User talk:Bardylis

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium 13:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank You!
Thank you for your welcoming and helpful information. Peace. Bardylis 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) By the way, instead of replying at Your own talk page, You should reply at mine. Cheers and I hope You like the Wikipedia, --PaxEquilibrium 12:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Milosevic = great support?
Well, the best way to see how much support this man had from a certain ethnic group (no matter how sick that is, I hope you see why), is to look how did his party/coalition do on the parliamentary elections in the whole state where such people is in majority (although even that might be at least slighlty erroneous, because not only memebers of that ethnic group voted/vote for his/her cause). On the first real free democratic parliamentary election in the Republic of Serbia held on 23 December 2000, Slobodan Milosevic's Socialist Party of Serbia lost, receiving a small 8% of the voters. On the most recent 28 December 2003 parliamentary election, the party ran in absence of its leader (who was sitting in an international prison at the time) won pathetic 4.5% and although it supported/supports the current Government of Serbia, it has no influence in it. And now he's dead (how will they go now without him?)

The undemocratic free elections held in 1990-2000 (each & every one of them in the hands of Slobodan Milosevic himself): On the very last undemocratic parliamentary elections held on 21 September 1997, his coalition won less than 20% of the people's votes (and only after Slobodan's wife created a different satellite party to attract more votes and even one democratic party joined in the coalition). The parliamentary elections before those held on 19 December 1993 brought S. M.'s SPS around 22.5% of the total votes. Before those, the 20 December 1992 parliamentary elections Milosevic's socialist party won areound 20% of the people. On the very first free, though undemocratic, 9-23 December 1990 parliamentary election, Slobodan's party, won its largest ever result (33%) and that's the one third highest I mentioned before. Do you see my point? We could go and check other types of elections too - if you'd like. --PaxEquilibrium 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But wait - we're here talking about one man: Slobodan Milosevic. You're stranding too far off. And according to your last post, you agree with me.


 * P.S. yes, it was the so-called "Serbian Radical Party". In '92 they've won 15.75%, in '93 8%, in '97 16%, in 2000 5% and in '03 16% again. --PaxEquilibrium 11:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that all percentages for socialists and radicals before the year of 2000 are very large overestimates. --PaxEquilibrium 11:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're here talking not about a politician with precise political aims, be it follower or founder (although he AFAIC had many indeed, shadowed by traditional Balkanistic irredentism, but amazingly right at some occasions); but about a political demagogue, a being whose largest and most important goal is to prolong its own powerful existence at any cost. I think that elections are the only most precise ways to reflect someone's support (naturally, the Socialist Party of Serbia was/is made by more than one person, but Slobodan Milosevic was its effective leader). I'm going to give an example: the 1997 local Belgrade election (which is important, considering that between one quarter and a third of Serbia's total population inhabit that city and its surroundings). Milosevic did everything in his power to hold the elections later. In the end, he organized them. Then he did everything in his power to destroy the democratic opposition, including controlled a harsh media and street propaganda, arrests and even assassinations. After the end of the election, SPS lodged an appeal and traditionally (as before) forged the results, adding thousands of votes to its own list's result. And do you know what happened in the end? The Democratic Party won an absolute majority in the City Parliament. And do you know what happened after? Slobodan Milosevic said that the "so-called democratic terrorists" forged the results themselves and established a martial rule, refusing to accept the results his own party issued. Only years after a horrifying covert war against the democrats, months later (half I year, if I recall), Slobodan Milosevic ratified and acknowledged defeat at the brink of a Civil-City War, in early 1998. --PaxEquilibrium 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Slobodan Milosevic was everything. He was a non-national stalwart Communist and a hard-line Serbian nationalist. He was an authoritarian dictator and even a democrat. A criminal (both war and other), and regardless of being a Socialist, he was also a family tycoon-mobster. Judged as one of the cruelest men the world has ever seen, he was also recommended for a nominee for a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Peace. Cunningly, he turned dramatically every personal defeat into an outstanding national victory, regardless of the fact that he gave strong words and almost never kept them (and at the same time following a very bizarre principle of justice and word-honoring)... A true model of Aristotle's political beast. --PaxEquilibrium 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest election result (21st January 2007)
SPS (socialists) got 3.5% of the total votes and SRS (radicals) won 17% of the total electoral body. --PaxEquilibrium 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But that's what I'm saying - it indeed is generalization. It was the Serbs who suffered greatly as well in Kosovo/Metohija during the reign of Communism. For example, there were nearly a hundred thousand refugees exiled to the "Kingdom" of Serbia by the local fascist Albanian and other Axis forces from Metohija and southern Kosovo during 1941-1945. After the war, the Communists passed the law of banning all those peoples' return to Kosovo, explaining that they're all "colonists" (which was indeed true, but not for the majority of them - and again is cruel any way). Although the "evil-doers" were mass-punished by cruel executions by the Partisans, a lot of the Axis officials (and members of the Second League of Prizreni - the local collaboration semi-governmental body) got away with the mass genocide of over ten thousand Serbs, Roms, leftists and others. What is worse, a large part was rehabilitated over the decades and even integrated (very rare, but happened) in the circles of provincial political affairs. And more, the provincial authorities from the 1960s to the 1980s are mostly in Serbia known as "Greater Albanian", and although greatly exaggerated, they were indeed ran by Albanian nationalists who had only the desire for more and more and more autonomy (leading to eventual independence, and quite possibly joining with Albania). Although those traces are greatly controversial, it is not a secret that during those years, the Albanian authorities even used terror to massively remove the Serbian population (I'm going to overestimate to "ethnic cleansing", although it could be categorized under that). The current Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church Paul is indeed a victim of such activities. At many instances the Serbs even had a larger birth rate than Albanians, but however their numbers seems to have decreased from 200,000 to 150,000 after 50 years and a total share in the population fell from some 30% down to a meager 7%. Between 250,000 and 300,000 Serbs totally were forced to abandon Kosovo over that half a century.

