Europeans are stupid

[Genghis Khan]

Maybe, but the time span in which these differences existed was much shorter for American states than it is among European ones, therefore making it possible for them(American states) to unite with relative ease.
European countries have centuries long history of being different from each other in many aspects.

True.  Plus European nations do not have a unanimous, concrete and easily identifiable enemy like the Americans had in the 18th century.  (I say this because terrorism, with the exception of Afghanistan and most argue Iran, is not sponsored by nations but factions).  The biggest threat, I think, to losing one's identity is if the nations are convinced to give up their national armies in favour of a single European army.  Culture (art, historical identity, heritage, national past-times, and especially music) varies from one corner of Europe to the next.  So long as no international company is allowed to dominate without competition in parts of Europe, I think that people will strive to be different.  I'm not trying to say that only good can come out of EU because as I said I have very little to no experience with EU.

@Genghis Khan: Wow, that has got to be one of the best posts ever. I completely agree with your statement and think that it was really unbiased (not in favor of one camp of the other) and summarized this thread really well. However, I don't really understand what you mean by this sentence:

Could you elaborate on this? (Like, who is 'they'?)

P.S. Have a praise.

Thanks for the praise Duke and Natalie.

What I meant is that I have met people who bash USA because it encourages companies "to exploit the workers" blah, blah speech.  This arguement I usually hear from people who are sympathetic with the old East-Bloc.  I tell them that it is only because big businesses receive big benefits from big governments that this exploitation occurs.  This is especially evident in African nations with dictatorial powers, like Nigeria and Kenya.  These nations' governments don't care how the businesses run, so long as they pay taxes to the upper classes of those African nations.  I tell these sympathists that I don't believe this is what is meant by "free economy".  I go on to tell them that USA and Canada have plenty of small business (employ under 30 employees) that start from scratch that are actually hit hardest by government regulations.  I say these people are trying to live out their dreams by having created something that they have a major control over, for many reasons these entrepreneurs feel pride in owning and running a business.  These arguments usually end with the other person saying "well they just wanna get rich" and "they make more money then the employees which are being exploited".  I feel exasperated no matter what.  I guess they don't see or want to see that jobs are actually created by these businesses or some people just hate the inequality of wealth in any amount.  These are the "they" and I don't get them or agree with them.  I guess "they" can be called Communists but that is just one extreme; it is more than that.  Anyway, I went further with this than I intended.

 

[Urizen]

I must say that often, I see EU and its expansion as, among other things, a result of Europe and its nations being mature. Europe is definitely a place where the biggest part of wars and events generally throughout history took place. And taking its relatively small size into consideration, makes it a place whose people have most historical experience and consciousness.
Therefore I believe that Europeans are simply too smart and experienced to lose their national identitys.
European nations know that keeping their identity while being open to new things is one of the reasons the union exists.
As for the creation of the  European army, I hope it doesn't come to that.
Because in my opinion, in order for that to occure, a possibility of a major war and a threat to Europe would need to exist.
 

 

[Albie]

Europe is definitely a place where the biggest part of wars and events generally throughout history took place.

The cradle of democracy and civilization has its roots in Europe. Also, territory (as in country borders) quite possibly began in earnest in Europe. It is not surprising that "the biggest part of wars and events generally throughout history took place" in Europe.

 

[Natalie]

Therefore I believe that Europeans are simply too smart and experienced to lose their national identitys.

Call me cynical, but I seriously don't think Europeans are too smart and experienced to lose their national identities. In fact, wanting to keep national identity might have nothing to do with intelligence, but could have everything to do with pride and nationalism. As for experience, I don't know, but people tend not to learn from history and their mistakes, otherwise the world wouldn't look like it does now. In fact, in Europe, national identity is part of the problem. I have nothing against the Balkan countries or anything, but every 10 years the map of Europe has to be redrawn because a larger country becomes obsolete and is replaced by small countries that nobody can figure out what the real big difference between them is. Also, these tiny countries make it difficult for concensus to be reached within the EU, with the result that countries end up arguing about little details instead of focusing on the bigger picture.

