NationStates Jolt Archive

Idk about the russians being in the Camp of the West exactly, if ya know what I mean. They seem to be a lot friendlier with china than with anyone else.


anyway, since this thread got hijacked by trolls, Im going to try and steer it back on topic:

#1: You cannot use the "If you dont like it leave" or "They should leave because its not their country" thing.

#2: I'm pretty sure you guys are trolls (Bronch and some other dude whose name will come to me) considering as how you've convieniently ignored the key issue that you guys refuse to talk about when asked: What makes you so sure that the Albainians were forced there, or moved there on some sort of initiative from the Albainian Gov.? When I think about it, you've never answered this question, yet it is kinda central to your argument

Certainly the Russians are cool towards us but they see at the very least a need for stability in the region. To take this to war does not suit their longer term policies.

Bifocals - Salvino D'Armate and Alessandro Spina
Cotten Gin - look up charkhi
Repeating Rifle - Arms get invented and improved all the time. But ok. Granted
Telephone - iffy - Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, Alexander Graham Bell, and Elisha Gray


Well Bell was a citizen of the US by the time he did his thing.

Airplane - meh was bound to happen eventually and just further development from previous work elsewhere

In there a concession?

Defibrillator - Swiss
Who? Bernard Lown was born in Lithuania but immigrated to the US as a kid.

Microwave- English
O/S- English
Internet - French/Dutch/English - first global packet switching network was built by SITA

Actually no not really. Arpanet is acknowledged as the first. SITA was running an async setup beforehand. Their HLN came online in 69. Exact date note sure. You might be able to argue the first experimental but the first operational is ARPANET.

Arpanet was online in 69 as well so who was first? Meh?

Kleinrock (US), Davies(UK) and oh darn just blanked on his name made it happen.

Davies could be acknowledged as his studies pretty much in use today. However, the UK didn't move on it and Mark 1 didn't get going until 71 or was it 73.

Hubble - pan global effort

heh you're a funny guy! LOL :p

Bifocals - Salvino D'Armate and Alessandro Spina


This one bugged me so I looked it up and you are wrong. Glasses! Not Bifocals!

Glass lenses actually go back to 300 BC but they weren't for eye correction.

The first eyeglasses were by the gentlemen you mention.

Bifocals which is a combination of concave and convex lenses for both types of vision correction where developed in the 1700's by Benjamin Franklin

Well Bell was a citizen of the US by the time he did his thing.

However is one of a list of possible candidates as listed

In there a concession?

Sure why not


Who? Bernard Lown was born in Lithuania but immigrated to the US as a kid.

Ok...you lost me there!

Actually no not really. Arpanet is acknowledged as the first. SITA was running an async setup beforehand. Their HLN came online in 69. Exact date note sure. You might be able to argue the first experimental but the first operational is ARPANET.

Arpanet was online in 69 as well so who was first? Meh?

Kleinrock (US), Davies(UK) and oh darn just blanked on his name made it happen.

Davies could be acknowledged as his studies pretty much in use today. However, the UK didn't move on it and Mark 1 didn't get going until 71 or was it 73.[/QUOTE]

However we are talking pioneers are we not?

SITA did pioneering work on X.25 along side the ITU...and Nortel (I think...it was about 8 years ago when I had the 6 week SITA induction! LOL)

I will say that I was not aware Arpnet kicked off in 69....of some reason I always thought 73 was when Arpnet went out of test and into service...??

This one bugged me so I looked it up and you are wrong. Glasses! Not Bifocals!

Glass lenses actually go back to 300 BC but they weren't for eye correction.

The first eyeglasses were by the gentlemen you mention.

Bifocals which is a combination of concave and convex lenses for both types of vision correction where developed in the 1700's by Benjamin Franklin

ok...not a wiki reference and I admit that by this point I was playing for giggles...


Eyeglasses -

Eyeglasses with convex lenses for correcting farsighted vision were probably invented in Italy around the year 1268-1284, perhaps by Salvino D'Armate of Pisa or by Alessandro Spina of Florence. Early glasses were also made in China around the same time. The earliest glasses did not have arms; they perched on the bridge of the nose. Eyeglasses with concave lenses for nearsightedness (or myopia) were not invented until the 1400s.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/italy.shtml

A liar?

Um...that is not allowed here I think. Its called flaming.

Anyway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defibrillation - Defibrillation was first demonstrated in 1899 by Prevost and Batelli, two physiologists from University of Geneva, Switzerland. They discovered that small electric shocks could induce ventricular fibrillation in dogs, and that larger charges would reverse the condition.


Did you even read it?

The concept of defibrillation goes to the men you mentioned. They did it with dogs.

The argument is over the defibrillator! Even in your list. It mentions Beck (US) as the first one to do it on a human.

Now you could argue with the 2 Russians and the Irishman with the portable. However, Lown paved the way......

Did you even read it?

The concept of defibrillation goes to the men you mentioned. They did it with dogs.

The argument is over the defibrillator! Even in your list. It mentions Beck (US) as the first one to do it on a human.

Now you could argue with the 2 Russians and the Irishman with the portable. However, Lown paved the way......

Pioneers dude...read the guys original post...pioneers...leading the way...research is ....not only collaboration but also...working on developing useful applications.

Please you are taking this far too seriously.

However is one of a list of possible candidates as listed


Nobody will probably concede that one. Even Canada lays claim to Bell as he first immigrated there before moving to the US.



Sure why not




Ok...you lost me there!


However we are talking pioneers are we not?

SITA did pioneering work on X.25 along side the ITU...and Nortel (I think...it was about 8 years ago when I had the 6 week SITA induction! LOL)

I will say that I was not aware Arpnet kicked off in 69....of some reason I always thought 73 was when Arpnet went out of test and into service...??
-edit- sorry arpanet was productional.

Ahh but X.25 came after arpanet and HLN.

Pioneering can be argued many ways.

Paul Baran of Rand published a major document on call packet switching in 64.

Besides who did it first really doesn't mean much in the scheme of things.

Pioneers dude...read the guys original post...pioneers...leading the way...research is ....not only collaboration but also...working on developing useful applications.

Please you are taking this far too seriously.

Well pioneering work is one thing.

The original claim was the invention.

The eyeglasses for example. You are correct in your claim. However, the argument first offered was about bifocals. They are two different things.

I am not taking it too seriously. :)

Just edumacating you! :p

Kosovo is a territory of Serbia. The Americans and the Europeans are trying to carve it into a seperate country against the consent of the Serbs.

There is nothing that gives them the right to do it except that their guns are bigger than Serbian guns. If the NATO tries to carve away Kosovo, the Russians should protect Serbia by declaring war on NATO (which is the US and Europe).


New to politics? Russia would get its asskicked three ways from sunday! Do that and next year you will be mad over NATO carving up Russia.

Nobody will probably concede that one. Even Canada lays claim to Bell as he first immigrated there before moving to the US.



-edit- sorry arpanet was productional.

Ahh but X.25 came after arpanet and HLN.

Pioneering can be argued many ways.

Paul Baran of Rand published a major document on call packet switching in 64.

Besides who did it first really doesn't mean much in the scheme of things.

Well this is interesting...

http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/Secondary/Licklider.pdf

Licklider hailed from St Louis...

anyway it seems this is the paper that kicked it off (pub 1960)...seems there is alot more history coming available online these days...

Well pioneering work is one thing.

The original claim was the invention.

The eyeglasses for example. You are correct in your claim. However, the argument first offered was about bifocals. They are two different things.

I am not taking it too seriously. :)

Just edumacating you! :p

Yeah it is and in the case the main thrust of the posters arguement....that the US pioneers everything...

of course you know as well as I that things are different in reality.

the only education is the net discussion....you have a few names I need to read...cheers!

too fucking easy.

the quality of the trolls is really quite piss poor. :upyours:

Take a look in the mirror. Trolls are all around.

This would be in Russia's interests because...?

Russia would get their ass handed to them if they tried.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/kosovo.nato/

If the Americans attack Serbia again, the Russians should declare war on the US and on Europe.

This is not the first time the US and Europe have gone around carving up other nations to further their own self interests.

But in all seriousness... If Russia can carve Georgia by supporting Osetian or Abkhazian separatists, why can't we do the same to Serbia? It should be the America, NATO, and all allied and friendly states to declare war on Russia.

Wake up, kid. In conventional warfare, we'll beat them and carve their own territories. All they can (and will) do is sit and watch.

And why should Russia declare war on Europe at all? As you said, "if the Americans attack Serbia again...". So what's wrong with Europe, Brachio? Don't like cool continent with cool nations (except France), do you? ;)

Regards,
Baltija

You were commenting on why Kosovo is so beloved by Serbia, and I corrected your reasoning. And you are incorrect about NY; the vast majority of the US would prefer that NY stays in the union.



I certainly did not call for a war, so I'm not sure why you are bringing up 1914. I've called for Albanian-Serbians to change their minds - peacefully - on this matter, instead of the UN and NATO working relentlessly to destroy Serbia.

Uh huh.
Just as the thirteen colonies agreed to give up their wish to be independent of Britain?

Part of the terms for NATO ending its illegal attack on Serbia was that Serbia and Montenegro were banned from calling themselves Yugoslavia. It's not that they no longer wanted to call themselves Yugoslavia, it was that the US and Europe said if you keep calling yourself that, we are going to kill all your people.

Could you please provide a source for ANY of the wild statements you've made?

I don't think Russia could win a war against NATO now, but most of the people here saying that completely missed the point. Russia doesn't have to win. Any war with Russia would be much more costly than the cozy, coddled people of the NATO countries would be willing to face. I doubt there are more than a handful of people in the US who would be willing to actually fight Russia for Kosovo's independence. Combine that with the fact that Russia is on the rise and the West is declining, and the fact that there are many countries, including EU countries, that are not interested in reworking international law to encourage seperatism, and it seems that Russia has far more leverage than people here are willing to admit.

Well I couldn't help but notice that you're just an over opinionated alcoholic with a very warped mind so I decided to stop wasting my time.
Not enough hours in a day, then you get thrown in and it gets a whole lot shorter.

Enough. Knock off the flaming now.

I don't think Russia could win a war against NATO now, but most of the people here saying that completely missed the point. Russia doesn't have to win. Any war with Russia would be much more costly than the cozy, coddled people of the NATO countries would be willing to face. I doubt there are more than a handful of people in the US who would be willing to actually fight Russia for Kosovo's independence. Combine that with the fact that Russia is on the rise and the West is declining, and the fact that there are many countries, including EU countries, that are not interested in reworking international law to encourage seperatism, and it seems that Russia has far more leverage than people here are willing to admit.

Russia's on the rise? They've got a plummeting, aging population and a backward economy that is entirely dependent on raw material exports and imports of foreign technology...once those resources are either displaced through technology, conservation, or simply peak and decline, they're done for. Unlike the West, they lack the industrial base, service sector, or information sector necessary to really compete on a global scale. They utterly lack the resources necessary to fight any kind of sustained conflict.

China and India aren't going to side with them, and each alone could single handedly defeat Russia if they had to. Hell, if Russia tries to play games with its oil exports, China or India will just invade and take them. They're not going to side with them when they know it would be far more advantageous and easy to move in and take what they want. Russia's got delusions of grandeur and not much else...if they try anything, they're screwed.

It's weird, but Serbia/Kosovo is the only war in recent decades that I sorta feel strongly about. I don't know why, but the Serbian position really irks me moreso than things irk me usually.

It's probably because it's all such an ugly reminder of what Europe used to be like.

Not sure whether I'd again support military action against Serbia, that would depend on the particulars. A solution would have to feature something to protect the safety of the Serbian Kosovars, but the idea of rejecting independence for Kosovo because it would make Serbia look smaller on a map is utterly ridiculous.

I always thought NATO didn't go far enough the first time round though. You would have thought they could've made a better deal with the Russians and make sure we wouldn't be facing the same issues again 10 years later.

China and India aren't going to side with them, and each alone could single handedly defeat Russia if they had to. Hell, if Russia tries to play games with its oil exports, China or India will just invade and take them. They're not going to side with them when they know it would be far more advantageous and easy to move in and take what they want. Russia's got delusions of grandeur and not much else...if they try anything, they're screwed.

I don't know. Russia sure does have an awful lot of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure invading them would be all that smashing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_inventions
I know you're gonna be too pathetic to read it but it's there.
You are in fact wrong in every aspect in the prior reply.
I know it's tough to accept but you're gonna have to get over it, buddy.

BTW, (hubble) NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration, an agency funded by the US government

Jealousy is an ugly thing, but hey, all you have to do is speak english and pass a test and you're a citizen. No need to be jealous or hate.
Your list is fairly massive, and almost entirely wrong. Other people have taken your argument to pieces already.

Could you please provide a source for ANY of the wild statements you've made?

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, dating back to 1992 and replacing the 2nd Yugoslavia which ruled by communists, consisted of Serbia and Montenegro. The West Europeans pressured the government to renounce the name "Yugoslavia" because they thought it proved Serbia's intention to "conquer" eastern Europe. Hence Western Europe and the US refused to recognize the name "Yugoslavia", instead referring to the nation as "Montenegro-Serbia" or "Serbia-Montenegro".
The Kosovo war took place under the government of Yugoslavia, not the government of Serbia.
But the rest of the world continued to recognize the country as Yugoslavia.
After the Kosovo war, under pressure from NATO and the European Union, the Yugoslav parliament renamed the nation "Serbia and Montenegro".


http://inthenameofdemocracy.org/en/node/234

Western Europe strongly encouraged the break up of Yugoslavia.

"Had Western powers supported the federal state, Yugoslavia might have held together—but they did not. Instead they not only encouraged Slovenia, Croatia, and later Bosnia-Herzegovina to secede, they also insisted that the federal state not use force to prevent it."

"The Yugoslav army was prohibited by the United States from using force to preserve the Federation, which meant that it could not prevent the Federation from being dismembered by force”12—a remarkable injunction against a sovereign state. Similar warnings were communicated by the EC as well. "

"And Opinion No. 3 declared that “the [former] internal boundaries between Croatia and Serbia and between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia...[have] become frontiers protected by international law.”15 Remarkably, the commission recognized the right of republics to secede from the former Yugoslavia, and thus affixed the right of self-determination to Yugoslavia’s former administrative units; but the commission detached the right of self-determination from Yugoslavia’s peoples, and thus denied comparable rights to the new minorities now stranded within the breakaway republics. The breakaway republics themselves might be blessed with foreign recognition; or, like Serbia and Montenegro for the remainder of the decade, recognition would be withheld, and its peoples rendered effectively stateless"

"Germany in particular encouraged Slovenia and Croatia to secede, which they did "

"More provocative yet, whereas the UN admitted all three breakaway republics as member states on May 22, it withheld the admission of a successor state to the dismantled Yugoslavia for another eight-and-a-half years; the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, composed of Serbia and Montenegro, often denigrated as the “rump” Yugoslavia, was not admitted "

"On matters of principle, neither the EU nor the United States have been consistent on secession rights. In 1991–92, they encouraged the republics of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina to break away from Yugoslavia; the federal state was denied any right to use force to prevent them from doing so; and no one living within these republics was permitted to break away from them. "
Serbia continues to be held responsible for the high crime of trying to hold Yugoslavia together.


More to come.

hence Europe and America banned Yugoslavia from reigning in nationalist extremists. This ban and threat of war caused the balkan wars and the resulting ethnic cleansings. All because America and the European Community wanted to destroy Yugoslavia for their own selfish interests.

" But for a great many Yugoslavs, an answer contrary to their desires and contrary to the Yugoslav constitution was imposed from the outside. One way this was accomplished was by the EC’s September 1991 appointment of an Arbitration Commission—the Badinter Commission—to assess legal aspects of the contests over Yugoslavia. This body’s work provided a “pseudo-legal gloss to the [EC’s] opportunistic consent to the destruction of Yugoslavia demanded by Germany,”

"On each of the major issues contested by the Serbian republic, the commission ruled against Serbia. Yugoslavia was “in the process of dissolution,” the commission’s notorious Opinion No. 1 stated when published on December 7, 1991. Similarly, Opinion No. 2 held that “the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina...[does not] have the right to self-determination,”

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/failed/2007/10dismantling.htm

The United Nations never gave permission for either the Europeans or the Americans to attack Yugoslavia over what was happening in Kosovo. In fact, NATO illegally attacked and invaded Yugoslavia. This action followed America's refusal to recognize Yugoslavia as a legitimate country.




http://www.monthlyreview.org/1007herman-peterson1.htm

From 1991 on, Yugoslavia and its successor states were exploited for ends as crass and as classically realpolitik as: (1) preserving the NATO military alliance despite the disintegration of the Soviet bloc—NATO’s putative reason for existence; (2) overthrowing the UN Charter’s historic commitments to non-interference and respect for the sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in favor of the right of those more enlightened to interfere in the affairs of “failing” states, and even to wage wars against “rogue” states; (3) humiliating the European Union (EU) (formerly the European Community [EC]) over its inability to act decisively as a threat-making and militarily punitive force in its own backyard; (4) and of course dismantling the last economic and social holdout on the European continent yet to be integrated into the “Washington consensus

While the destruction of Yugoslavia had both internal and external causes, it is easy to overlook the external causes, despite their great importance, because Western political interests and ideology have masked them by focusing entirely on the alleged resurgence of Serb nationalism and drive for a “Greater Serbia” as the root of the collapse.