To conclude: if you are referring to Milosevic's political movement in 1989, in which he stripped KosMet of its autonomy, bringing it firmly under control that was ratified in 1990 - yes, he did have widespread support in Serbia for it. But what you must know is that millions of citizens of the Republic of Serbia of Serb ethnicity didn't acknowledge that hoping that Milosevic will destroy the Albanian nation, but that the Serbian people there will be shielded from extinction (that indeed truly threatened it) - and how the situation was going on, it was 100% certain that Kosovo's Albanian population will be seeking more autonomy again (this time in the for of independence - and their national leaders did that, in 1991 and 1992), the Serbian political leadership saw only radical changes as a means to protect its soil, even to the usage of force - but unlike TITO who managed to fight whole covert civil wars on Kosovo, the world noticed "slipping" Slobodan. And even aside from that, Slobodan Milosevic never ever gained the vast majority support (that's more that 50% of every Serbian life) in the Republic of Serbia for any move - from going to piss in the bathroom, to the radical decision for Kosovo (and Metohija) and Vojvodina. --PaxEquilibrium 13:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What my point is is that when the Kosovo question is drawn, it is drawn upon the hypothesis that Kosovar Albanians suffered - but not the Serbs, or bizarrely, the number of people died/exiled of Albanian and Serbian ethnicity is compared (very naughty statistics). Or, at the worst point, the current rather small number of Serbs on Kosovo is used to justify not significant enough (you know what I am talking about). This is not just unique for Kosovo's case, but this "satanization" of the opponent happened/happens with the case of the Serbian republic in Bosnia (always drawing upon the Srebrenica massacre) and Croatia (where the completely removed Serbian population [abroad] creates the image of Croatia as an "Ustasha" rebirth). I Know these things not just like this (reading other peoples' words), but from personal experience, as I too am a victim of such activities ("ethnic cleansing"). --PaxEquilibrium 13:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And from what I have learned traveling across Serbia, there is (I'm telling the truth here) a very odd amount of fear. The people I've met (even the ultra-nationalists) do not speak of the bad sentiment they have towards the Albanian people (if they do have), but they are very terrified of them (maybe this bizarre stereotype looks weird to you - but it's true). --PaxEquilibrium 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S.S. When talk about generalizations - do you know that over 70% (yes, including Slobodan Milosevic) of the 1990s Serbian political leadership and war criminals are Montenegrins. Is there a way to "punish" Montenegro for this (duh)? :) --PaxEquilibrium 15:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Greater Serbia in World War II
I remembered when you were talking about the project of a Greater Serbia in World War II (how it was just a nationalist creation as Greater Albania). Well, this is the proposed Greater Serbia (of course, it wasn't adopted, the "Small Serbia" plan was instead). --PaxEquilibrium 15:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I don't think that historical sufferings of the population can be used as an argument for independence today (self-determination is a much stronger argument).

That thing to which you referring is plain justification of crimes against Serbs. So called "only retribution". If you didn't know, the Serbian Radicals call the atrocities against the Albanian population in Kosovo "retribution for decades and centuries of Serbian people's suffers and extermination, mostly during the WWII Holocaust and the Ottoman genocide). "Oni ovima, ovi njima" without a stop (and SRS claims that, since the Albanians are the ones who made "the last shot" in March of 2004, the burden is on them).