 

[Urizen]

[quote author=Natalie link=topic=14135.msg149375#msg149375 national identity is part of the problem. I have nothing against the Balkan countries or anything, but every 10 years the map of Europe has to be redrawn because a larger country becomes obsolete and is replaced by small countries that nobody can figure out what the real big difference between them is. Also, these tiny countries make it difficult for concensus to be reached within the EU, with the result that countries end up arguing about little details instead of focusing on the bigger picture.
[/quote]
The larger country(former Yugoslavia) became absolute, because of death of the man who kept it together(Tito), and the fall of communism generally.
Religion is, even though I would preffered it otherwise, a big difference, and in three neighbouring countries(Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia) there are three different religions, not to mention other differences, like the fact that Serbia, unlike other Balkan countries was on the winning side(that of Britain, France and the USA)in both world wars, and in spite of that will be the last one to enter the EU(Bulgaria was on the losing side in both world wars, and will be entering the union very soon). So, you see these are not exactly "little details".

 

[Genghis Khan]

[quote author=Natalie link=topic=14135.msg149375#msg149375 national identity is part of the problem. I have nothing against the Balkan countries or anything, but every 10 years the map of Europe has to be redrawn because a larger country becomes obsolete and is replaced by small countries that nobody can figure out what the real big difference between them is. Also, these tiny countries make it difficult for concensus to be reached within the EU, with the result that countries end up arguing about little details instead of focusing on the bigger picture.

The larger country(former Yugoslavia) became absolute, because of death of the man who kept it together(Tito), and the fall of communism generally.
Religion is, even though I would preffered it otherwise, a big difference, and in three neighbouring countries(Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia) there are three different religions, not to mention other differences, like the fact that Serbia, unlike other Balkan countries was on the winning side(that of Britain, France and the USA)in both world wars, and in spite of that will be the last one to enter the EU(Bulgaria was on the losing side in both world wars, and will be entering the union very soon). So, you see these are not exactly "little details".

I think you meant obsolete, right?  Not "absolute".  Yes, Serbia was on the right side during the Great Wars, BUT do not forget the 90s.  That IS where their current reputation stands.  If the EU is thinking whether or not to allow another country into the union, they'll be looking at the nominee country's most recent history.  Bulgaria was not in a war since WWII, and they along with Romania will become the next members come New Year's day.  Serbia will get into the EU as long as it keeps getting closer to the west ideologically, chiefly in democracy and important freedoms.  Also, as I understand it there are still war criminals at large.  Croatia's last sought war criminal was cought in the Canary Islands with a co-operative effort of the Spanish and Croatian police.  Croatia's biggest hurdle right now is its relationship with Slovenia and Italy.  The Slovenians want to negotiate a bigger access to the Adriatic sea and the Italians wish to bring back some of their old Istrian descendants back to the peninsula.  The latter seems quite a complex problem actually and I'm not fully comprehending the dilemma in that situation.  Since both Slovenia and Italy are in the EU already, if the issues remain unresolved, both countries will vote Croatia out.  Time will tell.  Eventually, I expect the whole Europe to join the EU.

I have nothing against the Balkan countries or anything, but every 10 years the map of Europe has to be redrawn because a larger country becomes obsolete and is replaced by small countries that nobody can figure out what the real big difference between them is. Also, these tiny countries make it difficult for concensus to be reached within the EU, with the result that countries end up arguing about little details instead of focusing on the bigger picture.

The biggest differences of the countries of former Yugoslavia are not as big as their similarities.  The schism was first religious and now it is more political than anything else.  I don't agree with the fighting, but poor people sold to self-cannibalizing ideologies act extremely stupid and callous when their leaders promise them a way of the their current debilitating situation.  This has been the story since recorded human history.  So, you are right in this regard.  People do NOT learn. 