European and American comments on how Yugoslavia broke up ignore the geopolitical context marked by the decline and eventual dissolution of the Soviet bloc, just as it ignores the German, Austrian, Vatican, EU, and eventual U.S. interest in the dismantlement of the socialist as well as federal dimensions of a unitary Yugoslav state, and the actions that brought about that result.

The collapse of the Soviet bloc a decade later deprived Yugoslavia of Western support for the unified state. As the last U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia purportedly instructed Belgrade upon his arrival in April 1989: “Yugoslavia no longer enjoyed the geopolitical importance that the United States had given it during the Cold War.”
Hence America no longer recognized Yugoslavia's right to exist, and the Europeans used all means at their disposal to carve it apart.

Everything in red is direct qoute from the source. They are redded to make them easier to read and differentiate from my own words.

Excuse me for a moment *cracks knuckles, prepares to demolish*

Your first site is in open support of FARC and violent colombian drug organizations. Sorry, no dice.

You second site is merely a copy-and-paste of your third site...well, this gets fun

One author flat out denies a massacre of 8,500+ muslim civilians by Serbian forces. He claims this is a political ploy made up by the united states, despite tens of thousands witnesses, including UN peacekeeping forces, which arrived at the very end.

Your other author is a strong SOVIET UNION supporter. Thats right. Not a socialist or communist suporter, a SOVIET UNION supporter. INCLUUDING THE GENOCIDES. JUSTIFIES GENOCIEDS.

I suggest you find new sources

Oh, and I'm sure Russia should demand that Romania give Transylvania back Hungary while they're whooping America's (and Europe's) ass...

Excuse me for a moment *cracks knuckles, prepares to demolish*

Your first site is in open support of FARC and violent colombian drug organizations. Sorry, no dice.

You second site is merely a copy-and-paste of your third site...well, this gets fun

One author flat out denies a massacre of 8,500+ muslim civilians by Serbian forces. He claims this is a political ploy made up by the united states, despite tens of thousands witnesses, including UN peacekeeping forces, which arrived at the very end.

Your other author is a strong SOVIET UNION supporter. Thats right. Not a socialist or communist suporter, a SOVIET UNION supporter. INCLUUDING THE GENOCIDES. JUSTIFIES GENOCIEDS.

I suggest you find new sources

Show where in the first link it is an open support of FARC. In fact show me where FARC is mentioned at all.

I didn't link to it for the genocides. I linked to it because of the documentation of outside pressure to dismantle the Yugoslav Federation.

Being a Soviet Union support reduces your credibility how? You could use the same argument against supporting carving out Kosovo from Serbia by stating "The author is a strong USA supporter."

Being a supporter of either the USSR or the USA does not automatically mean bias.

In all due fairness, if the Albanians in Kosovo are allowed to be a seperate country then the Serbs in Bosnia have to be allowed their own country. Afterall, they are the majority in their province and they don't want to be part of Bosnia.

According to the argument, if the majority in a province wants independence they have to be allowed it.

Same with the basques in Spain and the Chiapese in Mexico.

Boo-hoo-hoo, poor Serbia. Boo-hoo-hoo.

In all due fairness, if the Albanians in Kosovo are allowed to be a seperate country then the Serbs in Bosnia have to be allowed their own country. Afterall, they are the majority in their province and they don't want to be part of Bosnia.

According to the argument, if the majority in a province wants independence they have to be allowed it.

Same with the basques in Spain and the Chiapese in Mexico.
Precisely. I find the idea of borders gives rise to nothing but disputes.

Kosovo and other such provinces which want to be independent should be able to do so, with a "free trade and travel" deal alá EU being made part of the agreement. The only constraints should be on criminals, to contain diseases and in cases of politically motivated mass movements in order to change the ethnic makeup of a territory (in which case the complaint could go to the EU or the UN).

What really pisses me off is the Serbian stance on Kosovo's independence, which is a blanket rejection based entirely on "staring at the map"-nationalism.

Show where in the first link it is an open support of FARC. In fact show me where FARC is mentioned at all.

Google the orgainization. Its some spanish name. It comes up with various sites that show strong support for FARC and the other groups mentioned



The other stances the author holds strongly influence his feelings on how he would write in this case. Since he favored the USSR, it is natural to assume he would blame the West.

[QUOTE]Being a Soviet Union support reduces your credibility how? You could use the same argument against supporting carving out Kosovo from Serbia by stating "The author is a strong USA supporter."

Being a supporter of either the USSR or the USA does not automatically mean bias.

By that same argument, you could say that being a neo-nazi does not disqualify you from writing in history books about the holocaust.

The U.S. should stop meddling in southeast Europe (and the rest of the world), period. Diplomatic relations, cultural exchanges, and trade with all countries, alliances with none.

The U.S. should stop meddling in southeast Europe (and the rest of the world), period. Diplomatic relations, cultural exchanges, and trade with all countries, alliances with none.

Genius. Now go take your daily dose of reality.

Precisely. I find the idea of borders gives rise to nothing but disputes.

Kosovo and other such provinces which want to be independent should be able to do so, with a "free trade and travel" deal alá EU being made part of the agreement. The only constraints should be on criminals, to contain diseases and in cases of politically motivated mass movements in order to change the ethnic makeup of a territory (in which case the complaint could go to the EU or the UN).

What really pisses me off is the Serbian stance on Kosovo's independence, which is a blanket rejection based entirely on "staring at the map"-nationalism.

I was reading a lot of news article via google yesterday. I found in the most recent one, that the Serb ruling party wanted to let Kosovo go but they are afraid to because it will cause riots and civil war in Kosovo. The nationalists are already trying to use this to overthrow Serbia's elected government and set up one based off of Hitler's Third Reich. NATO is afraid those will ignite into a wider regional war covering possibly the whole European continent. Russia has said they won't do anything until they are asked to by Serbia and it doesn't look like Serbia is going to be asking anytime soon.
Looks like both sides are walking a tight rope.

Google the orgainization. Its some spanish name. It comes up with various sites that show strong support for FARC and the other groups mentioned

[QUOTEI didn't link to it for the genocides. I linked to it because of t[he documentation of outside pressure to dismantle the Yugoslav Federation.

The other stances the author holds strongly influence his feelings on how he would write in this case. Since he favored the USSR, it is natural to assume he would blame the West.



By that same argument, you could say that being a neo-nazi does not disqualify you from writing in history books about the holocaust.[/QUOTE]


Well, actually being a neo-nazi should't disqualfy you from writing a history book. It's not your association that determines your qualifications, it's your experience and your knowledge.

You know, it really irks me when someone says this person or that person is qualified on the basis of their political loyalties or what political offices they held.

The U.S. should stop meddling in southeast Europe (and the rest of the world), period. Diplomatic relations, cultural exchanges, and trade with all countries, alliances with none.

Someone's been reading a George Washington biography.

Well, actually being a neo-nazi should't disqualfy you from writing a history book. It's not your association that determines your qualifications, it's your experience and your knowledge.


It would disqualify you from writing a balanced history of anything to do with the Second World War that's for sure.

In Soviet Russia, America whoops Russia's rear.

It would disqualify you from writing a balanced history of anything to do with the Second World War that's for sure.

I'm not convinced of that. You have yet to prove that.

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in evolution. If I wrote a book on creationism versus evolution, and I say that the majority of evidence appears to support evolution but that there are other possibilities and that is why I don't believe in evolution. Even though, as I state in said book, creationism is not testable.
I'm presenting only the facts, but does the fact that I am a creationist automatically mean that I am not capable of being balanced?

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in evolution. If I wrote a book on creationism versus evolution, and I say that the majority of evidence appears to support evolution but that there are other possibilities and that is why I don't believe in evolution. Even though, as I state in said book, creationism is not testable.
I'm presenting only the facts, but does the fact that I am a creationist automatically mean that I am not capable of being balanced?

No, its your idiot belief that the Serbs are victims of the Albanians, that Russia should establish a pan-slavic union and protect the Serbs, and that Russia could win in a war against the US and Europe combined.

As well as your ignorance of what happened the last time Russia attempted to interfere in Serbian affairs.

No, its your idiot belief that the Serbs are victims of the Albanians, that Russia should establish a pan-slavic union and protect the Serbs, and that Russia could win in a war against the US and Europe combined.

As well as your ignorance of what happened the last time Russia attempted to interfere in Serbian affairs.

I'm not going to respond to the flame portion of your post.

As for Russia.
I didn't say that Russia could or would win. I said they should declare war on America and take the war to America.
No where did I say that Russia should establish a pan slavic union. But I do think they should protect the Serbs from NATO aggression.

I'm not ignorant of what happened last time Russia moved to protect Serbia. You're probably only aware of the incident that led to World War 1. Speaking of which, Russia and Serbia were both on America's side in that war.
The incident I'm referring to was the 1999 Kosovo war in which Russia moved troops into Serbia and to the Pristina airport and told America that if NATO sent ground forces into Serbia it would be World War III. The American General challenged this and ordered NATO forces to attack the Russians in Pristina. The only thing that stopped was that British commander in the area told both the Americans and the Russians to calm down because they were ready to start duking it out. Russia prevented the US and NATO from invading Serbia proper.

I'm not going to respond to the flame portion of your post.

As for Russia.
I didn't say that Russia could or would win. I said they should declare war on America and take the war to America.
No where did I say that Russia should establish a pan slavic union. But I do think they should protect the Serbs from NATO aggression.

Pan-slavic military block. Whatever you want to call it. Are you aware of the genocide that was going on in the region. No, not by the Albanians, but by the Serbs against Croats/ Muslims?


Speaking of which, Russia and Serbia were both on America's side in that war.
This matters why?



The incident I'm referring to was the 1999 Kosovo war in which Russia moved troops into Serbia and to the Pristina airport and told America that if NATO sent ground forces into Serbia it would be World War III. The American General challenged this and ordered NATO forces to attack the Russians in Pristina. The only thing that stopped was that British commander in the area told both the Americans and the Russians to calm down because they were ready to start duking it out. Russia prevented the US and NATO from invading Serbia proper.


Good job, Russia, you prevented NATO from dealing with a genocide. Woot.:rolleyes:

Russia isn't protecting anybody's soviernity, don't delude yourself on that. They're desperately attempting to prove they're still a major power, and for NATO to intervene in Russia's back yard is embarrassing.

If Russia was so into protecting the little guy, what's up with Chenchnya?

Pan-slavic military block. Whatever you want to call it. Are you aware of the genocide that was going on in the region. No, not by the Albanians, but by the Serbs against Croats/ Muslims?


This matters why?




Good job, Russia, you prevented NATO from dealing with a genocide. Woot.:rolleyes:

Russia isn't protecting anybody's soviernity, don't delude yourself on that. They're desperately attempting to prove they're still a major power, and for NATO to intervene in Russia's back yard is embarrassing.

If Russia was so into protecting the little guy, what's up with Chenchnya?

1. There is no pan-slavic military block. There is a defense alliance.

2. You forget that the Albanians and the Croats were both also engaging in genocide. Neither the US nor the West Europeans are doing anything to punish the Croats or the Albanians. This alone shows bias against Serbs.

3. Russia doesn't have to prove to anyone it is still a power to be reckoned with. I remember when Clinton and Europe both threatened to attack Russia over Chechnya. Yeltsin put put them in their place.
Chechnya being a province of Russia just as Kosovo is a province of Serbia regardless of whether Americans like it or not.

4. It is typical arrogance on the part of the rich white nations to think they can beat up everyone else on earth. They're going have serious problems beating China and Russia, let alone beating either alone.

Russia can still take on Western Europe. And they are still a formidable enemy for the US.

Everything the US and Europe has, you have to remember that Russia has the same stuff.

1. There is no pan-slavic military block. There is a defense alliance.

2. You forget that the Albanians and the Croats were both also engaging in genocide. Neither the US nor the West Europeans are doing anything to punish the Croats or the Albanians. This alone shows bias against Serbs.

3. Russia doesn't have to prove to anyone it is still a power to be reckoned with. I remember when Clinton and Europe both threatened to attack Russia over Chechnya. Yeltsin put put them in their place.
Chechnya being a province of Russia just as Kosovo is a province of Serbia regardless of whether Americans like it or not.


Please cite your sources, because I have never heard of them before in my life. Especially the one about Croat and Albanian genocide, which sounds blatantly wrong.

You are clearly a disenchanted Serb/Russian.

This proves that the Serbs, as a people, were not guilty of genocide:

http://www.nysun.com/article/49339

Serbia had no role in the genocides. It was so neutral that the court faulted Serbia for doing nothing to stop the genocides.

This proves that the Serbs, as a people, were not guilty of genocide:

http://www.nysun.com/article/49339

Serbia had no role in the genocides. It was so neutral that the court faulted Serbia for doing nothing to stop the genocides.

So? There was a genocide going on the Balkans. Measures had to be taken to stop it, and Serbia was clearly doing nothing.

Look, I've got work to do and I have no more interest in talking with you. The argument against Albania has no grounding in reality. You are clearly either a Serb or a Russian or a sympathizer and your argument is nullified by the fact that whatever you may say about the US invading the soverienity of either states by the fact that you clearly don't care about the soveriegnity of either Chenchnya or Croatia.

1. There is no pan-slavic military block. There is a defense alliance.

Which would be diffrent from NATO how? Military organization basically ruled by one country.

2. You forget that the Albanians and the Croats were both also engaging in genocide. Neither the US nor the West Europeans are doing anything to punish the Croats or the Albanians. This alone shows bias against Serbs.

Unless my memory fails me, it was because a group of Serbs, with the backing of the Serbian government, basically wanted to keep Croatia in Yugoslavia. Then they were fighting to re-draw the borders where ethic Serbs had a presence, regardless of wheteher they were the majority or not.
And unless my memory fails me further... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vukovar_massacre

3. Chechnya being a province of Russia just as Kosovo is a province of Serbia regardless of whether Americans like it or not.

I think the issue is whether the CHECHENS like it or not

4. It is typical arrogance on the part of the rich white nations to think they can beat up everyone else on earth. They're going have serious problems beating China and Russia, let alone beating either alone.

Um I wouldn't talk about Racism and try and portray Russia in a positive light in the same sentence.

http://www.historyguy.com/balkan_war_third.htm

Krajina Rebellion (1991-1995)-Croatia's Serb minority attempted to form a separate nation during the Croatian War of Independence from Yugoslavia. The Serb rebels succeeded in driving the Croatian military out of the Krajina region bordering Bosnia. However, in May of 1995, the Croatian Army launched an effective offensive (Operation Storm), which forced an end to the Krajina Republic. As a result of this action, most Krajina Serbs fled into Serbia in a form of "ethnic cleansing." The Yugoslav/Serb Army aided the Krajina rebels. Many of these Serb refugees settled in the Voyvodina region of northern Serbia, but some of them moved to the Serb province of Kosovo, which erupted into war in 1998.


Almost immediately, the Bosnian Serb population rebelled against the Muslim and Croatian portions of the new nation.

Albanian Uprising in Macedonia (2001)-The latest conflict to come out of the Yugoslav breakup is a violent rebellion by ethnic Albanians living in the area of Macedonia bordering on Kosovo and Serbia. Macedonia is the southernmost of the new post-Yugoslav nations. Albanians form a sizable minority in Macedonia.

1. This clearly shows that Serbia is not the only country facing an Albanian revolt.

2. This shows that the Croats were also involved in genocide against the Serbs.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OJdFPyggBpwC&pg=RA1-PA211&lpg=RA1-PA211&dq=muslim+genocide+against+the+serbs&source=web&ots=brlOligecw&sig=lQBz9sSs1cIhBL5Aq8gNE3YtjnU

Muslim genocide against the Serbs was a proven fact.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=13278054

The Albanians are seeking to establish a "Greater Albania".

With the collapse of communism in Albania, important voices in that country started to talk more about the union of Kosovo with Albania
It is a fact that Albania sought and may still seek to annex Kosovo as soon as it breaks from Serbia.

1993 400,000 Albanians left Kosovo because of poverty, not because of genocide.

In the Dayton Accord, the US and the West Europeans agreed that no more countries would be forcefully carved out of Yugoslavia. They are bound by treaty not to recognize Kosovo as an independent state unless Serbia gives permission.

Meanwhile Serbs in Kosovo became increasingly worried as they saw how poorly the refugees from Krajina had been received and treated in Serbia. They felt isolated, abandoned by Belgrade and increasingly felt they were being sold out to the Albanians.

Serbs in Kosovo still feel abandoned by Belgrade.