Kosovo is a huge problem/risk to Serbia. You cannot deny that. It's part of Serbian territory that isn't controlled (or is only partially) by Serbia and final status undetermined. The whole world is "besieging" Serbia because of Kosovo and Civil unrest escalates there on a timed basis. Besides that, it's a part of its territory with a high potential of secession.

I was alluding more to the fact that the International Community does not see Serbia, but "Serbs" all the time, punishing Serbia for actions outside (in Croatia and Bosnia) and actually generally putting the burden on Serbia whenever it has to do with Serbs (anythin' bad from the 1990s at all). A very bad stereotype.


 * You yourself and many others (it's the main argument) say that Serbia has to be punished by making Kosovo independent. It's actually the main argument.


 * P.S. The situation in Serbia is pretty much like this: a very large anti-Montenegrin sentiment, because they claim (and are possibly near the truth) that Serbia was occupied by Montenegrins throughout the 1990s. It is actually the majority of the Serbian people puts the blame on Montenegro/Montenegrins for the terrifying occasions throughout the 1990s.

No, that's not it - they do not put the blame on just one man! They blame the whole so-called "Irredentist Bloc" (composed, in the political sense, out of the Socialist Party of Serbia and the Serbian Radical Party). --PaxEquilibrium 14:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Freedom
Does one word on paper really mean "freedom" for the citizens? Of course not.

The same thing the Serbian politicians hold - Serbia screwed up and "cannot be trusted", Kosovo screwed up and "cannot be trusted" (I myself do not acknowledge the disgusting stereotypic point of view). That became the basis of Serbia's "More than autonomy, less than independence". The post-1989/1990 terror inflicted on the Albanians was a result of little or factually no autonomy; the pre-1989 autonomy was far too much; that's why (the Serbian government) claims the middle is the best solution (as neither extreme points would be re-introduced and balance would be restored).

Well, 17% of a state that is seceding is not a risk? :D Kosovo is a very unstable place, and as a part of Serbia is its main problem. The United Nations have proved to be powerless, and did an almost pathetic job according to many critics. For example, they failed to fully implement the 1244 Resolution. Aside from that, they utterly failed (and keep failing) to protect the jeopardized ethnic groups/cultural heritage (Serbs, Roms). In 1999-20031/3 UNMIK was in the Republic of Serbia welcomed as a solution to the Kosovo problem. After, most of Serbia is disappointed due to UN peacekeeping forces' weakness and ineptitude (especially after the March of 2004).


 * P.S. So, now (for the 3rd time); the UN screwed up. :( --PaxEquilibrium 19:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well frankly, not one of the three options is a good final solution.

..considering the fact that Albanians have proved to be able to govern independently from Serbia. I think that they actually (referring to the Transitional Pristina government) "screwed up" as well (lol, again?), and proved to be doing quite a bad job. --PaxEquilibrium 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that electoral body (read: sheeple) needs to get a lot more mature. Fact is that in Serbia the irredentist Serbian Radical Party is leading and is (traditionally) the largest party in the Parliament. The enhancing notification is however, that the Democrat Bloc opposition always manages to oust them and keep "the wretches" in opposition. The situation in Kosovo isn't nice as well, considering that war criminals and "bad dudes" from the 1990s (and before) are in power in Pristina and are the leading politicians. --PaxEquilibrium 19:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

National minority
See National minority. As far as I know, Serbs are not a minority, but a constituent nation.

As for the three options... well of course independence makes most (read: only) sense next to the others, but I sincerely believe that the other two no one (serious) takes as an option. :)


 * Tung! --PaxEquilibrium 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I don't think so. :) When I always referred to stereotype, I always added little comparisons from outside.

Problem is Serbia sees the fact that it didn't govern Kosovo for years actually its own advantage. It (its political elite) claims that Serbia's concessions to this decision only show the more liberal "demand" for Kosovo to remain inside Serbia's borders.

"Less than independence, more than autonomy". Didn't you hear of it before? Kosovo would have its own Presidential seat, government; Serbia would have absolutely no control over Kosovo's inner issues, only international and "highest" affairs. There's something also about reconstructing the Serbian Parliament with a special "Dome" composed elected by citizens of Kosovo. Due to Vojvodina's Flag & Coat of Arms, they would be allowed (but there's still some controversy over this one). This is the highest autonomy that Kosovo (would) get from the day of its creation in 1945. The initial autonomy wasn't too much. It was too little (probably). It is the latter 1970s-1980s centralized Pristina autonomy that proved to be far too much.