I would like to know what you meant with "little details".  I basically wish you could explain and/or provide evidence for your whole last sentence.  I gave two examples above how the details are not small (the relationship between Croatia and Slovenia and Italy).  These differences CAN be worked out as evidenced by the fact that Croatia settled the "Adriatic Sea" issues with both Bosnia and Montenegro.

 

[Natalie]

What I meant is they get caught up over the formalities of things simply because every country has to be in accordance, and, as far as I know, the smaller countries have the same voting power as the bigger countries (correct me if I'm wrong). Thus, the smaller (and sometimes, newer) countries have a say in things where they have no sense of reality simply because they are small. Take Austria as an example. They make a big deal about the emissions policies on their roads and take up everyones time with it, but don't realize that they should be happy with any concessions, because frankly, who cares about Austria? Austria is a small country and the length of time it takes to traverse Tirol is ridiculous. Austria is making a big stink about this stretch of highway and the trucks on it and wants to introduce all sorts of regulations and taxation and goodness knows what else besides. And the EU must preoccupy themselves with this because Austria has one vote, and Germany has one vote, and all countries have one vote, no matter their size and significance. This is great ideological democracy, but it prevents the EU from tackling the big things like the agriculture subsidies which are destroying the agricultural industries in developing countries. I'm not saying that Austria is a bad country, or that Germany know better, its just with size comes a more realistic way of approaching things I think. Personally, I think small countries have a bit of a complex because of their size. They want to make themselves important because they know they aren't really. I don't mean to offend anybody, not aiming this at any single country, not even Austria (I like Austria), it's just this is what I see, and if I'm wrong about any of this, please tell me.

 

[Anomica]

Don't the different member countries have a different amount of votes depending on size and some other aspects? I seem to remember that Germany and France has a lot more votes in the parliament than Sweden, for example.

 

[IronDuke]

Anomica, the bigger countries do indeed get more votes than the smaller ones. However, the representation isn't anywhere near reflective of the true population levels. It was done this way as an attempt to balance the interests of individual sovereign states (federalist style), and the interests of individual people (union style)

Country Seats (population)
Germany 99 (pop. ~82,000,000)
France 78  (63,000,000)
Italy 78 (58,000,000)
United Kingdom 78 (60,000,000)
Spain 54 (44,000,000)
Poland 54 (38,000,000)
Netherlands 27 (16,000,000)
Belgium 24 (10,000,000)
Austria 18 (8,000,000)

 

[Anonymous]

Switzerland got a new place too. I just wonder what happend to the Czech Republic...

Wot's all this then? War on Terror? Are we at war with Germany again? 

It's refreshing to see a logical, rational discussion on such a subject... especially on the internet. It seems almost everywhere else on the internet, people take empirical evidence (pro, con, or neutral) as a personal attack by which they need to defend themselves on. So kudos. Seriously.

Besides, A Matter Of Life And Death debuted at #9 here, so we can't be that dumb... 

 

[Urizen]

To Genghis Khan:
There is a realistic possibility that "war criminal" general Ratko Mladic is being held somewhere by someone who is against Serbia making progress. Why? Because than we can not deliver him to the tribunal in Haag, no matter how much we are prepared to do so.

As our prime minister once said :"The best way to destroy a country is to demand from it the thing it is not possible for her to deliver."

As for the war crime tribunal in Haag, that institution is not even legal.

Serbia's people's rights were threatened during the Bosnian war, hundreds of thousands of people were forced to leave their homes and become refugees.
The Bosnian war was forced upon us, we were defending what was rightfully ours. For the last 700 years Serbia never led an offensive war. During the Bosnian war Serbia was under sanctiones because of a conflict that took place outside of its borders. Croatia and the Muslims who also took part in the war were not under sanctiones.

Both Yugoslavian states were built on Serbian blood. In the first WW every third Serb died while fighting for freedom. In the second WW 1.400.000 Serbs died, out of that number several hundred thousands were killed in the Jasenovac concentracion camp by Ustase- members of Croatian people, who were collaboracionists on the german side. THEY(the Croats) were the ONLY ones to have builted concentration camps for CHILDREN especially. Talk about inhumanity.