The KLA entered into a campaign of terrorism by killing Serbs in the refugee camps and Serbian policemen and border guards in order to radicalize the situation. They succeeded and Serb police and military counter- measures ensued.

KLA=Kosovo Liberation Army.
This is proves that the albanians engaged in genocide against Serbs which forced a large scale response from the Serbian military. A response intended to protect Serbian refugees from the wars in Croatia and Bosnia.
I would also note that these same refugee camps were bombed by NATO planes.

NATO brokered a ceasefire after the KLA gained weapons and cash from Albania. However, the KLA resumed genocide against the Serbs and the Serbs responded.

In January 1999, NATO demanded that all serbs leave Kosovo at once. It also demanded the KLA to lay down their arms. And that Yugolavia agree to NATO occupation.
Yugoslavia feared that NATO would force it to recognize Kosovo independence.
NATO also demanded that Yugoslavia surrender most of its soverignty.

When Yugoslavia refused to surrender its soverignty, NATO, led by the US, began bombing Serbian refugee camps, villages, hospitals, and schools.

A peace agreement was mediated by Russia which forced the US to stop its bombing campaign. So much for Russia not being able to make America do anything.

According to the Russian mediated peace deal, Kosovo was given a form of autonomy similar to that of the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia. Refugees were granted the right of return. It permitted an peacekeeping force in Kosovo but clearly stated that Kosovo would not become an independent state and that Serbia's territorial integrity would be protected.
It also states that should the west try to seperate Kosovo from Serbia, that Russia would protect Serbian interests.

The Serbs are the only nation on earth to actually shoot down US stealth bombers.

Yugoslavia won the war because NATO failed in its effort to carve Kosovo away from Serbia.

The US was forced, by Russia, to accept that Russian troops would also be in Kosovo to make sure the US did not attack Serbs.

A referendum on Kosovo independence was not part of the treaty.

So? There was a genocide going on the Balkans. Measures had to be taken to stop it, and Serbia was clearly doing nothing.

Look, I've got work to do and I have no more interest in talking with you. The argument against Albania has no grounding in reality. You are clearly either a Serb or a Russian or a sympathizer and your argument is nullified by the fact that whatever you may say about the US invading the soverienity of either states by the fact that you clearly don't care about the soveriegnity of either Chenchnya or Croatia.

Chechnya has no soverignty. It is a part of Russia. It always has been and always will be. Chechnya has never been its own country. It has always been Russian land.

Which would be diffrent from NATO how? Military organization basically ruled by one country.



Unless my memory fails me, it was because a group of Serbs, with the backing of the Serbian government, basically wanted to keep Croatia in Yugoslavia. Then they were fighting to re-draw the borders where ethic Serbs had a presence, regardless of wheteher they were the majority or not.
And unless my memory fails me further... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vukovar_massacre



I think the issue is whether the CHECHENS like it or not



Um I wouldn't talk about Racism and try and portray Russia in a positive light in the same sentence.

Racism? Europeans treat Africans like subservients. China and Russia treat Africans like equals and get trade deals better than what Africans are willing to give either Europe or America.

America: biggest destroyer of the planet. America refuses to accept responsibility for global warming.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/kosovo.nato/

If the Americans attack Serbia again, the Russians should declare war on the US and on Europe.

This is not the first time the US and Europe have gone around carving up other nations to further their own self interests.

Oh dear. Franz Ferdinand isn't going to get shot again, is he?

Is Brach, like, some sort of rabid pan-Slavic nationalist, or something? Because he's really hung up on this issue.

Although, this isn't unheard of. I've come across folks who get their panties in a bundle, and all hot and bothered whenever Serbia and Yugoslavia and whatnot come up.

Some of the stuff the US and Europe had thirty years ago, you have to remember that Russia has the same stuffin quasi-working order. Sometimes.

Corrected elements in red.

Corrected elements in red.

America cannot beat Russia in a war. America would be wiped off the map.

America cannot beat Russia in a war. America would be wiped off the map.

That's pretty lulz.

Unless Nukes are involved.

Then everyone loses.

Even Australia.

You forget that the Albanians and the Croats were both also engaging in genocide. Neither the US nor the West Europeans are doing anything to punish the Croats or the Albanians. This alone shows bias against Serbs. Media bias against Serbia/Yugoslavia?

yes there was bias..
there still is.

The U.S. should stop meddling in southeast Europe (and the rest of the world), period. Diplomatic relations, cultural exchanges, and trade with all countries, alliances with none.seconded.

Everything the US, you have to remember that Russia has the same stuff.Russia dont have balls (http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/causes.html).

AKA testicles (http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/cuba_missile_map.jpg).

Chechnya has no soverignty. It is a part of Russia. It always has been and always will be. Chechnya has never been its own country. It has always been Russian land.

"Always been and always will be.", huh?

Let's go back to the beginning for a moment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kievan_Rus_en.jpg

So...as of the 11th century, Chechnya was not Russian land...so it certainly has NOT "always been" Russian land.

In fact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_War

It's only been Russian land for about 150 years.

Also...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya#Caucasian_Wars

Chechen rebellion would characteristically flame up whenever the Russian state faced a period of internal uncertainty. Rebellions occurred during the Russo-Turkish War, the Russian Revolution of 1905, the Russian Revolution of 1917, Russian Civil War (see Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus), and Collectivization.

So, clearly the Chechens have never been happy about being conquered by Imperial Russia...

I think any rational person would likely disagree with you about the land "always" being Russian.

"Always been and always will be.", huh?

Let's go back to the beginning for a moment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kievan_Rus_en.jpg

So...as of the 11th century, Chechnya was not Russian land...so it certainly has NOT "always been" Russian land.

In fact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_War

It's only been Russian land for about 150 years.

Also...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya#Caucasian_Wars



So, clearly the Chechens have never been happy about being conquered by Imperial Russia...

I think any rational person would likely disagree with you about the land "always" being Russian.

Russian annexation of the Caucusus in 19th century was like American conquest of tribal lands in the same period. I'm sure if the American government collapsed, the natives in the west would try to take back their lands from the whites.

During the 19th century, there was no government in the area. The people lived in tribes just like Native Americans. America used this to seize land in west of country. Russia use it to seize land in chechnya and other caucasus lands.

America should give up Hawaii since Hawaiians are still not happy about being forced into USA.

Russian annexation of the Caucusus in 19th century was like American conquest of tribal lands in the same period. I'm sure if the American government collapsed, the natives in the west would try to take back their lands from the whites.

During the 19th century, there was no government in the area. The people lived in tribes just like Native Americans. America used this to seize land in west of country. Russia use it to seize land in chechnya and other caucasus lands.

Some good points here...but they don't refute the fact that Chechnya has not "always been" Russian land.

America should give up Hawaii since Hawaiians are still not happy about being forced into USA.

I don't want to derail the thread with this tangent, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_of_Hawaii_Act

It has been claimed that native Hawaiians had very little power in the vote for statehood. However, the vote showed approval rates of at least 93% by voters on all major islands (see adjacent figure for details). Of the approximately 140,000 votes cast, less than 8000 rejected the Admission Act of 1959.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hawaiivotesinset.JPG

Seems like they had a good chance to voice their disapproval. Instead they became a state.

Han Chinese swamp Tibet, creating a minority of the natives... Tibetan minority wants Tibet independent from China... everybody thinks that's a good idea.

Ethno-religious terrorism and NATO aggression drives hundreds of thousands of Serbs from Kosovan homeland... remaining Serbian minority wants Kosovo to remain Serbian... nobody cares.

Everybody with power just wants more, everybody without just acts stupid.

:(

America cannot beat Russia in a war. America would be wiped off the map.

There is an old Serb saying (I'm told):

"God is high above and Russia is far away."


I've got this Serb friend, sometimes we drink at a little Serb bar, so we can watch the beautiful Serb girls smoke and laugh.

He fought in one of the wars, now he does physics research in the US. He has no fear, at least none I've ever seen. I've watched him square off with everything from a Harvard PhD to three dozen of Chicago's very strapped street ballers, and I've never seen him unwilling to pay whatever price comes with holding his ground.

But even he wouldn't say what you say.

Han Chinese swamp Tibet, creating a minority of the natives... Tibetan minority wants Tibet independent from China... everybody thinks that's a good idea.

Ethno-religious terrorism and NATO aggression drives hundreds of thousands of Serbs from Kosovan homeland... remaining Serbian minority wants Kosovo to remain Serbian... nobody cares. i dont know if they would care..

but your main problem is that the media is biased and is telling the people that the only bad guys there are the Serbs acting without reason.. and that they others are angels/poor victims

no one nation can do it alone. (i don't know what's so wonderful about serbia or why THAT should motivate such a thought)

if the rest of the world really got togather on this, the corporate mafia's bullying, with america's military force backing it up, of every place that tries to refuse to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper, could be put the stop to, as very much needs to be, if humanity as a species is to avoid impending self destruction.

=^^=
.../\...

Ah, indeed. That's a large part of what bothers me. It's sad to see how easily fooled and easily lead people can be even in this day and age. It's all the more ironic when considering this issue after how the people were manipulated to horrific result in Yugoslavia itself.

There is an old Serb saying (I'm told):

"God is high above and Russia is far away."


I've got this Serb friend, sometimes we drink at a little Serb bar, so we can watch the beautiful Serb girls smoke and laugh.

He fought in one of the wars, now he does physics research in the US. He has no fear, at least none I've ever seen. I've watched him square off with everything from a Harvard PhD to three dozen of Chicago's very strapped street ballers, and I've never seen him unwilling to pay whatever price comes with holding his ground.

But even he wouldn't say what you say.Its not about what Russia could have done.. Its about what Russia did not do when it had to stand its ground.

The US won the cold war because Russia folded.

Its not about what Russia could have done.. Its about what Russia did not do when it had to stand its ground.

The US won the cold war because Russia folded.

If you don't have the chips, and the other guy is willing to put his grandkids in the middle of the table, and their progeny, and after, what else can you do?

If you don't have the chips, and the other guy is willing to put his grandkids in the middle of the table, and their progeny, and after, what else can you do?you have to put your grenade on the table and hold your smallest finger on the ring.

and let the other guy decide if we are all going to die over this (http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/index.html).

you have to put your grenade on the table and hold your smallest finger on the ring.

and let him decide if we are all going to die over this.

Reminds me of "Mother Russia", a sixpart story arc of "The Punisher" by Garth Ennis.

I forget the actual line, but Punisher says "I'm going to do what nobody else has done: I'm going to bet the Russians aren't stupid enough to kill us all."

Fact is, the US might've just been arrogant enough to put its own grenade on the table, with the pin already pulled.

I don't fault the Russians for not wanting to push it. A soldier clearing the room is one thing, but even a soldier thinks about his kids, his wife. Maybe (and I say maybe), they just thought "Okay, fuck it, let the Americans have this century. We are Russia, and winter eventually comes."

... "Okay, fuck it, let the Americans have this century. ."OK.. Then
let us have it.

... We are Russia, and winter eventually comes."I could say something to kick you while you are on the ground but...
I will let you keep that hope of a distant winter.

How do you say Merry Christmas in Russian/slav ??

I don't fault the Russians for not wanting to push it. A soldier clearing the room is one thing, but even a soldier thinks about his kids, his wife. Maybe (and I say maybe), they just thought "Okay, fuck it, let the Americans have this century. We are Russia, and winter eventually comes."

Russia does tend to get its spot in the limelight for a few decades every century or so, before running into these amazing runs of horrible leadership. Or a good leader going nutty.
Ah, Ivan IV...your antics will never cease to amuse.

OK.. Then
let us have it.

I could say something to kick you while you are on the ground but...
I will let you keep that hope of a distant winter.

How do you say Merry Christmas in Russian/slav ??

Well, I'm American, so, if America is "us", I'm in "us", too.

I'm just speculating (and very thinly at that) that maybe the Russians didn't put "the grenade" on the table because they thought that if both sides took brinksmanship too far, all the little Russian children would be as boned as anybody else.

So, running out of money and not willing to burn the world over it, they folded and hoped they'd get a better hand one day.

As far as kicking me, I don't know where even figurative hostility is of use here, but okay, you "beat me" or whatever.

I have no hope for any distant winter, I don't want the Russians to win, I just think that maybe (and again, maybe) that was their mentality when they folded.

As far as kicking me, I don't know where even figurative hostility is of use here, but okay, you "beat me" or whatever.That "kick" figurative speech was because I tough you were Russian.. with all that "we are Russia" and Winter talk and all.

my-mistake© :cool:

Somebody really should tell Putin that Russia folded, he seems to be very much under the impression that he still has strategic bombers capable of testing British airspace, and warships capable of touring the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Possibly because he does.

Anyway, I think the obvious solution to all of this is for the US, Germany, and others to apologise for conspiring to destroy Yugoslav socialism even at the cost of multiple acts of genocide and social breakdown for millions of people, admit fault, and help the various peoples of the former federation to come to terms with what they did and why they mistakenly did it.

...obviously that's not going to happen, but it's worth saying at least once in passing.

So much for brotherhood and unity.

Serbia to be attacked, Russia to invade across Europe. I wonder what that might lead to.

http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/franzferdinand.jpg

Some people just don't know their history.

That "kick" figurative speech was because I tough you were Russian.. with all that "we are Russia" and Winter talk and all.

my-mistake© :cool:

Ah, sorry. I meant to imply that they (Russia) possibly took that stance, although I have no proof that they would look at things that way.

Some King once said something like "Pity the world if the Serbs ever unite."

But then, I guess every bunch out there figures they'd be invincible if only they got all their shit in one sock.

We should be careful about Putin. I'm told he can Judo all our asses.

Somebody really should tell Putin that Russia folded, he seems to be very much under the impression that he still has strategic bombers capable of testing British airspace, and warships capable of touring the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Possibly because he does.

Anyway, I think the obvious solution to all of this is for the US, Germany, and others to apologise for conspiring to destroy Yugoslav socialism even at the cost of multiple acts of genocide and social breakdown for millions of people, admit fault, and help the various peoples of the former federation to come to terms with what they did and why they mistakenly did it.

...obviously that's not going to happen, but it's worth saying at least once in passing.

So much for brotherhood and unity.

The only Serb I personally know is the most unsocialist dude I've ever met, so I don't have enough Serb friends to draw any reasonable inference about their politics, if there is even such a cohesive concept as Serb Politics.

He did speak very highly of some kind of Cossack or other, said they accorded themselves quite well on the field of battle...in a fucking crazy kind of way. From what I'm told.

Somebody really should tell Putin that Russia folded, he seems to be very much under the impression that he still has strategic bombers capable of testing British airspace, and warships capable of touring the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Possibly because he does.

Anyway, I think the obvious solution to all of this is for the US, Germany, and others to apologise for conspiring to destroy Yugoslav socialism even at the cost of multiple acts of genocide and social breakdown for millions of people, admit fault, and help the various peoples of the former federation to come to terms with what they did and why they mistakenly did it.

...obviously that's not going to happen, but it's worth saying at least once in passing.

So much for brotherhood and unity.

Didn't he recently announce he was sending a Russian fleet into the Mediteranean to send a message to the West Europeans or some such. I seem to recall that Syria once allowed the Russians to base their ships in Syria.

Also, I seem to remember that their bombers recently had to be escorted away from British airspace. So much for Russian bombers not being able to reach the furthest part of Western Europe.

The only Serb I personally know is the most unsocialist dude I've ever met, so I don't have enough Serb friends to draw any reasonable inference about their politics, if there is even such a cohesive concept as Serb Politics.

He did speak very highly of some kind of Cossack or other, said they accorded themselves quite well on the field of battle...in a fucking crazy kind of way. From what I'm told.

The only Serb I knew said that most Serbs hated Milosovic but were afraid to oppose him because of death squads or some such.

He was good at targeting his own people, as well as croats and muslims.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119724776058018844.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

This going from bad to worse.

The dispute over Kosovo is part of a wide-ranging diplomatic test of wills between Moscow and the West.

Russia has already threatened to veto new sanctions against Iran.

Russia's decision to withdraw from the treaty banning Russian military from Europe will go into effect on Wednesday.

That is a largely symbolic move for now, Western diplomats say, but a worrying one as tensions rise between Russia and the West over territorial disputes from the Balkans to the Caucasus.

Looks like the west is getting worried all of sudden after all this time of saying they could take on Russia.

Serbia's position is backed by Moscow, which wields a veto in the U.N. Security Council.

The latest talks were forced by Moscow, when in July it blocked a recommendation by a previous mediating effort for the Security Council to impose "supervised independence" on Kosovo


Clashing with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a NATO meeting in Brussels Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov again warned that allowing Kosovo to secede from Serbia would set a dangerous precedent and put Europe's stability on "a very slippery downward slope."

Moscow has a role to play in determining what precedent Kosovo's secession from Serbia would set. Boris Gryzlov, who heads the pro-Kremlin United Russia party and is likely to return as speaker of Russia's next parliament, recently said the Duma will debate in January whether to recognize claims to independence by the Russian-backed separatist territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in neighboring Georgia. He linked that decision to Kosovo. Georgia's government responded that such a move would force armed conflict.