That's (practically) the same amount of freedom the Serbian negotiation team offers. I cheered the day Milosevic was kicked out of Kosovo and freedom restored (and I cannot imagine the joy that you and your friends felt, probably never will find out), but that same fear catches the non-Albanians (Serbs and Roms mostly) for the past 7 years. And that fear is so horrible that they do not even consider independence as a possibility. That's why my personal opinion on all the Kosovar territory north of Ibar transferred to Serbia suggestion (or something similar) sounds slightly attractive.

Well I think we can agree that Kosovo is indeed Serbia's main problem. The UN and EU keeps pressing it for it, it totally affects the whole nation and there are millions of less or mid-to-less thingies that generally make Kosovo Serbia's largest problem. Everyone agrees to it (from the Serbian Radical Party across the Liberal Democratic Party to the International community).

Serbia is no stranger to corruption and immature politicians either. I thought I presented that to you previously myself. :) However, it is good that they are no more in the high circles in the government after 2000, and this newest Democrat government is the most promising even more (the new Constitution and several Laws practically barred the corruptive hands of Serbian Parliament's MPs).

The thing that I was trying to explain you - is that one of the extremes is actually (as seen by some) independence of Kosovo (just put it in the place of the "merged to Albania extreme"). Like I said, that's why Belgrade chose the "less than independence, more than autonomy" initiative.

Well, there's no such thing as a "national majority". :) Albanians are in majority and Serbs are in minority; but constituent nations are Albanians and Serbs (with the controversial unknown status of the Turkish national minority), whereas national minorities are Roms, Croats, etc. That's the definition of the "political" meaning of the term. --PaxEquilibrium 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So what is the difference between the initial centralized autonomy that was far too much, and "less than independence more than autonomy"?


 * I don't understand. What is "the initial centralized autonomy that was far too much"? --PaxEquilibrium 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The first was rejected... Yes, rejected by Slobodan Milosevic. I do not think that that's relevant - so I don't understand why you're bringing it back. The only difference is that the Provincial government would have slightly more authority/power than it had in 1971-1989 (a democratic government, symbols, a President, democratic influential representation in Belgrade). What is beneficial however, is that a principle of harsh decentralization would be applied (western-style) which in difference, completely disable Pristina to authoritarian control and harsh centralization to decide the future of almost every aspect of life within the borders of the (province?) of Kosovo. Aside from that, the national minorities will be.. heh, "abnormally" protected (and cultural bastions like that of the Serbian Orthodox Church) :))) so any violation of the Human rights would be totally disabled.


 * What precisely are you aiming at? One of the things I liked was the Svetlana Raznatovic aka "Ceca"'s end of her career. --PaxEquilibrium 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

''Actually [..] Another practical political consideration. Bardylis 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)''


 * Indeed. In 2070, Serbia will have 6,7 million Albanians and 6,3 million Serbs. :) I actually fail to see how the (far-rich ultranationalist part of) the Kosovar Albanian political leadership fails to see that and use to its own advantage. :)))


 * However, the 3 times that Kosovo's autonomy was re-ratified and increased during Communist Yugoslavia, the Serbian politicians weren't asked a single time, interestingly enough PR/SR Serbia didn't even ever authorize such acts (which was one of Milosevic's arguments in the National Assembly in 1990; he said "Kosovo was forcibly and illegally slowly ripped from Serbia; time has time to stop that" to justify his act).


 * In one separate annex was the proposal for a sub-autonomous "Serbian North Kosovo", but it was removed due to the firm agreement on no division of Kosovo. However, Belgrade still has it in store and will perhaps return it to the table if more steps towards independence are taken. --PaxEquilibrium 23:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But the good news is the proposal from Ahtisari was a positive start.

And it's about god-damn-final-time, don't you think? Just go and see what date is today. I actually think that an internationally-imposed solution is the only solution, and although I know/wish that Belgrade and Pristina must come to an agreement, I support that the International community decides the final status. It's just like this: one side will never stop asking for independence, and the other will never give independence (read: never ever in any occasion). The Balkaners aren't mature enough to find out how to sign treaties and dispatch good words in diplomacy, less even wide-scale negotiations! (please don't be offended) I think that if the hands are put in Belgrade-Pristina solely, war might erupt (of course I'm over-exaggerating, but that's near it).


 * I simply don't think that there's a real solution by which both sides would be losers and both sides satisfied at the same time. Never, considering their primitivism (and I can expect the Balkanization to run out some time around 3090 AD). --PaxEquilibrium 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)