 

[Genghis Khan]

To Genghis Khan:
There is a realistic possibility that "war criminal" general Ratko Mladic is being held somewhere by someone who is against Serbia making progress. Why? Because than we can not deliver him to the tribunal in Haag, no matter how much we are prepared to do so.

As our prime minister once said :"The best way to destroy a country is to demand from it the thing it is not possible for her to deliver."

Whether or not the Serbian government is doing their utmost to track remaining war criminals is an important point.  I doubt that you or I can answer that with any certainty.  My original point, to which you decided to circumvent, was that Serbia's EU membership remains in question chiefly due to the wars in the 1990s.  You say that Serbia is unjustly persecuted in this.  I'm basing my opinions on fact and the fact is that there is a widely spread belief in EU that war criminals like Mladic can be apprehended, but internal networks within Serbia and other nations working for people like Mladic won't give him up.

http://www.un.org/icty/

As for the war crime tribunal in Haag, that institution is not even legal.

What would be the appropriate method of trying war criminals?  Should Serbia have the sole right and responsibility of identifying, trying and sentencing their war criminals?  Would that be fair?  By that same token, would you approve of Ante Pavelic being tried in a fascist Croatia during WWII? 

Serbia's people's rights were threatened during the Bosnian war, hundreds of thousands of people were forced to leave their homes and become refugees.
The Bosnian war was forced upon us, we were defending what was rightfully ours. For the last 700 years Serbia never led an offensive war. During the Bosnian war Serbia was under sanctiones because of a conflict that took place outside of its borders. Croatia and the Muslims who also took part in the war were not under sanctiones.

Both Yugoslavian states were built on Serbian blood. In the first WW every third Serb died while fighting for freedom. In the second WW 1.400.000 Serbs died, out of that number several hundred thousands were killed in the Jasenovac concentracion camp by Ustase- members of Croatian people, who were collaboracionists on the german side. THEY(the Croats) were the ONLY ones to have builted concentration camps for CHILDREN especially. Talk about inhumanity.

You exclusively deal with the plight of Serbs, ignoring all else.  The fact that many Serbs had to pack up and leave their homes for Serbia does not parallel or excuse the attrocities committed under Serbia's military and concentration camps made by Serbs.  Serbia led the offensive war in Croatia and Bosnia.  Milosevic started the war.  The reason that no sanctions were undertaken against Croatia and Bosnia is because all battles took on their soil, not Serbia's soil.  The fact that there were so many Serbs (and many still remain) in Croatia and Bosnia does not mean that any of those regions belonged to Serbia.  There is an outstanding joke here in Ontario, Canada among many people regardless of their connection to that part of Europe.  It goes like this: "There is an identifiable group of Serbs living in Niagara Falls, Ontario -- does this mean Niagara Falls should break off from Canada and join Serbia?"

You concentrate on Croatia's genocide in Jasenovac, where Jews, Serbs, gypsies (Roma) and political prisoners were kept and killed.  This was over 60 years ago, meaning that the generation involved is 80 plus years old.  This is not relevant to my argument in the prior post.  This does not affect Croatia's potential membership in the EU.  Only current issues affect it.  If acts of past generations was the basis for issues such as EU membership then every country would be suspect.  This does not excuse what Croatian people did during WWII, I merely discuss it since you brought it up.  Similary, one could argue, well, Sweden (I'm using this only as an example) had concentration camps during WWII, therefore they're not eligible for EU membership.