Looks like the Russians know how to play chess.

Within Kosovo, Moscow has indicated it might block extension of the 1,000-strong mission of monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Tim Guldimann, the mission's chief, told reporters in Brussels last month.

Friday, EU leaders are expected at a regular summit to recommit to the plan for Kosovo's supervised independence, including deployment of a roughly 2,000-person EU team to replace the current U.N. administration in Kosovo

Next, the EU is counting on Mr. Ban to write a letter inviting the EU to take over from the U.N. mission in Kosovo, based on the existing Security Council mandate. That would circumvent Russia's veto power over any new resolution in the Security Council.

And it would start a war which Europe has no hope of winning.

Genius. Now go take your daily dose of reality.

Tell that to Switzerland.

The UK is now saying they will recognize Kosovo as soon independence is declared and are calling for more European troops to occupy the Serbian province.

In response Russia has issued the following statement:

"I want to stress that UDI of Kosovo and recognition of such independence will not remain without consequences," Lavrov said on the day mediation between Belgrade and Pristina expired.

"It will create a chain reaction throughout the Balkans and other areas of the world," he told to reporters in Nicosia after talks with Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos.

Cyprus and to a lesser extent Greece have led a group of doubters within the bloc that at one time numbered half a dozen states concerned either because of their proximity to the Balkans or because of separatist movements on their territory.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said NATO might have to reinforce its 16,000-strong KFOR peace force to deal with any outbreaks of violence if tensions spiked between Kosovo's 90 percent ethnic Albanians and its Serb minority.

Miliband also said that contingency plans have been put in place to kill more Serbs civilians should Serbia not accept that Kosovo was independent.

"If there is no Russian change, then the idea is to change the status of Kosovo on the basis of existing (Security Council) resolutions," the EU envoy said. That would effectively take the issue away from the United Nations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1064842520071210

So the EU fully intends to flagrantly violate international law.

On Sunday, Russia's foreign minister accused the West of encouraging Kosovo's ethnic Albanian majority to unilaterally declare independence.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/10/kosovo.ap/?iref=mpstoryview

Sounds like Russia could respond by recognizing break away Republics located inside territories of US allies like Georgia, Cypruss, Greece, Spain, Britain, etc.

I do believe that most Irish want Northern Ireland to be independent of the UK and that there are Puerto Ricans who want their island to be independent of the US. Suppose Russia recognizes those places as independent countries.

Kosovo is a territory of Serbia. The Americans and the Europeans are trying to carve it into a seperate country against the consent of the Serbs.

There is nothing that gives them the right to do it except that their guns are bigger than Serbian guns. If the NATO tries to carve away Kosovo, the Russians should protect Serbia by declaring war on NATO (which is the US and Europe).

Russia will never declare war on NATO because they're not stupid. If it will be the case of an unilateral declaration of independence by the Albanians of Kosovo, Russia might simply send troops into Kosovo without any declaration of war, because a resolution of the UN states that Kosovo is part of Serbia - hence Russia and Serbia have all the right to make an agreement about placing troops into Kosovo.

Anyway, I don't think that this will happen.
1.Russia can blackmail the West: "if you give the Kosovo to the Albanians, the Russian-speaking enclaves of Moldova (Transdnestria), Eastern Ukraine and Georgia will declare independence, too, and eventually agree to become part of the Russian Federation".
2.Russia can blackmail Europe: "no Kosovo to Serbia, no gas to Europe".
3.Russia can blackmail the USA: "unilateral independence to Kosovo, unilateral global rise of crude oil prices" (the US cannot afford the barrel at more than 100-120 $, expecially when the €/$ rate is increasing, the risk of the oil market choosing € is quite high)
4.Just yesterday, Alexej II (patriarch of Moscow) has called on a unitary effort between catholics and ortodox to save the Serbs of Kosovo - risk of (another) religion war?

I think that Russia will choose diplomatic and economical pressure over direct or indirect military intervention.

China now saying they will support Russia against Europe if conflict begins over Kosovo.

The US bombed the US embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war and China is still upset about it.

The US bombed the US embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war and China is still upset about it.

Can you blame them?

Russia will never declare war on NATO because they're not stupid. If it will be the case of an unilateral declaration of independence by the Albanians of Kosovo, Russia might simply send troops into Kosovo without any declaration of war, because a resolution of the UN states that Kosovo is part of Serbia - hence Russia and Serbia have all the right to make an agreement about placing troops into Kosovo.

Anyway, I don't think that this will happen.
1.Russia can blackmail the West: "if you give the Kosovo to the Albanians, the Russian-speaking enclaves of Moldova (Transdnestria), Eastern Ukraine and Georgia will declare independence, too, and eventually agree to become part of the Russian Federation".
2.Russia can blackmail Europe: "no Kosovo to Serbia, no gas to Europe".
3.Russia can blackmail the USA: "unilateral independence to Kosovo, unilateral global rise of crude oil prices" (the US cannot afford the barrel at more than 100-120 $, expecially when the €/$ rate is increasing, the risk of the oil market choosing € is quite high)
4.Just yesterday, Alexej II (patriarch of Moscow) has called on a unitary effort between catholics and ortodox to save the Serbs of Kosovo - risk of (another) religion war?

I think that Russia will choose diplomatic and economical pressure over direct or indirect military intervention.

I think the Europeans are overplaying their hand on this one.

Bush really has no room to say anything with the number of messes he's created.

Kosovo is a territory of Serbia. The Americans and the Europeans are trying to carve it into a separate country against the consent of the Serbs.

There is nothing that gives them the right to do it except that their guns are bigger than Serbian guns. If the NATO tries to carve away Kosovo, the Russians should protect Serbia by declaring war on NATO (which is the US and Europe).

You make it sound as if the US and Europe are aggressors that want to capture anything that has 'smaller guns' than them. Really, all the US and Europe are doing is recognising Kosovo's right to independence that the majority of the population is trying to get.

There's nothing colonial or malicious about Kosovo wanting and getting its independence. Clearly you're thinking more about what Russia and Serbia want rather than what the people of Kosovo want. If anything, it's counter-colonial, as it's defying the influence that Putin's Russia is obviously putting on the country.

You make it sound as if the US and Europe are aggressors that want to capture anything that has 'smaller guns' than them. Really, all the US and Europe are doing is recognising Kosovo's right to independence that the majority of the population is trying to get.

There's nothing colonial or malicious about Kosovo wanting and getting its independence. Clearly you're thinking more about what Russia and Serbia want rather than what the people of Kosovo want. If anything, it's counter-colonial, as it's defying the influence that Putin's Russia is obviously putting on the country.

Nothing colonial or malicious... you mean apart from:
1.throwing into the waste bin the UN resolution stating that Kosovo is part of Serbia - international rule-of-law says goodbye...
2.accepting de jure the result of the post-Kosovo-war ethnical cleansings against the Serbs of Kosovo
3.seconding the colonial interest of the US and some EU countries in the area
4.giving birth to a mafia-state run by war criminals (UCK is strongly linked to albanian mafia AND many of its leaders are wanted by the IPT)

I do believe that most Irish want Northern Ireland to be independent of the UK and that there are Puerto Ricans who want their island to be independent of the US. Suppose Russia recognizes those places as independent countries.

Which just goes to show that you've got no clue whatsoever about Western European politics... and last time I checked, Puerto Rico was independent.

America cannot beat Russia in a war. America would be wiped off the map.

At the same time as Russia, so, like I said, Russia trying to "whoop America's Rear" would get everyone's rears whipped, including Kenya.

Which just goes to show that you've got no clue whatsoever about Western European politics... and last time I checked, Puerto Rico was independent.

Sorry, CW... excerpts from wiki follows.

Government Republican three-branch government
- Head of State George W. Bush
- Federal Legislative Branch United States Congress

The statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, ... shall have the same force and effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States.[2]

Puerto Rico sends a non-voting Resident Commissioner who serves a four-year term.


- Head of Government Aníbal Acevedo Vilá
Sovereignty United States sovereignty.[1]

Puerto Rico's political status is that of a self-governing colony of the United States. Known as the Commonwealth[3] of Puerto Rico, this unincorporated territory functions as a "self-government in respect of internal affairs and administration, subject to relevant portions of the Constitution and the laws of the United States".[4][5][6] Its people are citizens of the United States. Puerto Rico has a republican form of government and is subject to United States jurisdiction and sovereignty.[3][7][1][5]

I'd say that Puerto Rico is a US colony, or at least a protectorate.

At the same time as Russia, so, like I said, Russia trying to "whoop America's Rear" would get everyone's rears whipped, including Kenya.

Who wins in a war between Russia and USA? The cockroaches.

I'd say that Puerto Rico is a US colony, or at least a protectorate.

A self-governing commonwealth.

A self-governing commonwealth.

Formally, yes. As Puerto Ricans have no say about many laws that are applied to their land (since the sovereignity is US), I'd say protectorate or colony with some home rule. Anyway, it's no independent country.

Sorry, CW... excerpts from wiki follows.

Government Republican three-branch government
- Head of State George W. Bush
- Federal Legislative Branch United States Congress

The statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, ... shall have the same force and effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States.[2]

Puerto Rico sends a non-voting Resident Commissioner who serves a four-year term.


- Head of Government Aníbal Acevedo Vilá
Sovereignty United States sovereignty.[1]

Puerto Rico's political status is that of a self-governing colony of the United States. Known as the Commonwealth[3] of Puerto Rico, this unincorporated territory functions as a "self-government in respect of internal affairs and administration, subject to relevant portions of the Constitution and the laws of the United States".[4][5][6] Its people are citizens of the United States. Puerto Rico has a republican form of government and is subject to United States jurisdiction and sovereignty.[3][7][1][5]

I'd say that Puerto Rico is a US colony, or at least a protectorate.

I understand it's a commonwealth.
Much like the UK commonwealth, yet few people would argue that Canada is independent from the UK...

I understand it's a commonwealth.
Much like the UK commonwealth, yet few people would argue that Canada is independent from the UK...

Well, Canadians aren't subjects of the UK, iirc. The relationship between Puerto Rico and the USA is different.

Anyway, it's no independent country.

Most Puerto Ricans don't want independence.

Who wins in a war between Russia and USA? The cockroaches.

Russia and the U.S. should fight the cockroaches together, not each other.

Also, I seem to remember that their bombers recently had to be escorted away from British airspace. So much for Russian bombers not being able to reach the furthest part of Western Europe.

None of their jetbombers are capable of reaching the furthest part of Western Europe (excluding the Blackjack, but there aren't enough of those to count for jack). The planes that they flew into British airspace is the Tu-95 Bear, a 60 year old turboprop. It wouldn't stand a chance against NATO fighters from the seventies, let alone a fifth generation jet fighter.

Who wins in a war between Russia and USA? The cockroaches.Bottle and I are trying to determine that over here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544943&page=9).

Most Puerto Ricans don't want independence.

I never claimed a different thing. Iirc there was a referendum some years ago with three options: becoming independent, becoming a full-fledged US State, status quo ante. Third option won. So, I would never dream of saying that the US are occupying illegally Puerto Rico: the Puerto Ricans WANT to stay a colony/commonwealth territory/protectorate/whatever.

Well, Canadians aren't subjects of the UK, iirc. The relationship between Puerto Rico and the USA is different.

They are subject of the Queen of England. Granted, the Queen doesn't do much in terms of running the country any more, but the de facto political status of Canada and Puerto Rico are similar.
Recognising Puerto Rico as indipendent will only serve to make Russia look rather foolish. Same as recognising Northern Ireland as... well, as what? As an independent second Irish nation? As part of the Republic? Hell, even the Republic of Ireland doesn't recognise Northern Ireland as part pf their own nation.

Who wins in a war between Russia and USA? The cockroaches.

That's true in 19 different ways.

There are no circumstances under which a US-Russia nuclear war turns out positive. Even a successful, minimalized counterforce campaign results in so much environmental degradation that it's nearly incomprehensible.

Even at that, on both sides, our ballistic missile submarines are nearly invincible, and capable of delivering a guaranteed second strike.

None of their jetbombers are capable of reaching the furthest part of Western Europe (excluding the Blackjack, but there aren't enough of those to count for jack). The planes that they flew into British airspace is the Tu-95 Bear, a 60 year old turboprop. It wouldn't stand a chance against NATO fighters from the seventies, let alone a fifth generation jet fighter.

Never underestimate Russian military power.

1.A Tu-95 has more or less the same performances of a B-52 - fit it with supersonic cruise missiles (the russian have that since mid-'60s) and it has no need to fly into enemy airspace: it can simply stand off and launch from 300 km away from target.
2.The Tu-22M Backfire is perfectly capable of flying all over Europe at Mach 2, plus it carries long-range supersonic cruise missiles (mostly anti-ship).
3.Su-24 and Su-34 are capable of low-level long-range penetration - not into the Hiberian peninsula, of course, but well into Germany and France, yes.
4.Never forget theatre missiles with conventional warheads - 4000 kg of thermobaric warhead is quite awesome.
5.Russian AA defence is quite good - remember that a 50-year-old russian SAM (a SA-3 Goa) operated by the Jugo army took down a F-117.

Anyway, EU and Russia will never duke it out. Too much to lose, too few to be gained.

That's true in 19 different ways.

There are no circumstances under which a US-Russia nuclear war turns out positive. Even a successful, minimalized counterforce campaign results in so much environmental degradation that it's nearly incomprehensible.

Even at that, on both sides, our ballistic missile submarines are nearly invincible, and capable of delivering a guaranteed second strike.

?

Anyway, yes. But the more likely use of SLBMs is first strike: I bet that there is always a russki sub with all of its warheads aimed at NORAD, and same goes on the other side. Remember that the time of flight of a SLBM is less than 10 minutes, compared with the about 30 of the ICBMs.

America cannot beat Russia in a war. America would be wiped off the map.

Oh I had to respond to this!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's all! Oh and as a side note, Russia would be wiped off the map.

Oh I had to respond to this!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's all! Oh and as a side note, Russia would be wiped off the map.

What wonderful and insightful commentary..

"nuh uh! I know you are but what am I?"

Its not about what Russia could have done.. Its about what Russia did not do when it had to stand its ground.

The US won the cold war because Russia folded.

The US upped the ante to the point that the USSR collapsed.

China now saying they will support Russia against Europe if conflict begins over Kosovo.

The US bombed the US embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war and China is still upset about it.

Care to back it up with a source?

China now saying they will support Russia against Europe if conflict begins over Kosovo.

The US bombed the US embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war and China is still upset about it.

Wow. I bet the Chinese were even more pissed when we bombed the Chinese Embassy.

The US upped the ante to the point that the USSR collapsed.I dont agree.

Russia simply did NOT play its cards well.

... including Kenya.I dont agree.
there is no nukes pointed at Kenya

5.Russian AA defence is quite good - remember that a 50-year-old russian SAM (a SA-3 Goa) operated by the Jugo army took down a F-117.

Flying out of recommended parameters at the express order of President Clinton.

I dont agree.

Russia simply did NOT play its cards well.

:rolleyes:

You're right. If they had a better ideology, I'm sure their economy would not have been in the crapper.

... what happened the last time Russia attempted to interfere in Serbian affairs.What happened?

BTW YahooNEWS says the Russians do care about this...
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news;_ylt=A0geu5Occ11HbWMBIx5XNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=russia%20serbia

What happened?

This little thing we tend to call World War I. AKA The Great War! AKA The War to end all Wars.

I dont agree.
there is no nukes pointed at Kenya

I'm asking this as a question, not trying to prove anybody wrong, here.

Would a nuclear exchange by the US, Europe, and Russia do sufficient damage to the atmosphere, water table, or ecosphere that there would at least be substantive risk to nations outside the theater of conflict?

I realize actual controlled experiments on a comparable scale aren't easy to do, but are there sound models that suggest whether bystander nations could continue to survive and just cross New York, Paris, and St. Petersburg off their vacation list?

You're right. If they had a better ideology, I'm sure their economy would not have been in the crapper.I am not talking about ideology here. BTW the Communists are in charge in China and their economy is doing very good.

I am talking about playing your military cards. about strategy and timing.. and ultimately about standing your ground

This little thing we tend to call World War I. AKA The Great War! AKA The War to end all Wars.I an American duke was assassinated today by some KGB dude, do you think we would have a WW?

I am not talking about ideology here. BTW the Communists are in charge in China and their economy is doing very good.

Only because their leaders have wisened up and realize that not everything needs to be constolled by the state. They do have a limited free market society and it looks like they are moving in that direction.

I am talking about playing your military cards. about strategy and timing.. and ultimately about standing your ground

I guess you do not understand M.A.D nor the international consequences of actions? Look at the response they got when they invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

I an American duke was assassinated today by some KGB dude, do you think we would have a WW?

David Duke? I dunno, probably just demand a apology, preferabby written. Just to avoid setting a bad precedent.

I an American duke was assassinated today by some KGB dude, do you think we would have a WW?

