodan Miloschevitch in 1999. When did we "backfire?" against you since then?

Hell! We are eager to join the liberation train with you ever since instead!

My response is now we have made enemies in Serbia. :)

That's the problem with interference, you make "friends" on one hand and "enemies" on the other. Sometimes those "friends" also turn out ot be not so friendly later on if they think our support is not as strong as they expect.
 
My response is now we have made enemies in Serbia. :)

That's the problem with interference, you make "friends" on one hand and "enemies" on the other. Sometimes those "friends" also turn out ot be not so friendly later on if they think our support is not as strong as they expect.

Italy might be another good example, as well as all the Communist leaders in Eastern Europe taking a tumble. Democracy has grown a great deal over the pays century and more and the Americans deserve much credit for that.

Third Wave Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
My response is now we have made enemies in Serbia. :)

That's the problem with interference, you make "friends" on one hand and "enemies" on the other. Sometimes those "friends" also turn out ot be not so friendly later on if they think our support is not as strong as they expect.

Was it worth the interference?

Are there concerns that we would not think of you "as friendly" should we think that your support falls behind our expectations?
 
The EU just got the Czech Republic in a month or two ago.

Croatia is in? Nice to now!

Then there is this issue of planning to put Dardania and Serbia at once, both at the same time in EU. The idea is that the borders become meek within the EU, we get to be independent, and the move maintains some sort of continuity of Serbia and Dardania moving in as "one" imaginary nation still. Keeping both sides at bay.

The thing is if we get in EU before Albania and not together with Albania as one country, we must make do with the issue of where our borders lie with "neighbors" including Albania. See that would be us drawing the border instead of removing it there? What are the odds of removing our drawn border later while in EU after that fact?
 
Croatia is in? Nice to now!

Then there is this issue of planning to put Dardania and Serbia at once, both at the same time in EU. The idea is that the borders become meek within the EU, we get to be independent, and the move maintains some sort of continuity of Serbia and Dardania moving in as "one" imaginary nation still. Keeping both sides at bay.

The thing is if we get in EU before Albania and not together with Albania as one country, we must make do with the issue of where our borders lie with "neighbors" including Albania. See that would be us drawing the border instead of removing it there? What are the odds of removing our drawn border later while in EU after that fact?

Yes, I meant croatia, i corrected myself in the other post.

I don't know about serbia but there is no mention of dardania being put in for anything because dardania, legally, doesn't exist. if you mean albania, sure, maybe. I haven't been keeping up with with EU expansion politics.

And I don't know.
 
Yes, I meant croatia, i corrected myself in the other post.

I don't know about serbia but there is no mention of dardania being put in for anything because dardania, legally, doesn't exist. if you mean albania, sure, maybe. I haven't been keeping up with with EU expansion politics.

And I don't know.

My, you are fast!

See first post within this thread which country I mean when I say Dardania. Do you mean that Dardania does not exists legally to you because Romania did not recognized us? If that is the case then, you know, you do not represent your country, you could still leave a comment I suppose?
 
Was it worth the interference?

Are there concerns that we would not think of you "as friendly" should we think that your support falls behind our expectations?

Well remember, while you Albanians are the majority in Kosovo there are other "Yugoslavian" ethnic minorities there too correct? So while you and other ethnic Albanians might currently be happy with us...perhaps the other ethnic groups not so much? Meanwhile we have soldiers there helping maintain the peace correct? Are they not targets of those living there who don't agree with our support of Kosovo's independence?

Suppose NATO pulls out, and our soldiers go too. Then Kosovo falls back under Serbian control; how happy would ethnic Albanians still be with us? At that point we've pretty much pissed off EVERYONE in Kosovo...Albanians for "abandoning them" and other ethnic groups for supporting the Albanians in the first place. SEE?

This happens over and over again when we get involved and the politics of each situation changes. My argument is that the USA is not the world's policeman. That only if we have a clear alliance with a nation should we involve ourselves; and then only to the extent required of such an alliance.
 
My, you are fast!