This focus on the past also shows me that you cannot fess up to the task at hand, that of Serbia's genocides, the largest in Europe since WWII.  I can freely admit that fascist Croatians collaborating with Nazis caused enormous attrocities against humankind.  The fact is you are going away from the original point of this discussion: "Why Serbia has to wait longer than Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, etc. to be admitted into the EU".  That fact is easy to identify: Serbians, such as yourself, are having great difficulty in admitting that the nation they call home caused such travesty against humanity.  Here is free advice: regardless of what evil Serbs like Milosevic may do, their acts do not reflect upon your moral worth if you do not practice or share their views; similarly regardless of what intelligent Serbs like Vuk Stefanović Karadžić do, their acts do not reflect upon your moral worth if you do not practice or share their views.  Intelligence and moral worth are individual, not national inventions.  The whole reason why Serbian, Croatian or any other nation's crimes do occur again and again is because of nationalism, its causes and results.


EDIT:

THEY(the Croats) were the ONLY ones to have builted concentration camps for CHILDREN especially.

EDIT:  Oh, and you better find me evidence of this or else withdraw the comment. 
Never mind.  I know you're making it up.  The fact that you used the word "only" and emphasized it with all capital letters shows me: a) that you have not done your research; b) that you based your whole argument, I definitely seems to me, on the "I hate the Croats" as an arguement on an issue that was not even meant to address the Serb vs Croat feud. 
See the Uckermark concentration camp as evidence against your claim. 
No, this does not excuse what Croatians did at Jasenovac; it is meant to prove my point on your blinded psychology.

 

[Urizen]

About the children conc. camps: I've read it in an official high school history book. And my late grandmother was in a Croatian conc. camp during the WW2, and she was under 10 years old at the time. She told me about it, but maybe she just made it up out of boredom. Those stories about shaved heads and barbed wire probably were only a silly fantasy.
Serbia was not leading an offensive war in Bosnia. In Bosnia in 1992 there were 44 prc.Muslims, 17 prc. Croats, 32 prc. Serbs and 7 prc. Yugoslavs. Bosnia as you see belonged to all of them, and should have been divided(because they couldn't find a way to live in peace).
Milosevic was an complete idiot, who fucked up our country- so we agree on that. Why should we be holding Mladic(who is wanted for war crimes) and let the whole country suffer because of one man. I mean I can not imagine him being that extremely selfish and unreasonable and not turning himself in, if it all depended on him alone. That's way I believe there's more to this. Your joke clearly depicts the wrong picture the world has about Serbs. We were not the ones who wanted to break off, the other ex- Yugoslav republics, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia were the ones who broke off. The Bosnian war started as a conflict between Serbs and Muslims, and then in 1993 fierce battles occured between Muslims and Croats also. So you see the war had a religious dimension too. Not to mention the fact that several thousands Mujahediins came from Asian Islamic states to fight on the Muslim side and will soon gain citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Serbia's genocides? Largest since WW2? Against who exactly? What about Nato bombing of Serbia in 1999? Do you know they started that war out of humanitarian reasons? And yet during the war the number of refugees on Kosovo only enlarged, due to people fleeing from the bombs. They(Nato) said they will concentrate on sources of Milosevic's power only(weapon factories and such) and yet they managed to kill between 1200 and 2500 civilians with 5000 injured, and destroy Chinese embassy(in Belgrade) due to, what do you know, old maps(Yeah, the largest military power on the face of the earth has old maps). From Kosovo 200.000 of nonalbanians moved away. There was a genocid against Serbs and other nonalbanian people on Kosovo in the march of 2004. Churches were burned and nonalbanians were forced to leave the homes of their ancestors. A Serbian priest Artemie who's been living in Canada for the last 10 years or so, said in an press conference in the Canadian Parliament , that he can not belive how the democratic world and the international community tolerate the breaking of religious freedoms, while contemplating about independent Kosovo runned by criminals. He pointed out that since 1999 on Kosovo 150 churches were destroyed and 400 new mosques built.

 

[Genghis Khan]

About the children conc. camps: I've read it in an official high school history book. And my late grandmother was in a Croatian conc. camp during the WW2, and she was under 10 years old at the time. She told me about it, but maybe she just made it up out of boredom. Those stories about shaved heads and barbed wire probably were only a silly fantasy.