Today? Who knows! I bet the last thing Austria-Hungary was going to start World War I when they sent their ultimatum that was refused by Serbia.

I am not talking about ideology here. BTW the Communists are in charge in China and their economy is doing very good.

Because they've installed a free-market approach

I'm asking this as a question, not trying to prove anybody wrong, here.

Would a nuclear exchange by the US, Europe, and Russia do sufficient damage to the atmosphere, water table, or ecosphere that there would at least be substantive risk to nations outside the theater of conflict?

I realize actual controlled experiments on a comparable scale aren't easy to do, but are there sound models that suggest whether bystander nations could continue to survive and just cross New York, Paris, and St. Petersburg off their vacation list?Will the human kind survive in Africa, SA and Australia? =probably.

It is possible even close countries like Mexico and Spain would survive.. but I hope we never have to try it.

Today? Who knows! I know.

We wont. Even when China takes over Taiwan.. We wont launch WW3 over Taiwan.

Because they've installed a free-market approach

And if you do any price fixing, they electrocute your genitals.

If/when China has a middle class majority used to a certain standard of living and maybe wanting a more western system, the money in it will be enough that even the top guys will, might say "Okay, yeah, fuck communism".

I an American duke was assassinated today by some KGB dude, do you think we would have a WW?

Hard to say. Since we don't have dukes, perhaps a more apt example would be the Vice President, or perhaps the Speaker of the House.

But no, most probably not. The conditions are not set so that such a spark would set off a world war with much more at stake than what was perceived then. One significant difference is that we know that both sides have nukes; their potential use is enough to alter the game sufficiently that it can really have no adequate comparison to pre-1945 events. But when regarding the outbreak of WWI, remember it was the breakdown of the balance of power that gave rise to that war. The assassination was an excuse, no more than a stray spark to ignite the grease-lined barrel of explosives that was Pre-WWI Europe.

David Duke? I dunno, probably just demand a apology, preferabby written. Just to avoid setting a bad precedent.ahh

David duke LOL

Will the human kind survive in Africa, SA and Australia? =probably.

It is possible even close countries like Mexico and Spain would survive.. but I hope we never have to try it.

We'd almost certainly lose Tijuana, though, and that's the best part of Mexico.

I know.

We wont. Even when China takes over Taiwan.. We wont launch WW3 over Taiwan.

Care to actually...you know...back that statement up?

oh no.. we would demand much more than a written apology.. we would probably demand his head on a platter.. But somehow we will not Launch WW3 over the assassination of an American "duke".

Mark my words.

There'd be some saber rattling over a "duke" (But I still think not David Duke), but WW3 isn't realy all that winnable by anybody who starts it, and I think the parties involved know that.

There are new pissing contests, new ways to settle up shit.

We'd almost certainly lose Tijuana, though, and that's the best part of Mexico.Indeed. Tujuana would be "gone with the wind"

Care to actually...you know...back that statement up?No.

buy as is.

Love me or hate me..
take me as I am. No garantias Life is too short. ;)

I know.

We wont. Even when China takes over Taiwan.. We wont launch WW3 over Taiwan.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_84/ai_n16689822

A long shot, but it's better not to discount the possible consequences.

A long shot, but it's better not to discount the possible ...You did not get the memo?



## is not about "possible".. ## is all about "probable"

## art of War.

The UK is now saying they will recognize Kosovo as soon independence is declared and are calling for more European troops to occupy the Serbian province. <snip>
God, our government is stupid. I'm not having visions of World War 3 like you are, but it's still not too clever. I don't see how what's going on in Kosovo is of any concern to us. We should just stay out and declare neutrality. It's not in our interests to get involved.

I do believe that most Irish want Northern Ireland to be independent of the UK and that there are Puerto Ricans who want their island to be independent of the US. Suppose Russia recognizes those places as independent countries.
Well most Northern Irish wish to remain part of Britain, which makes it a little different to a lot of seperatist conflicts. But yes, I see your point.

You did not get the memo?



## is not about "possible".. ## is about "probable"

Well, hope for the best, eh?

Well, hope for the best, eh?The best is if we did not have Wars, did not have armies and did not have nukes.

Second best is if we have weapons but avoid wars.
Third is we exterminate ourselves and let the Dolphins run the Planet.
No, there is no number 4. (rolleyes smiley)

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/kosovo.nato/

If the Americans attack Serbia again, the Russians should declare war on the US and on Europe.

This is not the first time the US and Europe have gone around carving up other nations to further their own self interests.

It disturbs me that someone would be hoping for the USA to get a whooping. Why would you want the USA to get a whooping?

It disturbs me that someone would be hoping for the USA to get a whooping. Why would you want the USA to get a whooping?

The U.S. has been a bad, bad boy! *retrieves wooden paddle*


:D

China now saying they will support Russia against Europe if conflict begins over Kosovo.

The US bombed the US embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war and China is still upset about it.

Care to back it up with a source?

Probably not...

...political support, sure, but China's not about to get directly involved in a war between Russia and the West, for two very good reasons.

1. Why get involved when your largest rivals go at it?

China stands to gain much more by staying out of it altogether.

2. The last thing China wants is for the US economy to suffer the kind of shocks a war with Russia would cause. The U.S. and Chinese economies are dependent upon one another, for better or worse, and a full scale conflict between the U.S. and Russia would have ripple effects in the Chinese economy that could ruin decades of progress, and more importantly, foster dissent among it's own people.

The genocide has begun.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec10/0,4670,KosovoIndependence,00.html

Kosovo police said that over the weekend, unknown assailants tossed a bottle of flaming liquid into a vacant house owned by Serbs in the town of Gnjilane southeast of Pristina and sprayed this menacing message: "Death to Serbs."

Which just goes to show that you've got no clue whatsoever about Western European politics... and last time I checked, Puerto Rico was independent.

Puerto Rico is territory of US.

The genocide has begun.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec10/0,4670,KosovoIndependence,00.html

Kosovo police said that over the weekend, unknown assailants tossed a bottle of flaming liquid into a vacant house owned by Serbs in the town of Gnjilane southeast of Pristina and sprayed this menacing message: "Death to Serbs."

So these unknown assailants could never have been Serbs?

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200703/01/eng20070301_353367.html

Indonesia is siding with Serbia against Kosovo independence.

Another official with the ministry said Indonesia would not support any resolution that could cause the secession of Kosovo from Serbia

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200508/21/eng20050821_203772.html

China is supporting Serbia against Kosovo independence. There you go.

and last time I checked, Puerto Rico was independent.

The last time you checked must have been 1898 then...Puerto Rico has been US territory for over 100 years.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/14/content_6723033.htm

China reconfirming its support for Serbia. I would think the Chinese have good cause to side with Serbia, with the US trying to claim Taiwan as an independent nation. Much like Europe is trying to claim Kosovo as an independent nation.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/14/content_6723033.htm

China reconfirming its support for Serbia. I would think the Chinese have good cause to side with Serbia, with the US trying to claim Taiwan as an independent nation. Much like Europe is trying to claim Kosovo as an independent nation.

Um...we do not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.

Um...we do not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.

Um...actually USA does recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. Taiwan and USA have already exchanged ambassadors and have trade agreements. USA gives Taiwan weapons to maintain its "independence" from China.

Sounds like USA thinks Taiwan in independent.

Um...actually USA does recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. Taiwan and USA have already exchanged ambassadors and have trade agreements. USA gives Taiwan weapons to maintain its "independence" from China.

Sounds like USA thinks Taiwan in independent.

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary Thomas Christensen disagrees with you.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-09/14/content_6106010.htm

Concluding his speech, he said: "Let me be perfectly clear: We do not recognize Taiwan as an independent state, and we do not accept the argument that provocative assertions of 'Taiwan independence' are in any way conducive to maintenance of the status quo or peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits."

Um...actually USA does recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. Taiwan and USA have already exchanged ambassadors and have trade agreements. USA gives Taiwan weapons to maintain its "independence" from China.

Sounds like USA thinks Taiwan in independent.

Oh brother. No we do not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. If you bothered to do any form of research, you will see that only 24 nations recognize Taiwan as a free and independent state. If you notice, the US IS NOT among them.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/kosovo.nato/

If the Americans attack Serbia again, the Russians should declare war on the US and on Europe.


Hey, shouldn't this be over in International Incidents or something?

It doesn't seem to have much connection with reality.

Hey, shouldn't this be over in International Incidents or something?

It doesn't seem to have much connection with reality.

OUCH!!! but funny :D

Indonesia is siding with Serbia against Kosovo independence.


OH NO!

Not..... INDONESIA!! That's it fellas, pack up and go home. INDONESIA said they support whosists and whathisname in some far flung country. Game over man. Game over.

Hey, shouldn't this be over in International Incidents or something?

It doesn't seem to have much connection with reality.

Eh...I'm already fighting with RedTide. What'd I do to Russia?

The genocide has begun.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Dec10/0,4670,KosovoIndependence,00.html

Kosovo police said that over the weekend, unknown assailants tossed a bottle of flaming liquid into a vacant house owned by Serbs in the town of Gnjilane southeast of Pristina and sprayed this menacing message: "Death to Serbs."
This kind of thing happens all the time. There are Albanian extremists, just as there are Serbian, Croat, Jewish and British extremists. I don't see why you find this surprising?

5.Russian AA defence is quite good - remember that a 50-year-old russian SAM (a SA-3 Goa) operated by the Jugo army took down a F-117.



By blind volley firing, though. There was no radar or IR guidance active on the missile, just excellent visual targeting and excellent use of volley fire, combined with excellent intel and extreme allied laziness.

I dont agree.
there is no nukes pointed at Kenya

Radiation, fallout, nuclear winter, etc.

Radiation, fallout, nuclear winter, etc.lik I said:
Would a nuclear exchange by the US, Europe, and Russia do sufficient damage to the atmosphere, water table, or ecosphere that there would at least be substantive risk to nations outside the theater of conflict?

I realize actual controlled experiments on a comparable scale aren't easy to do, but are there sound models that suggest whether bystander nations could continue to survive and just cross New York, Paris, and St. Petersburg off their vacation list?Will the human kind survive in Africa, SA and Australia? =probably.

It is possible even close countries like Mexico and Spain would survive.. but I hope we never have to try it.

Looks like Russia becoming more belligerent than the Europeans originally thought.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/russia-vows-to-quash-moves-by-kosovo/2007/12/11/1197135459896.html

Things which Russia could if Kosovo declares independence and gets recognized by USA and USE (Colonial West European Nations).

1. Call for UN meeting demanding enforcement of UN Charter and Security Council resolution which already guaranteed Serbia's territorial integrity. This would probably a vote of condemnation against all nation's recognizing Kosovo. The third world will probably go along with this since the Europeans seem to be saying the "world will recognize Kosovo because we tell them to." Not too sure the third world likes being dictated to by former colonial masters.

2. The movement of troops to Serbia. Would be difficult since some nations border Russia are applicants to NATO. They would have to get permission to cross Ukraine and Romania. Romania is a US ally. Of course, they could try airdropping them.

3. Cut off Western Europe's oil and gas supplies. Western Europe has become more and more dependent on Russia for oil. Russia cutting off oil could devastate the EU economically.

4. Send weapons and cash to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. More vocal support for Iran, Cuba, Venezuela.

5. Begin sending aid to rebel in break away provinces of US allies. Example: Encourage Tahitians (currently pissed at the British government for some reason) to declare themselves independent of the UK.

6. Support Argentine claims to the Falklands. Also, begin giving direct support to Syria.

7. Start tailing American subs.

8. Halt nuclear disarmament and redirect warheads at US and Europe.

If it comes to war:

9. Blast their way through the Bosporus into the mediteranean.

10. Bomb and blitzkrieg Romania before moving on to occupy the West European nations.


Russia has lots of options on the table.

[QUOTE=Antebellum South;13270454]So? Mexicans are a majority in New Mexico, does that give New Mexico a free pass to break up with the US?[/QUOTE


Kosovo is a part of Serbia where most of its Albainians live. The Albainians being a minority have the absolute right to be independent and that goes for any minority group!I've long supported Kosovo's indepence from Serbia,in fact I hope someday Kosovo will be unifed with Albania!

Things which Russia could if Kosovo declares independence and gets recognized by USA and USE (Colonial West European Nations).

This should be fun.

1. Call for UN meeting demanding enforcement of UN Charter and Security Council resolution which already guaranteed Serbia's territorial integrity. This would probably a vote of condemnation against all nation's recognizing Kosovo. The third world will probably go along with this since the Europeans seem to be saying the "world will recognize Kosovo because we tell them to." Not too sure the third world likes being dictated to by former colonial masters.

Good luck with that one. If the UN could not enforce its own Security Council Resolutions in regards to Iraq, let alone pass a resolution before NATO took care of the Balken problem in the '90s what makes you think that the UN will do anything if Kosovo finally gets its own freakin' independence? Russia will do jack shit.

2. The movement of troops to Serbia. Would be difficult since some nations border Russia are applicants to NATO. They would have to get permission to cross Ukraine and Romania. Romania is a US ally. Of course, they could try airdropping them.

Would be seen as an invasion if they did. The planes will still have to cross that airspace and I doubt that Ukraine and Romania would allow such a thing to occur.

3. Cut off Western Europe's oil and gas supplies. Western Europe has become more and more dependent on Russia for oil. Russia cutting off oil could devastate the EU economically.

Actually...eastern Europe is more dependent than Western Europe.

4. Send weapons and cash to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. More vocal support for Iran, Cuba, Venezuela.

I highly doubt this will occur for if they did, they can kiss Checynia good bye as weapons can always be smuggled into there as well as cash and maybe just maybe fully recognize Cheychan independence.

5. Begin sending aid to rebel in break away provinces of US allies. Example: Encourage Tahitians (currently pissed at the British government for some reason) to declare themselves independent of the UK.

Just WOW!!

6. Support Argentine claims to the Falklands. Also, begin giving direct support to Syria.

Now we are just getting into comedy.

7. Start tailing American subs.

I see someone does not know the state of the Russian Military.

8. Halt nuclear disarmament and redirect warheads at US and Europe.

Vice versa

If it comes to war:

9. Blast their way through the Bosporus into the mediteranean.

10. Bomb and blitzkrieg Romania before moving on to occupy the West European nations.


Russia has lots of options on the table.

You are one very funny man if you think these two options are going to occur.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/kosovo.nato/

If the Americans attack Serbia again, the Russians should declare war on the US and on Europe.

This is not the first time the US and Europe have gone around carving up other nations to further their own self interests.

Don't be a moron. Russia has never been able to whoop America's rear, or anyone elses, for that matter. Their infrastructure is crappy, their military is using old, soviet era equipment for the most part and they have sold off most of their Cold War stock of weapons and vehicles (which we are now fighting against in the Middle East, nice foresight a-holes)
Going to war against Russia would be a cakewalk. A few strategic bombings flown in from the North Pole, where soviet era NORAD tech is now failing and in disrepair, to a few highways and railways and the country is split in half. Land troops from Alaska to capture the Siberian half in a matter of weeks. Fight it out in the more urbanized European half for maybe a year, before a formal government surrender. Get real.

Don't be a moron. Russia has never been able to whoop America's rear, or anyone elses, for that matter. Their infrastructure is crappy, their military is using old, soviet era equipment for the most part and they have sold off most of their Cold War stock of weapons and vehicles (which we are now fighting against in the Middle East, nice foresight a-holes)
Going to war against Russia would be a cakewalk. A few strategic bombings flown in from the North Pole, where soviet era NORAD tech is now failing and in disrepair, to a few highways and railways and the country is split in half. Land troops from Alaska to capture the Siberian half in a matter of weeks. Fight it out in the more urbanized European half for maybe a year, before a formal government surrender. Get real.

I'm unsure who is more idiotic, this post or the post you quoted.

In Soviet Russia, America's rear whoops you!

Couldn't resist.

Now then. It is ludicrous to think that one can simply walk over a nation which has the world's largest stockpile of nukes, one of the world's largest air forces and half a million soldiers. It is equally ludicrous to think that a nation will be able to walk over the EU and/or the USA when the EU and USA spend 10 and 20 times as much on the military respectively.

Are we done?

This should be fun.



Good luck with that one. If the UN could not enforce its own Security Council Resolutions in regards to Iraq, let alone pass a resolution before NATO took care of the Balken problem in the '90s what makes you think that the UN will do anything if Kosovo finally gets its own freakin' independence? Russia will do jack shit.



Would be seen as an invasion if they did. The planes will still have to cross that airspace and I doubt that Ukraine and Romania would allow such a thing to occur.



Actually...eastern Europe is more dependent than Western Europe.



I highly doubt this will occur for if they did, they can kiss Checynia good bye as weapons can always be smuggled into there as well as cash and maybe just maybe fully recognize Cheychan independence.



Just WOW!!



Now we are just getting into comedy.



I see someone does not know the state of the Russian Military.



Vice versa



You are one very funny man if you think these two options are going to occur.