See first post within this thread which country I mean when I say Dardania. Do you mean that Dardania does not exists legally to you because Romania did not recognized us? If that is the case then, you know, you do not represent your country, you could still leave a comment I suppose?

I honestly don't care if Romania recognized Kosovo or not.
Dardania, legally ,doesn't exist. There is no country on the planet named Dardania. There is Kosovo and there is Albania. No dardania.
So the EU cannot hope to accept in the EU a country called Dardania because Dardania doesn't exist.

I'm fast because I just woke up and I'm doing my mourning DP routine with a nice coffee. I'll be here for a few more mins while i bash another thread made by medusa.
 
Well remember, while you Albanians are the majority in Kosovo there are other "Yugoslavian" ethnic minorities there too correct?

Correct.

So while you and other ethnic Albanians might currently be happy with us...perhaps the other ethnic groups not so much?

The only group unhappy with your intervention are Serb minorities. We have other minorities such as: Croatian, Bosnian, Turkish, Roma, Egyptian, whom are happy about the intervention. They were too oppressed and liberated.

Meanwhile we have soldiers there helping maintain the peace correct? Are they not targets of those living there who don't agree with our support of Kosovo's independence?

It is correct that your soldiers together with other NATO ally soldiers (e.g., Deutchland, France, Britain, Italy, Turkiye, etc) are here. But you maintain peace here by mere presence rather than engagement most of the time. No NATO troop is targeted actively by Serbs in Dardania.

Most conflicts between NATO troops and Serb minorities occur when they cause havoc north by say blocking roads:

PressTV - Kosovo Serbs block roads to Serbia

Then odds are highest for injury. I have this on EULEX police for instance:

EU Police Injured in Clash With Kosovo Serbs :: Balkan Insight

So the north had been a trouble area before the Dardanian and Serbian PM's made agreements. It may happen again for as Coin here mentions, the Serbian minorities in Dardania are always used as a destability factor so as Serbia would gain something more out of the EU. It is their politics with their minority in Dardania.

But otherwise this is not Avganistan or Iraq. No entity is actively patrolling the roads searching US soldiers for targeting.

Suppose NATO pulls out, and our soldiers go too. Then Kosovo falls back under Serbian control; how happy would ethnic Albanians still be with us?

That is a good question. My answer would be that although we are the ones that most as a majority want you here, it is inevitable that at some point you may go. By the way you build a camp here named Bondsteel which may indicate that you will be the last to go even if all other NATO troops do.

But yeah sometime or another you would choose to go for one reason or another. It is for this precise reason that I think that we should choose to have NATO troops whom will stay here forever, such as Albanian NATO troops (i.e., by joining with Albania).

At that point we've pretty much pissed off EVERYONE in Kosovo...Albanians for "abandoning them" and other ethnic groups for supporting the Albanians in the first place. SEE?

I see your concerns. I think it depends on this happy ending of us joining with Albania. Even if all hell breaks loose after we would have a greater chance to fight.

I have a proposal for this not to occur also. I think it is about time you put your successes and achievements in Dardania into your history books. We have you and your intervention on our history books. Should you have them also then our people students could be reading what happened and how it ended, and learn to like each other for generations upon generations.

Under these two points I do not think there would ever come a time when we would not think highly of you. Safe and reading how it happened, we would have solid grounds to build even better relationships.

For one I am not satisfied for the low number of Americans that come to visit Dardania. We could sure like to have you more around here! ;)

This happens over and over again when we get involved and the politics of each situation changes.

Change is inevitable (regretfully in this case by you eventually leaving). It is adapting to those changes that leaves a happy ending.

My argument is that the USA is not the world's policeman. That only if we have a clear alliance with a nation should we involve ourselves; and then only to the extent required of such an alliance.

Speaking from a prior oppressive regime experience, the world policeman sounded very nice at the time. You get to choose whether you want to play the role or not big son of ours. Just see if you could tie in loose ends whilst you leave. Same goes for every other project you have had till now. Make a happy ending and then leave, so as even after you go all is well.