You either did not understand or refused to correct your error about the statement I was calling you on.  I did not state that there was not a separate concentration camp for children in Jasenovac, I was correcting you in your assumption that Jasenovac was the "ONLY" [your words] concentration camp for children ever built. 
You don't need to be sarcastic, especially for a grave topic discussed here; it is inappropriate.

Serbia was not leading an offensive war in Bosnia.

We disagree here, so let's just leave it at that.  I don't see a point in arguing further.  The Western world does disagree with you as well.  I realize that you know the Western view, yet vehemently oppose this viewpoint.  So, I'll let it drop, as I don't see this progressing anywhere without it escalating to "flaming".

In Bosnia in 1992 there were 44 prc.Muslims, 17 prc. Croats, 32 prc. Serbs and 7 prc. Yugoslavs. Bosnia as you see belonged to all of them, and should have been divided(because they couldn't find a way to live in peace).

I agree with your statistics, judging from memory.  The division arguement would have worked for Serbs and Croats, as they both had a land of their own and of course this is what both sides wanted.  The Muslim Bosnians or "Bosniaks" did not approve.  Land grab is a huge issue.  I can understand the perspective of all three sides.  Ultimately, the Bosniaks got their way because it was complicated for the following reasons:
a) Serbs and Croats already had their own country and Bosniaks did not
b) The international community was outraged with Serbs for the war and really did not wish to give in to Milosevic's view of 'Greater Serbia'
c) To a lesser degree the same is true for Croats, who for a short time betrayed and broke their alliance with the Bosniaks.  Croats wanted Hercegovina to be included under Croatia for the same reasons as Serbs wanted a major chunk themselves -- population of their people in a given area.  (Croatians got their wish because the country's official name is Bosnia and Hercegovina (BiH), but that is a small concession to some who wanted 'old glory').  On a side note: I have read Perun's comment, on a different thread, where he boldly stated that each country in former Yugoslavia believes it should be larger than it is currently.  True.  Many still think that.  I fear that in three generations that part of the world will see another war.  That is sad.  Anyway, I'm straying from my original point.
d) Bosniaks were a majority
e) Most of the attrocities were committed against the Bosniaks
f) There would be too many exclaves if BiH was separated by nationality
g) All three sides claimed land for a single head in a given area so all three sides had different ideas of how BiH should be separated.  I don't think anyone could expect a compromise given the recent hostilities.
h) BiH was a province in old Yugoslavia as it stand now geographically.  It is easier to keep than to change.
i) Legally, as long as BiH government recognizes all ethnic groups and religions and gives freedom to all, they do not have to carve up the province for different groups.  The international community knows this.
j) The international community did not wish to bother with the long process of bargaining, drawing, and re-drawing maps that could take decades.  Look at Kashmir situation between Pakistan and India.  True no Balkan country has a nuclear weapon, but still many thought that carving up BiH would cause further violence, just like in Pakistan and India.

Milosevic was an complete idiot, who fucked up our country- so we agree on that. Why should we be holding Mladic(who is wanted for war crimes) and let the whole country suffer because of one man. I mean I can not imagine him being that extremely selfish and unreasonable and not turning himself in, if it all depended on him alone. That's way I believe there's more to this. Your joke clearly depicts the wrong picture the world has about Serbs.

I already dealt with this.  You've brought nothing new to this line of argument.  Unless, you are working for the Serbian police/government, I don't see what you can say to add to this arguement.  My whole point (going back two posts) was that one of big reasons why Serbia is not currently being looked at for EU eligibility is that the EU and UN think that the Serbian police/government is not doing their utmost to find fugitives like Mladic, guilty or not.  I did not say that Mladic is hiding in Serbia or that Serbs know of his whereabouts.  I don't know.  I only stress what ICTY prosecutors say.  One of the big things I read is the Topcider incident.  I never said Mladic was the only man; Radovan Karadžić also comes to mind.

We were not the ones who wanted to break off, the other ex- Yugoslav republics, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia were the ones who broke off. The Bosnian war started as a conflict between Serbs and Muslims, and then in 1993 fierce battles occured between Muslims and Croats also. So you see the war had a religious dimension too. Not to mention the fact that several thousands Mujahediins came from Asian Islamic states to fight on the Muslim side and will soon gain citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The other republics wanted to break off because when Slobodan Milosevic came to power in Yugoslavia he sought to give the Serbian provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo one equal vote to other republics in parliament.  He wanted more power.  The other republics needed to band together just to tie Milosevic's power.  It was Serbia, Vojvodina, Kosovo, Montenegro VS Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia.  The Slovenes were the first to realize this will come to no good, so they opted to withdraw from the union.  Croatia followed, etc.
Religion definitely played a huge role.  Sad, but true.

Serbia's genocides? Largest since WW2? Against who exactly? What about Nato bombing of Serbia in 1999? Do you know they started that war out of humanitarian reasons? And yet during the war the number of refugees on Kosovo only enlarged, due to people fleeing from the bombs.
They(Nato) said they will concentrate on sources of Milosevic's power only(weapon factories and such) and yet they managed to kill between 1200 and 2500 civilians with 5000 injured, and destroy Chinese embassy(in Belgrade) due to, what do you know, old maps(Yeah, the largest military power on the face of the earth has old maps). From Kosovo 200.000 of nonalbanians moved away. There was a genocid against Serbs and other nonalbanian people on Kosovo in the march of 2004. Churches were burned and nonalbanians were forced to leave the homes of their ancestors. A Serbian priest Artemie who's been living in Canada for the last 10 years or so, said in an press conference in the Canadian Parliament , that he can not belive how the democratic world and the international community tolerate the breaking of religious freedoms, while contemplating about independent Kosovo runned by criminals. He pointed out that since 1999 on Kosovo 150 churches were destroyed and 400 new mosques built.

You only see the Serbian side.  Look up Trnopolje or Srebrenica, for example.  You speak of attrocities, yet you won't even dare mention these.  I don't deny Jasenovac, which is not even relevant to the 1990s or what the EU or UN believe about any Balkan country.  You seem to be in serious denial, as you have yet admitted a single negative thing about Serbia's war in the last decade. 
I remember seeing the bridge in Novi Sad being bombed and the people refused to move off it.  I also remember statements and criticisms that NATO has no business in the Kosovo War, bombing, killing civilians and contradicting its original purpose.  On the other side, Milosevic was given a chance to stop, he refused.  As in all wars, innocents always suffer.  Sad, but inevitable.  This is exactly why you should be pointing most of your blame to your government and its chief leaders, many still wanted by the ICTY.
Do you actually think that the Chinese embassy was a deliberate hit? 
The Albanian situation in Kosovo is even older then the striving to break up Yugoslavia.  There was a pre-existing movement to have Kosovo or part of it join Albania. 
EDIT: The situation in Kosovo, to be frank, is not my fight.  I have stopped paying close attention to Kosovo.  I would, however, like to have a source of the quote/comment made by the Serbian priest you mention. 

 

[IronDuke]

All I know about the recent history of the Former Yugoslavia is that too many Canadians died or were injured there in the 1990's trying to keep you guys from senselessly killing one another (like you've been doing for centuries).
Two close friends of mine suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because of their service in that shithole. Their lives have been ruined by what they experienced there.

It would've been better in the long run if everyone there was killed off once and for all - Like the Israel/Palestine dispute, it's the only way it'll ever end.

All sides need to stop whining about who did what in the past - even the recent past - and do something to actually turn that shithole of a region into a safe place to live and raise families IN PEACE.

(Yes, I'm f**king bitter and deliberately offending people. Deal with it.)

 

[Genghis Khan]

All I know about the recent history of the Former Yugoslavia is that too many Canadians died or were injured there in the 1990's trying to keep you guys from senselessly killing one another (like you've been doing for centuries).
Two close friends of mine suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because of their service in that shithole. Their lives have been ruined by what they experienced there.