What's funny is that you seem to actually think NATO has the power to carve Chechnya away from Russia. A country which is still the world's only other superpower besides the US.

What's funny is that you seem to actually think NATO has the power to carve Chechnya away from Russia. A country which is still the world's only other superpower besides the US.

No. Actually whats funny is that you seem to think you know what the fuck you are talking about.

No. Actually whats funny is that you seem to think you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Give this man his internet!

Things which Russia could if Kosovo declares independence and gets recognized by USA and USE (Colonial West European Nations).

1. Call for UN meeting demanding enforcement of UN Charter and Security Council resolution which already guaranteed Serbia's territorial integrity. This would probably a vote of condemnation against all nation's recognizing Kosovo. The third world will probably go along with this since the Europeans seem to be saying the "world will recognize Kosovo because we tell them to." Not too sure the third world likes being dictated to by former colonial masters.

The UN isn't the OMG super mogvenment that everyone obeys like you think. By the time it does anything it would be to late.

2. The movement of troops to Serbia. Would be difficult since some nations border Russia are applicants to NATO. They would have to get permission to cross Ukraine and Romania. Romania is a US ally. Of course, they could try airdropping them.

Hmm, I don't think the Ukraine and Romania are going to believe Russia when it say's we'll only invade Serbia. Russia has stated it wants its USSR territories back.

3. Cut off Western Europe's oil and gas supplies. Western Europe has become more and more dependent on Russia for oil. Russia cutting off oil could devastate the EU economically.

Or more likey it would make them energy indepentant and provoke them into joining America's cause.

4. Send weapons and cash to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. More vocal support for Iran, Cuba, Venezuela.


Iran wouldn't do anything because they know that we're depentant and them and the saudis.

5. Begin sending aid to rebel in break away provinces of US allies. Example: Encourage Tahitians (currently pissed at the British government for some reason) to declare themselves independent of the UK.

Most break away provinces have voted to keep the status quo because if they don't they lose government funding from their controling contries.

6. Support Argentine claims to the Falklands. Also, begin giving direct support to Syria.

I don't think Argentine claims are claimed by them any more after the Falklands war.

7. Start tailing American subs.

The Russian Navy is a horrid state, mostof their subs are a decade over due for refit, and in no condtion to fight.

8. Halt nuclear disarmament and redirect warheads at US and Europe.

Which would result in the US doing the same, and everyone would back down from fear of MAD.

If it comes to war:

9. Blast their way through the Bosporus into the mediteranean.

Turkey would throw a fit, and so would Isreal.

10. Bomb and blitzkrieg Romania before moving on to occupy the West European nations.

LOL! they have numbers, but they have low morale, their armor is in a horrid state and low on parts. Every Former Soveit bloc country would put up a massive fight because they're parents and grandparents grew up under Soviet oppression. The soviets would be stalled but wouldn't be held up for long. By the time they reclaimed a signle former possession, the US would have been redeployed and inplace beofre russia could blink.

The UN isn't the OMG super mogvenment that everyone obeys like you think. By the time it does anything it would be to late.



Hmm, I don't think the Ukraine and Romania are going to believe Russia when it say's we'll only invade Serbia. Russia has stated it wants its USSR territories back.



Or more likey it would make them energy indepentant and provoke them into joining America's cause.




Iran wouldn't do anything because they know that we're depentant and them and the saudis.



Most break away provinces have voted to keep the status quo because if they don't they lose government funding from their controling contries.



I don't think Argentine claims are claimed by them any more after the Falklands war.



The Russian Navy is a horrid state, mostof their subs are a decade over due for refit, and in no condtion to fight.



Which would result in the US doing the same, and everyone would back down from fear of MAD.



Turkey would throw a fit, and so would Isreal.



LOL! they have numbers, but they have low morale, their armor is in a horrid state and low on parts. Every Former Soveit bloc country would put up a massive fight because they're parents and grandparents grew up under Soviet oppression. The soviets would be stalled but wouldn't be held up for long. By the time they reclaimed a signle former possession, the US would have been redeployed and inplace beofre russia could blink.

QFT. Russia couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag - what makes you think it could take on what is pretty much all of the western world?

This isn't helping, either. (http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2Fhi%2Frussian%2Frussia%2Fnewsid_7145000%2F7145670.stm&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8)

(I put the Russian-to-English Google Translate article on)

"...General Baluyevsky warned that the American Missile interceptor launch from the territory of Poland could cause retaliatory missile attack on Polish territory from Russia."

Merits of the MDS in Poland aside, Russia is basically threatening nuclear war if the United States decides to use the facilities in Poland...

even if the missiles aren't coming from Russia.

Kommunism shall rise again!

Kommunism shall rise again!

Communism: Ramming Freedom in the Ass since 1917

Kommunism shall rise again!

Who said it fell? It simple renamed it self.

Communism: Ramming Freedom in the Ass since 1917

You should go into advertising.

QFT. Russia couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag - what makes you think it could take on what is pretty much all of the western world?

Russia doesn't need to fight the wet paper bag. Not when it can burn it, you and pretty much all of civilization to ashes.

Maybe, but I happen to know that the majority of Mexicans in California favor separating California from the US.

I've just been passively observing this thread, rather than commenting, simply due to the staggering inaccuracy and stupidity of some of the posters. However, Brachiosaurus is working my last nerve and I need to address that.

I'm a Mexican-American who lives in Texas. My family has lived in Texas since before it was even part of the United States. And I can tell you for a fact that the majority of Mexican-Americans, either in California or Texas, don't favor any such thing as separating any state from the U.S. Trying to make a comparison between the Hispanic population and the Kosovars is therefore an idiotic and inaccurate comparison.

Brachiosaurus is comically unable to distinguish between Mexican-American citizens of the U.S. and recent immigrants from Mexico. We are not one and the same. Our values and goals are not similar. Even that being said, though, recent immigrants don't want to carve off bits of the U.S. for Mexico. If Mexico was so great, they'd stay in Mexico. They come here because things here are better than in Mexico.

Mentioning MECHA is also a dumb point, frankly. MECHA is an extremely radical organization which does not, and never has, represented the mainstream Hispanic population anywhere in the country.

There is absolutely no logical comparison between this and the situation in Kosovo. Among Hispanics in the U.S., either native-born or immigrant, you have no significant movement whatsoever desiring independence or being made part of Mexico. In fact, if the U.S. government proposed making Mexico part of the U.S., I strongly suspect there would be at least some support for that among immigrants, simply because of how horribly mismanaged and struggling Mexico is as a nation. Again, immigrants wouldn't come here if things were going well at home. They'd probably welcome almost any change of management at this point.

In Kosovo, you have a completely different situation where the majority (the Albanians) desire independence from the Serbian state. Both sides participated in ethnically-biased violence, so neither side deserves a free pass on that one. But there is no justifiable reason to deny the right of self-determination to the Kosovars if they desire it. It's not Russia's right to decide that, or NATO's, or America's. That right belongs exclusively to the Kosovars, as it should. And if they decide they want independence from Serbia, the world should support them.

That being said, I seriously doubt Russia would ever go to war over this. They're rebuilding their strength, both economically and militarily, and Putin is busy consolidating his power base at home. Russia makes way too much money on trade with the very nations they'd have to fight over the Kosovo issue, especially from energy resources such as oil and natural gas. They aren't dumb enough to jeopardize that over a region that isn't even part of Russia and is a region of peripheral importance to them at best.

Yes, they welcome the opportunity to take a stand on the world stage and reassert their strength and importance as a world power by rattling sabers over Kosovo. But an actual war? They have too much to lose, just as the West would. Any such war would be devastating to all nations involved. And the Russians are just as smart as Americans or Europeans are, and just as capable of recognizing that. Now, they might tighten the screws a bit by cutting off oil/gas supplies or raising prices, as they've done in the past to nations neighboring them that don't play ball. But I suspect that's as far as they'll go.

If you talk about foreign intervention in places like Belarus, Ukraine or Georgia, that could be a completely different story. Kosovo, and Serbia, just aren't as important to the Russians as places like that are though. The Russians didn't intervene the last time the West attacked Serbia over Kosovo - why on earth would they do so now, when they have so much more to lose?

I've just been passively observing this thread, rather than commenting, simply due to the staggering inaccuracy and stupidity of some of the posters. However, Brachiosaurus is working my last nerve and I need to address that.

I'm a Mexican-American who lives in Texas. My family has lived in Texas since before it was even part of the United States. And I can tell you for a fact that the majority of Mexican-Americans, either in California or Texas, don't favor any such thing as separating any state from the U.S. Trying to make a comparison between the Hispanic population and the Kosovars is therefore an idiotic and inaccurate comparison.

Brachiosaurus is comically unable to distinguish between Mexican-American citizens of the U.S. and recent immigrants from Mexico. We are not one and the same. Our values and goals are not similar. Even that being said, though, recent immigrants don't want to carve off bits of the U.S. for Mexico. If Mexico was so great, they'd stay in Mexico. They come here because things here are better than in Mexico.

Mentioning MECHA is also a dumb point, frankly. MECHA is an extremely radical organization which does not, and never has, represented the mainstream Hispanic population anywhere in the country.

There is absolutely no logical comparison between this and the situation in Kosovo. Among Hispanics in the U.S., either native-born or immigrant, you have no significant movement whatsoever desiring independence or being made part of Mexico. In fact, if the U.S. government proposed making Mexico part of the U.S., I strongly suspect there would be at least some support for that among immigrants, simply because of how horribly mismanaged and struggling Mexico is as a nation. Again, immigrants wouldn't come here if things were going well at home. They'd probably welcome almost any change of management at this point.

In Kosovo, you have a completely different situation where the majority (the Albanians) desire independence from the Serbian state. Both sides participated in ethnically-biased violence, so neither side deserves a free pass on that one. But there is no justifiable reason to deny the right of self-determination to the Kosovars if they desire it. It's not Russia's right to decide that, or NATO's, or America's. That right belongs exclusively to the Kosovars, as it should. And if they decide they want independence from Serbia, the world should support them.

That being said, I seriously doubt Russia would ever go to war over this. They're rebuilding their strength, both economically and militarily, and Putin is busy consolidating his power base at home. Russia makes way too much money on trade with the very nations they'd have to fight over the Kosovo issue, especially from energy resources such as oil and natural gas. They aren't dumb enough to jeopardize that over a region that isn't even part of Russia and is a region of peripheral importance to them at best.

Yes, they welcome the opportunity to take a stand on the world stage and reassert their strength and importance as a world power by rattling sabers over Kosovo. But an actual war? They have too much to lose, just as the West would. Any such war would be devastating to all nations involved. And the Russians are just as smart as Americans or Europeans are, and just as capable of recognizing that. Now, they might tighten the screws a bit by cutting off oil/gas supplies or raising prices, as they've done in the past to nations neighboring them that don't play ball. But I suspect that's as far as they'll go.

If you talk about foreign intervention in places like Belarus, Ukraine or Georgia, that could be a completely different story. Kosovo, and Serbia, just aren't as important to the Russians as places like that are though. The Russians didn't intervene the last time the West attacked Serbia over Kosovo - why on earth would they do so now, when they have so much more to lose?

About time someone says something for Mexican Americans.

You make a lot of valid points. But your last point about Russia not intervening last time the West attacked Russia.

President Yeltsin did send an armored unit to Pristina (capital of Kosovo) to block the west from occupying the airport. This unit was originally part of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. The people in the Kremlin ordered them to drop their peacekeeping duties and get to Pristina before the NATO forces could.
Russia seized the airport before the US could get there. This led to a standoff with the US General, Wesley Clark, order NATO (including both US and all European troops) to launch a massive attack on Russian troops in Kosovo and on Russia itself. The British commander (forgot his name) who was second in charge at the time, refused to pass the order down the line because he knew that carrying it out would spark a nuclear exchange.
There was a heated diplomatic exchange between the US and Russia and at the UN. China was about to enter the war on the side of Serbia because the US deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
So the US and it's European allies were forced to either:
1. Agree to compromise with Russia, which meant giving Russia some of what it wanted
or
2. Being responsible for igniting world war III with the accompanying exchange of nuclear warheads in which case the US and Western Europe would have been blamed by future generations for starting a the war that wiped out 90% of the human race.

Brought to their senses by very wise people at the head of the British government, the West chose option 1. Which is why Russia is part of the triad in Kosovo. Originally the US and the Germans wanted to bar Russia from Kosovo. They also intended to originally make Kosovo a seperate state back in 1999. They were not able to do that because of threat that Russia would "liberate" it from NATO occupation. Even the Romanians were squeemish about the NATO commanders not listnening to Russia because they were right on Russia's doorstep. It would have only taken 2 to 3 hours for Romania to be reannexed into the eastern block, considering the Romanian military was much worse off that Russia's military with the nearest NATO land forces being 24 hours away because of logistical reasons.

And the other thing Russia has on its side in this case, is that unlike 1999, the US has its forces spread extremely thin, from Korea, to the PHillipines, to Colombia, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Ethiopia. Sending forces to fight Russia in Kosovo would mean having to pull troops off of homeland security.

I could tell just from the title of this thread that it would turn into a 'NAWWW MERICA IS BETTER, WE HAVE SHEILDS' BAWWWWWWW-FEST.

infantile trolls + military thread = fail

I could tell just from the title of this thread that it would turn into a 'NAWWW MERICA IS BETTER, WE HAVE SHEILDS' BAWWWWWWW-FEST.

infantile trolls + military thread = fail

Eh..trolls only make posts to piss people off. A trolls post or thread serves no value.

Everyone in this thread are making equally valid points to support their positions. I see no trolling happening here.
If there was, I'm sure the mods would shut it down and issued a warning to all persons responsible for the offense.

So far, despite the sharp differences in opinions, this thread has been quite civil with people being able to make their points with out flaming or flamebaiting.

EDIT: and what is exacly wrong military related threads?

What's funny is that you seem to actually think NATO has the power to carve Chechnya away from Russia. A country which is still the world's only other superpower besides the US.

Russia a superpower? Hardly!!!

The United States is the lone superpower right now.

What's funny is that you know jack shit about international politics.

This isn't helping, either. (http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2Fhi%2Frussian%2Frussia%2Fnewsid_7145000%2F7145670.stm&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8)

(I put the Russian-to-English Google Translate article on)

"...General Baluyevsky warned that the American Missile interceptor launch from the territory of Poland could cause retaliatory missile attack on Polish territory from Russia."

Merits of the MDS in Poland aside, Russia is basically threatening nuclear war if the United States decides to use the facilities in Poland...

even if the missiles aren't coming from Russia.

And Russia would get wacked if they tried that. Including their cities.

What's funny is that you know jack shit about international politics.

ah, irony.

Russia has most of the characteristics of a superpower. If it gets its act together and jump starts its economy and actually get its millitary in fighting shape, not a disorganized, demoralized mess it would be a superpower again.

Russia has most of the characteristics of a superpower. If it gets its act together and jump starts its economy and actually get its millitary in fighting shape, not a disorganized, demoralized mess it would be a superpower again.

100% true!

Russia has most of the characteristics of a superpower. If it gets its act together and jump starts its economy and actually get its millitary in fighting shape, not a disorganized, demoralized mess it would be a superpower again.
It still is a superpower due to the power of Gazprom, which is huge.

It still is a superpower due to the power of Gazprom, which is huge.

True. Like I said it has most of the charateristics. Raw materials and energy supplies are some of the characteristics. It is an energy superpower.

Canada is breaking with its European and US allies, saying they won't recognize an independent Kosovo unless there is a UN Resolution.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=372e0710-61c7-45a4-8e9d-0eeddb9f9bff&k=15423

On another note, China has said they will oppose attempts by the west to carve apart Serbia.

That's pretty much the stance of the entire nonwhite world.

I'm sure America and Western Europe can take on the whole of the rest of planet earth.

Russia a superpower? Hardly!!!

The United States is the lone superpower right now.

What's funny is that you know jack shit about international politics.

You my friend should remember that the US can't do much at the moment. Cause almost all American troops are either stuck in Iraq or in Afghanistan or in Africa.
If Russia invaded Europe because of Kosovo, what could America do? Not much at all. It would have to make do with the 2 divisions in Germany. Cause that is all they would have.
The playing field in the balkans is already level because of Bush's decision to foolishly start illegal invasion of soverign state of Iraq, just like US planning illegal carving of soverign state of Serbia.

Russia can committ way more troops to a Kosovo conflict than the US can. The Europeans can easily defend their home turf. But Serbia is not home turf.

You my friend should remember that the US can't do much at the moment. Cause almost all American troops are either stuck in Iraq or in Afghanistan or in Africa.
If Russia invaded Europe because of Kosovo, what could America do? Not much at all. It would have to make do with the 2 divisions in Germany. Cause that is all they would have.
The playing field in the balkans is already level because of Bush's decision to foolishly start illegal invasion of soverign state of Iraq, just like US planning illegal carving of soverign state of Serbia.