But allies we are. From here on end, to earth, heaven, or hell.
 
Making Great Albania is an old US-Turkish plan.
 
Making Great Albania is an old US-Turkish plan.

If the word "Great Albania" sends chills to our neighbors how about we use a different name. How about "Joined Albania?"

I think it would be more accurate since this Dardanian part of Albania was cut away by force in 1878 and was unable to join when you declared independence in 1912. Now we may join and that is that.

Alternatively I am thinking "New Albania?" Was thinking in terms of "New" as in modern, democratic, "New era" of Albanians with Dardania as a region on top. Any other ideas?
 
Yes, I meant croatia, i corrected myself in the other post.

I don't know about serbia but there is no mention of dardania being put in for anything because dardania, legally, doesn't exist. if you mean albania, sure, maybe. I haven't been keeping up with with EU expansion politics.

And I don't know.

This will explain it all. Cheers - Albania Episode - YouTube
 
It's all politics. Why does the United States recognize Kosovo but not Abkhazia or South Ossetia? Easy, we like Georgia, but Serbia...not so much.

But the idea of "unifiying" all peoples of a similar ethnicity is dangerous. Not to Godwinize, but that was Hitler's justification for annexing Austria and the Sudetenland. It could also be a justification for Russia to annex parts of Ukraine or rebuild the Russian Empire. Why just ethnicity, what about religion: picture Iran annexing Iraq because they share being Shiite majority.
 
But the idea of "unifiying" all peoples of a similar ethnicity is dangerous. Not to Godwinize, but that was Hitler's justification for annexing Austria and the Sudetenland.

Austria was not against that as I remember. Further it would not have been much of a problem if Hitler would stop there. But nuuuuu, he had to take the whole world and clean it off non Aryans!!!

It could also be a justification for Russia to annex parts of Ukraine or rebuild the Russian Empire.

Russia annexing Ukraine cannot happen. Perhaps whilst being USSR but at this point it is a bite that Russia cannot chew I think. Ukrainians would not want that while doing that by force is unthinkable. Have you seen the size of Ukraine?

Why just ethnicity, what about religion: picture Iran annexing Iraq because they share being Shiite majority.

Funny you bring that up. I think with Russia positing itself with Shiite's and the USA with Sunni's, I think that that was (or is) going to happen.
 
Russia annexing Ukraine cannot happen. Perhaps whilst being USSR but at this point it is a bite that Russia cannot chew I think. Ukrainians would not want that while doing that by force is unthinkable. Have you seen the size of Ukraine?
[/QUOTE]

Parts of Ukraine are heavily populated with ethnic Russians. Kazakhstan also.
 
Parts of Ukraine are heavily populated with ethnic Russians. Kazakhstan also.

But the whole Ukraine is not made of those parts alone. There is the rest of the Ukraine there too.

Just because some areas are more populated with Russians it does not mean that the whole of Ukraine would fall for that. Taking those parts alone too might be a huge problem I think.

The difference is that this issue is about two areas where the majority of its people would like uniting. Compared to parts of another country and such.
 
Making Great Albania is an old US-Turkish plan.

How about another name such as "USA" that stands for "United States of Albania." It would just be Dardania and Albania as states there alone but it sounds cool :cool:

What of the more ancient names such as "Illiria?" Too nationalistic? Too old?
 
It's all politics. Why does the United States recognize Kosovo but not Abkhazia or South Ossetia? Easy, we like Georgia, but Serbia...not so much.

Did Abkhazia or South Ossetia have a preexisting legal right to secede from Georgia, as Kosovo did with Yugoslavia?

Was South Ossetia a part of a federation of autonomous republics, as was Kosovo, or was it universally recognized as being part of Georgia proper (Kosovo was not Serbian)?

Did Georgia attempt to ethnically cleanse its Ossetian and Abkhazian populations? Had they already done this in a neighboring country, utilizing concentration camps, seiged and large-scale massacres?

Does this precedent mean that every slightly dissatisfied minority can use military force to secure their own "independence?"