It would've been better in the long run if everyone there was killed off once and for all - Like the Israel/Palestine dispute, it's the only way it'll ever end.

All sides need to stop whining about who did what in the past - even the recent past - and do something to actually turn that shithole of a region into a safe place to live and raise families IN PEACE.

(Yes, I'm f**king bitter and deliberately offending people. Deal with it.)

<*Pats Duke on the head*>  There, there.

All sides need to stop whining about who did what in the past - even the recent past - and do something to actually turn that shithole of a region into a safe place to live and raise families IN PEACE.

Best advice given yet.  By the way, Duke, do you think Canadians should go to Darfur, Sudan and/or leave Afghanistan.  Maybe, that's another topic...

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

(Yes, I'm f**king bitter and deliberately offending people. Deal with it.)

Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. You, like your father, are now mine.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I'd like to make it official.  I have nothing against Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks or any other group of people living in Europe or elsewhere.

 

[IronDuke]

<*Pats Duke on the head*>  There, there.
Best advice given yet.  By the way, Duke, do you think Canadians should go to Darfur, Sudan and/or leave Afghanistan.  Maybe, that's another topic...

Since this thread is wandering all over the place anyway, why not?

I know people who have served in the Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Israel, Afghanistan, and just about any other place Canadians have been sent to keep peace in the last 15 years. They've all reacted differently to what they saw/did/had done to them there. Three people from the small town I grew up in (less than 10,000 pop.) have been killed in Afghanistan since 2002. (People from my part of Canada tend to make up the bulk of the Canaidan Forces due to a lack of other job prospects)

Despite all the risks involved, I do still think Canada has a moral responsibility to stop genocide and opression around the world, because we enjoy so much peace and wealth here at home. We're for freedom everywhere, or we're for it nowhere. (I can only speak for Canada's obligations - Europe and the USA obviously have their own priorities.)

So yes. I think Canada should intervene in Darfur. It's the right thing to do. Despite all of the risks involved for our own soldiers, if we can't stop people from massacring one another, I don't know who we are anymore.

On this same topic - Why aren't more European countries helping out in Afghanistan or stopping the genocide in Darfur? Why did Europe (and the USA) turn a blind eye to the genocide in Rwanda?
Only Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands seem to actually be doing ANYTHING in Afghanistan, while American and Canadian soldiers are dying every day trying to bring stability to the place? (Say what you will about the Iraq war, but Afghanistan is better off without the Taliban in charge. It cannot be denied.)

Why aren't Britain and France doing all they can to clean up the disastrous mess they left behind in Africa - talk about ducking your obligations! Why were Belgian troops ordered to LEAVE Rwanda instead of stop the genocide?

*breathes*

Europe is worse than the United States in many regards. At least the Yanks aren't self-rightous; they make no pretenses about their lack of concern for anyone without oil. European countries preach to the world about freedom and human rights, but they can't even find the support in their countries for fixing problems their own governments caused through decades of imperialism. Not only are most European countries hypocritical, they're morally deficient in this matter. (France sure is happy to reap the profits from weapons sales to its former colonies in Africa, so they can go on killing each other!)

I'm not saying Canada has always been able to take the moral high ground - hell, I'm ashamed that our government didn't do more to stop the killings in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Darfur. - But Europe and the USA have more resources than we do, and could easily have done more if the political will had been there.

To a western government, a white life is worth more than a black life; oil and weapons sales are more valuable than human lives; and one soldier coming home in a body bag looses more votes than saving 10,000 skinny black people from execution gains.

F**k the world.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

...one soldier coming home in a body bag looses more votes than saving 10,000 skinny black people from execution gains.

Which is the exact reason that the Bush administration has forbidden press coverage of dead soldiers coming back from Iraq in flag-draped coffins. That high-pitched whine you hear in the distance is the First Amendment crying.