Russia can committ way more troops to a Kosovo conflict than the US can. The Europeans can easily defend their home turf. But Serbia is not home turf.

oh yes because its not like they have to march on foot to get their you know.:rolleyes: Most US forces could be there inside 72 hours including armor.

True. Like I said it has most of the charateristics. Raw materials and energy supplies are some of the characteristics. It is an energy superpower.

Yeah, but that's not enough; if anything, countries that are rich in resources but poor in everything else end up having those raw materials stolen. Their influence is small compared to countries that can wield more general economic and technological power.

Now, if Russia used those raw materials to develop the rest of their economy, they would be able to build themselves up very effectively; the concern these days is that there won't be a labor force necessarily to support the kind of economy needed to project international power. Russia seems more keen on latching on to a nation like China/India and using their strengths to offset its weaknesses.

Fixed.

Both mistakes that the US is gleefully worsening. Giving weapons to Israel and launching a pointless war on Iraq, which did... err... what was it again? to merit its reduction from vaguely functioning state to sub-Saharan Africa levels.

Nice one, guys ;)

And the europeans are doing oh so much to stop the ethnic cleansing and militant activities in the world. I mean just look at that great oil for food campaign.:rolleyes: or how they gleefully try and dominate the markets of their former colonies. Of course while the U.S. actually does somethings which are not entirely bad those that sit on the sidelines and act in their own selfish nationalistic perspectives are free to call it names. Nice job guys! :p

Russia can committ way more troops to a Kosovo conflict than the US can. The Europeans can easily defend their home turf. But Serbia is not home turf.

Who's going to let them through? Pretty much all of Eastern Europe, especially the Baltics, hate the Russians for the highway robbery and oppression they inflicted on those nations during the Cold War. Russia's trapped unless they want to go by sea, and the US, UK, and French navies would make short work of them...unless they want to unleash a very angry coalition of Eastern European states by trying to force their way through them.

If Russia moves, it's done for. The most they could hope for is pressuring everybody in to negotiation; any attempts at forcing their way will end in a lot of dead Russian soldiers.

Sadly, Russia has a history of crapping up even simple things. Or worse, not getting their act together until fascist invaders are already at the gates of cities named after their glorious leaders.

Russia will need at least a decade to reach a point where it can militarily threaten any major nation in the West.

Plus, Russia still has to watch for China. They're not the best of buds.

Plus, Russia still has to watch for China. They're not the best of buds.

China outnumbers them almost 10-to-1, is growing at 10% per year, and already has an economy almost 9 times the size of Russia's along with a strong relationship with the United States. If China wants something from Russia, it's going to march in and take it, either literally or figuratively; they nearly did it back in the 1960's and they're likely to do it now.

Can't remember if this quote is from Talleyrand or Metternich or one of those other guys: "Russia is never as strong as it can look. Russia is never as weak as it can look."

oh yes because its not like they have to march on foot to get their you know.:rolleyes: Most US forces could be there inside 72 hours including armor.

As I understand it, American inventory of functional heavy armored cavalry is dropping though, due to overloading of the repair and refitting facilities from desert wear.

As for the 72 hours, I'm not too sure how much of US forces could be realistically pulled into such a conflict in 72 hours. At least one fleet is already involved in the middle east. Another is still fooling around the South China Sea at last count. The deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq are understrength true, so that may mean more available elsewhere, but it also means that unless they want to toss both countries into the toilet, they cannot weaken their presence there.

It is unlikely that the divisions in Korea and Japan will be going anywhere anytime soon, unless they want to pull out of the treaty and lose a lot of pull in the far eastern areas.

This is not to say that they don't have the capability, definitely not. But the issues at hand would make utilizing it fully a very risky move with nothing to gain.

Can't remember if this quote is from Talleyrand or Metternich or one of those other guys: "Russia is never as strong as it can look. Russia is never as weak as it can look."

That is deep man.

Russia's on the rise? They've got a plummeting, aging population and a backward economy that is entirely dependent on raw material exports and imports of foreign technology...once those resources are either displaced through technology, conservation, or simply peak and decline, they're done for. Unlike the West, they lack the industrial base, service sector, or information sector necessary to really compete on a global scale. They utterly lack the resources necessary to fight any kind of sustained conflict.

China and India aren't going to side with them, and each alone could single handedly defeat Russia if they had to. Hell, if Russia tries to play games with its oil exports, China or India will just invade and take them. They're not going to side with them when they know it would be far more advantageous and easy to move in and take what they want. Russia's got delusions of grandeur and not much else...if they try anything, they're screwed.
The worst factor of course about Russia though, they have Crazy Putain. I think in the Russian high schools that was his nickname.

Encourage Tahitians (currently pissed at the British government for some reason) to declare themselves independent of the UK.
How did I miss this one? Tahiti is French. I thought everyone knew that.

What's funny is that you seem to actually think NATO has the power to carve Chechnya away from Russia. A country which is still the world's only other superpower besides the US.

Actually if anyone is second in the super power division its china and a they are very, very close to becoming the world's leading power. Whats funny is you doubt the capability of the rest of the world compared to Russia. China could be up all over Russia in about 10 days max with superior fighting force that has a 10 to 1 advantage against the russians.

Who's going to let them through? Pretty much all of Eastern Europe, especially the Baltics, hate the Russians for the highway robbery and oppression they inflicted on those nations during the Cold War. Russia's trapped unless they want to go by sea, and the US, UK, and French navies would make short work of them...unless they want to unleash a very angry coalition of Eastern European states by trying to force their way through them.

If Russia moves, it's done for. The most they could hope for is pressuring everybody in to negotiation; any attempts at forcing their way will end in a lot of dead Russian soldiers.

And a lot of dead West European and lots of dead American soldiers.
Even if they did beat Russia, the costs for America would be so huge they would not be able to project their power for at least a couple of decades afterward.
NATO is not going to be able to mow over Russia.

And a lot of dead West European and lots of dead American soldiers.

Even if they did beat Russia, the costs for America would be so huge they would not be able to project their power for at least a couple of decades afterward.
NATO is not going to be able to mow over Russia.

And Russia would never be able to project its power again, or at least not for a very, very long time. This kind of defeat would cause massive economic and social disruption, most likely leading to a complete fracturing of the Russian state and all kinds of nasty postwar problems.

Actually if anyone is second in the super power division its china and a they are very, very close to becoming the world's leading power. Whats funny is you doubt the capability of the rest of the world compared to Russia. China could be up all over Russia in about 10 days max with superior fighting force that has a 10 to 1 advantage against the russians.

Russia has an ability which China does not have yet.
Force projection. Russia's airforce and navies are still both bigger than China's.
Russia has been in space a lot longer and, unlike China, but like the US, has orbiting space weapons.

Russia has a lot more missiles both conventional and nuclear. If China tried to seize Russian oil wells, Russia could easily reduce the number of Chinese by a factor of ten.

The only thing China has is its army but only in terms of numbers. While China's 200 nukes are on ICBM's, Russia has this little thing called tactical theater nuclear device which is designed for use, not against cities but against groups of foriegn military divisions.

Also, Russia is much much closer to developing a stealth fighter bomber capability where as China has not even started working on stealth.

Russia is already building its next generation aircraft carrier. China doesn't even have its own carrier. Though they are trying to retrofit an old, gutted out Russian carrier from the 1920's.

And Russia would never be able to project its power again, or at least not for a very, very long time. This kind of defeat would cause massive economic and social disruption, most likely leading to a complete fracturing of the Russian state and all kinds of nasty postwar problems.

Neither would the Americans or the Europeans.
The Russians, Americans, and West Europeans would be annihilated for at least a century at most. The world would truly belong to China afterward.
And the Arabs would be forced to ally with Israel to counter aggression from Iran because it would be awhile before they could rely on help from America again. Otherwise, Iran gets to take over the mideast.

Al Qaeda would regain Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan.

I'm sure Chavez would take advantage of the situation to do some more mischief in Latin America.

Of course, the seperatist movement in Georgia would be eliminated cause there would be no more Russian support.

I would a free chechnya but the majority of Chechens have been highly supportive of the Russian government the last 2 to 3 years. Since the Al Qaeda backed Islamo fascists were captured and defeated.

Australia could probably compete with China if they stay out of any Kosovo war between NATO and Russia.

You my friend should remember that the US can't do much at the moment. Cause almost all American troops are either stuck in Iraq or in Afghanistan or in Africa.

You forget that we have troops in Europe :rolleyes:

If Russia invaded Europe because of Kosovo, what could America do? Not much at all. It would have to make do with the 2 divisions in Germany. Cause that is all they would have.

We can do a hell of a lot more than you think Brachiosaurus. We also have this thing called an Air Force. I'm sure you forgot about them.

The playing field in the balkans is already level because of Bush's decision to foolishly start illegal invasion of soverign state of Iraq, just like US planning illegal carving of soverign state of Serbia.

I love how you keep using the word carving when that entire area has already been carved up on more than one occassion and not because of the US either.

Russia can committ way more troops to a Kosovo conflict than the US can. The Europeans can easily defend their home turf. But Serbia is not home turf.

Russia's military is in sad shape. Russia has to cross a few nations just to get to that theater. Guess what? They would literally have to invade them to get to Serbia. That is not going to go over well at all.

Who's going to let them through? Pretty much all of Eastern Europe, especially the Baltics, hate the Russians for the highway robbery and oppression they inflicted on those nations during the Cold War. Russia's trapped unless they want to go by sea, and the US, UK, and French navies would make short work of them...unless they want to unleash a very angry coalition of Eastern European states by trying to force their way through them.

If Russia moves, it's done for. The most they could hope for is pressuring everybody in to negotiation; any attempts at forcing their way will end in a lot of dead Russian soldiers.

Exactly.

Did anyone else realize the title of the thread says "should" and not "could"?

Crazy.. I didn't notice that...

Russia would not have any interest... What would they lose from Kosovo gaining independance by their own will?... What would they gain from starting a massive international conflict that they would definitely not be able to follow through with?... Russia is definitely not the second most powerful country in the world by the way, and if it were it still doesn't make sense that the second most powerful country in the world would be able to beat the most powerful country in the world + Europe....

You make a lot of valid points. But your last point about Russia not intervening last time the West attacked Russia.

President Yeltsin did send an armored unit to Pristina (capital of Kosovo) to block the west from occupying the airport. This unit was originally part of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. The people in the Kremlin ordered them to drop their peacekeeping duties and get to Pristina before the NATO forces could.

Okay, you responded civilly and with a reasonably intelligent argument, so I'll return the favor (hopefully). I admit, I had forgotten about the trick the Russians pulled back then occupying the airport...that's a valid point. I really don't think the Russians would risk a war this time over Kosovo, though. Kosovo is a minor issue, especially compared to places like Georgia. And there are a lot of other ways the Russians could decide to leverage their power and indicate their displeasure, which would be a lot less risky for them. They've shown an ability to display economic leverage a lot more easily than military leverage in recent years.

And the other thing Russia has on its side in this case, is that unlike 1999, the US has its forces spread extremely thin, from Korea, to the PHillipines, to Colombia, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Ethiopia. Sending forces to fight Russia in Kosovo would mean having to pull troops off of homeland security.

Our forces, admittedly, are spread thin way too much for my liking, and are being bled dry by such idiocies as the Iraq war. However, as history has shown, the U.S. military is a very resilient force, and we wouldn't be fighting it alone if the Russians decided to start a war, either. Even if it was possible to "win" such a war, though, the "win" would be the perfect definition of a Pyrrhic one. The question is, does everyone involved who would be pushing the button, so to speak, realize that?

Russia has an ability which China does not have yet.
Force projection. Russia's airforce and navies are still both bigger than China's.
Russia has been in space a lot longer and, unlike China, but like the US, has orbiting space weapons.

Russia has a lot more missiles both conventional and nuclear. If China tried to seize Russian oil wells, Russia could easily reduce the number of Chinese by a factor of ten.

The only thing China has is its army but only in terms of numbers. While China's 200 nukes are on ICBM's, Russia has this little thing called tactical theater nuclear device which is designed for use, not against cities but against groups of foriegn military divisions.

Also, Russia is much much closer to developing a stealth fighter bomber capability where as China has not even started working on stealth.

Russia is already building its next generation aircraft carrier. China doesn't even have its own carrier. Though they are trying to retrofit an old, gutted out Russian carrier from the 1920's.

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia has discussed rebuilding a viable, cohesive fighting force out of the remaining parts of the former Soviet armed forces. A new Russian military doctrine, promulgated in November 1993, acknowledges the contraction of the old Soviet military into a regional military power without global imperial ambitions. In keeping with its emphasis on the threat of regional conflicts, the doctrine calls for a Russian military that is smaller, lighter, and more mobile, with a higher degree of professionalism and with greater rapid deployment capability. Such a transformation has proven difficult, not least because - even shorn of worldwide ambitions - the sheer scale of Russia's land borders makes even a defensive military posture an immense undertaking.

The challenges of carrying out reforms and modernizing have been magnified by difficult economic conditions in Russia, which have resulted in reduced defence spending. This has led to training cutbacks, wage reductions, and severe shortages of housing for other social amenities for military personnel, with a consequent lowering of morale, cohesion, and fighting effectiveness.
While putain has improved it, the russian economy really can't support any truly powerful fighting force. And you also doubt the abilities of the entirety of Europe, since you said in you're opening statement russsia should declare war on Europe. Surrounding countries such as poland have drastically improved their military abilities since the soviet breakup and should, if nothing else, slow Russia to a grinding halt in any attempt to interfere with Kosovo.

Neither would the Americans or the Europeans.
The Russians, Americans, and West Europeans would be annihilated for at least a century at most. The world would truly belong to China afterward.
And the Arabs would be forced to ally with Israel to counter aggression from Iran because it would be awhile before they could rely on help from America again. Otherwise, Iran gets to take over the mideast.

Al Qaeda would regain Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan.

I'm sure Chavez would take advantage of the situation to do some more mischief in Latin America.

Of course, the seperatist movement in Georgia would be eliminated cause there would be no more Russian support.

I would a free chechnya but the majority of Chechens have been highly supportive of the Russian government the last 2 to 3 years. Since the Al Qaeda backed Islamo fascists were captured and defeated.

Australia could probably compete with China if they stay out of any Kosovo war between NATO and Russia.
Did you get smacked in the head with a brick when you were a baby or something?

Aye, Australia's going to comepete with China... yes... yes, all the Arabs are going to team up with Israel to fight Iran. Al Qaeda which never had much power in Afghanistan will somehow take over the whole country. Aye. Obviously.

If the Americans attack Serbia again, the Russians should declare war on the US and on Europe.

This is not the first time the US and Europe have gone around carving up other nations to further their own self interests.

If Russia declares war on the U.S. and Europe, we'll have world war 3 and no one is willing to be the one that goes down in history as being the one that starts that one. Besides, the U.N. would need to dissolve first and/or because of Russia attacking the U.S. and Europe. Otherwise there would be civil war in the U.N. and the U.N. wouldn't stand for that. But then again, Russia, Europe, and the U.S. makes up almost all of the U.N. member nations.

Europe and especially the U.S. have indeed carved up their share of nations for their own "self interests" but it's not like Russia is innocent of that either. They've done their share too, they're just as bad at that as the U.S. and Europe.

As a side note, the U.S. will have a democrat pacifist as president next and she (*cough* damn her *cough*) will do everything in her power to uphold the democratic mantra of absolutely no wars on the watch of a democrat. So, unless Serbia and Kosovo want to wait until another Republican takes the oval office, the U.S. will not be participating this time.

As a side note, the U.S. will have a democrat pacifist as president next and she (*cough* damn her *cough*) will do everything in her power to uphold the democratic mantra of absolutely no wars on the watch of a democrat. So, unless Serbia and Kosovo want to wait until another Republican takes the oval office, the U.S. will not be participating this time.

Wanna bet?

I'd bet my first born on it.

Edit: The only thing I'm not 100% sure of is the gender of the new president of the U.S.

If Russia declares war on the U.S. and Europe, we'll have world war 3 and no one is willing to be the one that goes down in history as being the one that starts that one. Besides, the U.N. would need to dissolve first and/or because of Russia attacking the U.S. and Europe. Otherwise there would be civil war in the U.N. and the U.N. wouldn't stand for that. But then again, Russia, Europe, and the U.S. makes up almost all of the U.N. member nations.

Europe and especially the U.S. have indeed carved up their share of nations for their own "self interests" but it's not like Russia is innocent of that either. They've done their share too, they're just as bad at that as the U.S. and Europe.

As a side note, the U.S. will have a democrat pacifist as president next and she (*cough* damn her *cough*) will do everything in her power to uphold the democratic mantra of absolutely no wars on the watch of a democrat. So, unless Serbia and Kosovo want to wait until another Republican takes the oval office, the U.S. will not be participating this time.

Wow. How completely and utterly misinformed. The UN will dissolve in the immediate aftermath of Russia declaring war on the US and Europe? Why, exactly would Ban Ki Moon, the remaining Security Council members or the General Assembly simply drop everything and dissolve the world forum just because Russia started a conflict? Also what do you mean the Russians, US and European nations make up most UN member states? Almost every single recognised state is a UN member. All 192 of them!

Also, no one is denying Russia's former Imperialist ambitions.

And I presume you're talking about Hillary? If so you really need to actually read something concerning her foreign policy record, as well as that of her husband. They're as Pro-Military interventionist as Bush.

Serbia to be attacked, Russia to invade across Europe. I wonder what that might lead to.

Haven't we been down that road in the past...

And I guess Serbian persecution of Kosovo Albanians isn't enough for NATO to get involved? C'mon, man, this isn't some third world African country; ethnic conflicts within Europe itself would have serious repurcussions for the Western world, and NATO countries simply cannot afford that.

Also, you do realize that, unless Russia starts chucking nukes like a angry child, they stand no chance against the NATO/ANZUS/Japan and South Korea forces.

Whatever happened to self-determination? It was a founding principle of the League of Nations in 1919, adn at the time everyone seemed to be on board.

But now Russia and China oppose an independent Kosovo if it requires western assistance to achieve it. Ever wonder why?

Because there are sections of both Russia and China which are neither Russian nor Chinese, and they fear that the western intervention in Serbia for the benefit of an independent Kosovo will establish a precedent which will soon result in an independent Chechnya and Tibet (among others).

Outside of the new world, there aren't any ethnic groups that cover as broad an area as Russia and China do, so there are necessarily parts of Russia and China that would nirmally be distinct countries. Neither Russia nor China wants that, so, entirely self-interestedly, they oppose the creation of an independent Kosovo.

I'm not denying that the Clinton administration (and family) are pro war, I'm saying IF she takes the office she will not have the support or resources to declare war. I'm refering to her future actions, not desires.

And your interpretation of what I said about the U.N. dissolving because of Russia declaring war on the U.S. and Europe, yes that's exactly what I'm saying.

Edit: The League Of Nations dissolved (among other things) because it was unable to prevent a world war and as they say, "Like father like son." The U.N. is after all the child of the League Of Nations.

Whatever happened to self-determination? It was a founding principle of the League of Nations in 1919, adn at the time everyone seemed to be on board.

But now Russia and China oppose an independent Kosovo if it requires western assistance to achieve it. Ever wonder why?

Because there are sections of both Russia and China which are neither Russian nor Chinese, and they fear that the western intervention in Serbia for the benefit of an independent Kosovo will establish a precedent which will soon result in an independent Chechnya and Tibet (among others).

Outside of the new world, there aren't any ethnic groups that cover as broad an area as Russia and China do, so there are necessarily parts of Russia and China that would nirmally be distinct countries. Neither Russia nor China wants that, so, entirely self-interestedly, they oppose the creation of an independent Kosovo.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thats exactly what this is all about.

Wanna bet?

don't you already owe people a lot from when you bet the republicans would hold the senate?

I'm not denying that the Clinton administration (and family) are pro war, I'm saying IF she takes the office she will not have the support or resources to declare war. I'm refering to her future actions, not desires.

And your interpretation of what I said about the U.N. dissolving because of Russia declaring war on the U.S. and Europe, yes that's exactly what I'm saying.


The UN won't literally dissolve, but an armed conflict between the Security Council members would effectively grind the UN to a halt, making it worthless.

Wanna bet?

The NSG guy you don't want to bet with. Ever. Goalposts move, a plenty.

The UN won't literally dissolve, but an armed conflict between the Security Council members would effectively grind the UN to a halt, making it worthless.

Sorry, I didn't elaborate enough. You voiced what I meant better than I did. Sorry for the confusion. There's no reason for the people to resign from their international positions unless the members loose confidence in the organization and stop funding it. Not sure how the U.N.'s funding works though.

Sorry, I didn't elaborate enough. You voiced what I meant better than I did. Sorry for the confusion. There's no reason for the people to resign from their international positions unless the members loose confidence in the organization and stop funding it. Not sure how the U.N.'s funding works though.

The UN essentially bills every member nation depending on how rich they are (which is basically the West providing a good portion of the funding, although India and a few other countries contribute fair amounts). But if a war between the West and Russia ever broke out, the UN would soon be too poor to actually exercise any power it might have left.

I'd bet my first born on it.

Edit: The only thing I'm not 100% sure of is the gender of the new president of the U.S.

I don't know if I should actually take this bet or not.

As a side note, the U.S. will have a democrat pacifist as president next and she (*cough* damn her *cough*) will do everything in her power to uphold the democratic mantra of absolutely no wars on the watch of a democrat. So, unless Serbia and Kosovo want to wait until another Republican takes the oval office, the U.S. will not be participating this time.
Um, you do realize that Bill clinton was our president to engage in the "police operation" in Kosovo right?

Sadly, Russia has a history of crapping up even simple things. Or worse, not getting their act together until fascist invaders are already at the gates of cities named after their glorious leaders.


What you mean? Slash and burn best of policy!!

ON a side note: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rt8sEB0NVcY :D

The Russians could take on NATO. Man for man, they outpower them (well, most of NATO anyway =P). Hell, the Russians have weapons back from WWII ready for use! I don't think they will, mainly because their navy sucks as of now, but still, it'd be close IMO.

The Russians could take on NATO. Man for man, they outpower them (well, most of NATO anyway =P).

How exactly is that? And what do you mean "outpower them"?

Hell, the Russians have weapons back from WWII ready for use!

And there's a reason the West got rid of its old WWII equipment. It's vastly outclassed by what we have today.

Russia would not have any interest... What would they lose from Kosovo gaining independance by their own will?... What would they gain from starting a massive international conflict that they would definitely not be able to follow through with?... Russia is definitely not the second most powerful country in the world by the way, and if it were it still doesn't make sense that the second most powerful country in the world would be able to beat the most powerful country in the world + Europe....

They might think they could gain prestige. After all, they just told the US to shove it by giving nuclear fuel to Iran.

Okay, you responded civilly and with a reasonably intelligent argument, so I'll return the favor (hopefully). I admit, I had forgotten about the trick the Russians pulled back then occupying the airport...that's a valid point. I really don't think the Russians would risk a war this time over Kosovo, though. Kosovo is a minor issue, especially compared to places like Georgia. And there are a lot of other ways the Russians could decide to leverage their power and indicate their displeasure, which would be a lot less risky for them. They've shown an ability to display economic leverage a lot more easily than military leverage in recent years.



Our forces, admittedly, are spread thin way too much for my liking, and are being bled dry by such idiocies as the Iraq war. However, as history has shown, the U.S. military is a very resilient force, and we wouldn't be fighting it alone if the Russians decided to start a war, either. Even if it was possible to "win" such a war, though, the "win" would be the perfect definition of a Pyrrhic one. The question is, does everyone involved who would be pushing the button, so to speak, realize that?

1. Much like Japan after world war II. But Japan seems to rebuilding its military too. Since they've amended their constitution.

2. The world is becoming a much colder place. Problem with being lone superpower is that it corrupts and makes one think they have the right to go around dictating everyone else's internal policies.
At least with two superpowers, you have balance. With only one, you have no balance. There was nothing to stop Bush from launching attack on Iraq with fake evidence. If the Soviet Union was still around, I think that Bush would have thought twice before sending troops in.

If Russia declares war on the U.S. and Europe, we'll have world war 3 and no one is willing to be the one that goes down in history as being the one that starts that one. Besides, the U.N. would need to dissolve first and/or because of Russia attacking the U.S. and Europe. Otherwise there would be civil war in the U.N. and the U.N. wouldn't stand for that. But then again, Russia, Europe, and the U.S. makes up almost all of the U.N. member nations.

Europe and especially the U.S. have indeed carved up their share of nations for their own "self interests" but it's not like Russia is innocent of that either. They've done their share too, they're just as bad at that as the U.S. and Europe.

As a side note, the U.S. will have a democrat pacifist as president next and she (*cough* damn her *cough*) will do everything in her power to uphold the democratic mantra of absolutely no wars on the watch of a democrat. So, unless Serbia and Kosovo want to wait until another Republican takes the oval office, the U.S. will not be participating this time.

Hillary was responsible for the first kosovo war.

Wow. How completely and utterly misinformed. The UN will dissolve in the immediate aftermath of Russia declaring war on the US and Europe? Why, exactly would Ban Ki Moon, the remaining Security Council members or the General Assembly simply drop everything and dissolve the world forum just because Russia started a conflict? Also what do you mean the Russians, US and European nations make up most UN member states? Almost every single recognised state is a UN member. All 192 of them!

Also, no one is denying Russia's former Imperialist ambitions.

And I presume you're talking about Hillary? If so you really need to actually read something concerning her foreign policy record, as well as that of her husband. They're as Pro-Military interventionist as Bush.
Maybe he has not read Hillary's proposed foreign policy:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

Hillary was responsible for the first kosovo war.

HAHAHAHA!!! It was bill you fool who was President when the Kosovo CONFLICT broke out. And no. He was not responsible for it either.

I blame the Palestinians for this problem with Kosovo.

Hillary was responsible for the first kosovo war.
That was quite speshul, to say the least.

The Russians could take on NATO. Man for man, they outpower them (well, most of NATO anyway =P).
Err no.
Hell, the Russians have weapons back from WWII ready for use!
Mosin Nagant M1890/30 > G36?
T-34-85 > Challenger II?
I don't think they will, mainly because their navy sucks as of now, but still, it'd be close IMO.
Almost their entire military is a complete shit-tip, and their generals can't agree on whether they should be a force equipped to fight Real Wars, or for low-intensity conflict. Which leads to problems in requisitioning kit, as I'm sure you can imagine. That is all.

With all this talk of Kosovo "being in Europe" being used to say Russia should stay out of it, it appears to have escaped notice that Russia, itself, is actually a European nation. It's capital is located in Europe.

But several links on the Foriegn Affairs site show how the west is starting new cold war against Russia.

1. When Russia decided on its own, to change from imperialist power to normal great power, it got treated like crap by its fellow European nations. As a result, Russia had no choice but to start its own system.

2. Europe and US tried to dictate to Russia how Russia could use its oil leverage.

3. The west is unreasonably insisting that Russia remain weak so that west european countries can use Russians for cheap labor.

4. Russia is a member of the G 8 which is the world's most industrialized nations. Westerners must realize that Russia is not Mexico.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faessay85407/dmitri-trenin/russia-leaves-the-west.html

1. THe policies of the US and NATO are causing the start of a new cold war.

2. American's wrongfully believe they single handedly won the cold war. Most of the Russian people disagree. Because that's not how it happened. Americans are arrogant to think other wise.

3. Number one mistake America and the West Europeans are making is treating Russia as if it was a defeated enemy from great war.

4. They didn't need Americans or any other westerners preaching that communism was bad. Russians already knew this from experience. That is why they dumped communism. Not because of rhetoric from any western state.

5. America has 16 years to prove itself a friend of the Russian people. America has failed. Instead, America has left the impression that they want a weak Russia that can be trampled anytime America or Western Europe feels like it.

6. Americans think they can force Russia to do what America wants. Then Americans throw temper tantrum when that does not happen.

7. While Europeans and Americans think of Russia as defeated third world nation, they forget that Russia was never conquered or occupied by the west.

8. Russia is not a client state of the west for the west to dictate terms to.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86603/dimitri-k-simes/losing-russia.html



5.

With all this talk of Kosovo "being in Europe" being used to say Russia should stay out of it, it appears to have escaped notice that Russia, itself, is actually a European nation. It's capital is located in Europe.
What the fuck are you on about now?
But several links on the Foriegn Affairs site show how the west is starting new cold war against Russia.
Woohoo for bullshit sources.
1. When Russia decided on its own, to change from imperialist power to normal great power, it got treated like crap by its fellow European nations. As a result, Russia had no choice but to start its own system.
No choice my arse.
2. Europe and US tried to dictate to Russia how Russia could use its oil leverage.
So?
3. The west is unreasonably insisting that Russia remain weak so that west european countries can use Russians for cheap labor.
Not really, Poland's in the EU now, and we also have North Africa.
4. Russia is a member of the G 8 which is the world's most industrialized nations. Westerners must realize that Russia is not Mexico.
Not most industrialised but richest. Hence why Luxembourg isn't a member and China is.
1. THe policies of the US and NATO are causing the start of a new cold war.
No they aren't, Russian dick-swinging is, see their removal of British diplomats.
2. American's wrongfully believe they single handedly won the cold war. Most of the Russian people disagree. Because that's not how it happened. Americans are arrogant to think other wise.
Yes, quite, we of Western Europe helped, too.
3. Number one mistake America and the West Europeans are making is treating Russia as if it was a defeated enemy from great war.
We stopped doing this circa 1992.
4. They didn't need Americans or any other westerners preaching that communism was bad. Russians already knew this from experience. That is why they dumped communism. Not because of rhetoric from any western state.
Yes, well, they spent fucking ages saying that capitalism is bad.
5. America has 16 years to prove itself a friend of the Russian people. America has failed. Instead, America has left the impression that they want a weak Russia that can be trampled anytime America or Western Europe feels like it.
Examples?
6. Americans think they can force Russia to do what America wants. Then Americans throw temper tantrum when that does not happen.
Examples?
7. While Europeans and Americans think of Russia as defeated third world nation, they forget that Russia was never conquered or occupied by the west.
It's still very poor.
8. Russia is not a client state of the west for the west to dictate terms to.
Seeing as it's really not that rich, well armed or well governed compared to its western neighbours, I don't see why we can't treat it at a client state...

Putin's great, the regional leaders in Russia seem to be extremely corrupt.

How well did it work for the Soviets? Russians don't seem to be doing any better with their Islamic problems than we are. Russian society has traded bankrupting themselves on Cold War brinksmanship for bankrupting themselves buying consumer goods that they can't create themselves. (Now Boris is buying bottles at the club instead of drinking radiator fluid and shoe polish.) Their military hardware is still crap and their military is the same moribund pack of losers they always were. And as for the Serbs, that gang of murdering rapists is lucky the Hutus' behavior was so vile other wise they would still be the cuelest tribe on the Earth.

With all this talk of Kosovo "being in Europe" being used to say Russia should stay out of it, it appears to have escaped notice that Russia, itself, is actually a European nation. It's capital is located in Europe.

Gasp

But several links on the Foriegn Affairs site show how the west is starting new cold war against Russia.

I wondered how long it would take before that site came up

1. When Russia decided on its own, to change from imperialist power to normal great power, it got treated like crap by its fellow European nations. As a result, Russia had no choice but to start its own system.

Wait wait wait.....excuse me? It got treated like crap because yes, it did collapse under pressure, and withdrew from the war. Therefore, it did not get rewarded in the treaty. Also, there was that whole "worldwide socialist revolution" that kinda turned off most of the west. And to my knowledge, it never stopped being an imperialist power. Just under a diffrent name, "spreading the revolution"

2. Europe and US tried to dictate to Russia how Russia could use its oil leverage.

Because thats how we do things. If we nationalized our agricultural industry and made you pay signifigantly higher prices as a result, you'd be pretty angry too

3. The west is unreasonably insisting that Russia remain weak so that west european countries can use Russians for cheap labor.
We have Mexico, China, and in Europes case, Africa. Why would we need Russia?

4. Russia is a member of the G 8 which is the world's most industrialized nations. Westerners must realize that Russia is not Mexico.

You're right. It has a smaller economy than Mexico does.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faessay85407/dmitri-trenin/russia-leaves-the-west.html

Oye Vey

1. THe policies of the US and NATO are causing the start of a new cold war.

Because they infiltrated Russia and poisioned a promenent Parliment critic with a rare kind of radioactive element....oh wait......

2. American's wrongfully believe they single handedly won the cold war. Most of the Russian people disagree. Because that's not how it happened. Americans are arrogant to think other wise.

We belive we didn't casue your fall, just hastened it.

3. Number one mistake America and the West Europeans are making is treating Russia as if it was a defeated enemy from great war.

Eh, that stopped in the 90s I belive

4. They didn't need Americans or any other westerners preaching that communism was bad. Russians already knew this from experience. That is why they dumped communism. Not because of rhetoric from any western state.
They knew that communism was bad? Then why did it take the dissolution of the Soviet Union and a coup before they finally revolted?
5. America has 16 years to prove itself a friend of the Russian people. America has failed. Instead, America has left the impression that they want a weak Russia that can be trampled anytime America or Western Europe feels like it.

By.....what? Not throwing money at you? This is buisness, and incidentally Western Stock Brokers are loving to make money off another growing market.

6. Americans think they can force Russia to do what America wants. Then Americans throw temper tantrum when that does not happen.

7. While Europeans and Americans think of Russia as defeated third world nation, they forget that Russia was never conquered or occupied by the west.

I'm pretty sure the Germans in World War Two would disagree, seeing as how they occupied a ton of Russia. Besides, Ethiopia was never conquered or occupied by the west, and I'm pretty sure they're a third World Country

8. Russia is not a client state of the west for the west to dictate terms to.

And neither is Kosovo a client state of Russia