Don't fall into the moral laziness of thinking that South Ossetia is the same as Kosovo. In fact, the only thing that this whole Georgia conflict bears semblance to is Turkey's invasion of Cyprus on similar ethnic grounds. It's thinly disguised Russian imperialism and irredentism.
 
Did Abkhazia or South Ossetia have a preexisting legal right to secede from Georgia, as Kosovo did with Yugoslavia?

Was South Ossetia a part of a federation of autonomous republics, as was Kosovo, or was it universally recognized as being part of Georgia proper (Kosovo was not Serbian)?

Did Georgia attempt to ethnically cleanse its Ossetian and Abkhazian populations? Had they already done this in a neighboring country, utilizing concentration camps, seiged and large-scale massacres?

Does this precedent mean that every slightly dissatisfied minority can use military force to secure their own "independence?"

Don't fall into the moral laziness of thinking that South Ossetia is the same as Kosovo. In fact, the only thing that this whole Georgia conflict bears semblance to is Turkey's invasion of Cyprus on similar ethnic grounds. It's thinly disguised Russian imperialism and irredentism.

South Ossetia does have an ethnic connection to North Ossetia (a republic in Russia). Georgia had attempted to make illegal the teaching in or of the Ossetian and Abkhaz languages instead of Georgian. It is different in that Georgia NEVER really controlled either area. Both had declared independence from Georgia immediately after the end of the USSR (even before that), and intermittent conflict has been going on there for the last 23 years.

The reason that South Ossetia was ever part of Georgia in the first place was because of internal Soviet politics. They were an autonomous part of Georgia under the Soviet Union, and enjoyed a lot of autonomy. The first post-Soviet Presdient of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia thought that the Ossetians had no right to be in Georgia in the first place

Gamsakhurdia justified abolition of Ossetian autonomy, saying, "They [Ossetians] have no right to a state here in Georgia. They are a national minority. Their homeland is North Ossetia... Here they are newcomers."[23]

South Ossetia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
South Ossetia does have an ethnic connection to North Ossetia (a republic in Russia). Georgia had attempted to make illegal the teaching in or of the Ossetian and Abkhaz languages instead of Georgian. It is different in that Georgia NEVER really controlled either area. Both had declared independence from Georgia immediately after the end of the USSR (even before that), and intermittent conflict has been going on there for the last 23 years.
This cannot compare to Kosovo, which was only ever internationally recognized as part of Yugoslavia and not of Serbia, and was recognized internally as Yugoslav by the Tito regime, therefore retaining a preexisting legal right to secede that neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia could make a claim to. Furthermore, the Albanian Kosovars earned a moral right to break away when Milosevic attempted to implement his insane and genocidal plan for a Greater Serbia in Kosovo, which involved the ethnic cleansing - either via murder or forced deportation - of Kosovo's native Albanians. In contrast to this, it was the Ossetians and Abkhazians who tried to get rid of the ethnic Georgians residing within their "ancestral lands."
The reason that South Ossetia was ever part of Georgia in the first place was because of internal Soviet politics.
The Democratic Republic of Georgia, established after the collapse of the Russian Empire, covered South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Oddly enough, the use of Ossetian insurgents was exactly how the Soviet Union would end Georgia's independence and annex the entire country not 90 years earlier. Could it be that Moscow is exploiting Ossetian nationalism to effectively reconquer Georgia in much the same manner?
They were an autonomous part of Georgia under the Soviet Union, and enjoyed a lot of autonomy. The first post-Soviet Presdient of Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia thought that the Ossetians had no right to be in Georgia in the first place



South Ossetia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to romanticize Gamsakhurdia or justify his fairly chauvinistic policy towards South Ossetia, but that's not quite what he said. He was saying that they had no right to a state in Georgia, which definitely meant no right to form a breakaway republic and likely no right to a significant degree of autonomy.

However, Saakashvili, Georgia's current leader, has offered numerous times to grant autonomy within Georgia to South Ossetia and Abkhazia; these offers were, I would assume, rejected by the Ossetian irredentists.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom