Here are some prewiews from different news papers. Herald Tribune,China Daily and Washington Post .Joint exercise have already begun today.Your thoughts about this?I personally doesnt like that the Russo Chinese relationships are warming up.
Printable View
Here are some prewiews from different news papers. Herald Tribune,China Daily and Washington Post .Joint exercise have already begun today.Your thoughts about this?I personally doesnt like that the Russo Chinese relationships are warming up.
This is Russian & China's way of telling the US: 'Okay, we let you enter into Southern Asia (Afghanistan) in order to take care of business. Time for you to go'.
It seems so stupid.I think its Chinas intrest that middle Asia is at chaos.But i really dont understand Russians.I think they should not have military exercises with China.What they really should do is to co-operate with you Yankees because Russia is having a hell of a lot problems with many of the previous Soviet States and the rising of exteremist there.Btw Don nice to see you are back. ~:cheers:
I read an article in le Monde Diplomatique the other day about China's ascendency to the status of superpower.
Find it in English here.
'China wants to bypass the Japanese-United States alliance in Asia and at the United Nations, and, through asymmetrical diplomacy, become a different kind of world power.
Etc. etc.'
If you go back to the main page there's an article about Sino-Indian relations as well.
Good reads for those interested in this subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
You find anything on how this desire relates to the China-North Korea relationship?
I have seen reports coming out of South Korea - that shows North Korea is attempting to normalize or at least give the appearance of it - their relationship with at least South Korea.
Russia is surrounded by semi-hostile neighbors anymore. That is the legacy of its USSR past.
Can't say I'm surprised by the exercises. Note that Russia wants to keep a good deal of separation from the issue of Taiwan, and it would like some arms sales.
Very good article Louis. :bow: China,Russia and India,all warming up their relations.It seems that China is really looking for Strategig allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Russia has some very good equipment to sell to China.For example:T-90 and T-80 main battle tanks,BMP-3 AFV´s,SU-27 and MIG-31 fighter jet´s.And lots of new better equipment from their large Arms industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
My general impression is that China regards North Korea a thorn in their side. For one thing, it prevents normalization of relations with South Korea - China's natural ally against Japan. Both share an absolute hatred for Japan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
But South Korea can never give up it's ties with the U.S. while the current regime in Pyongyang stays in power. Which means staying in the Japanese-American camp, whether they like it or not.
Here are the relevant parts from the link I provided:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Diplo
Interesting article, Louis. I'm not certain I agree with everything in the article, but it does have my mind whirring. The funny thing is, China actually doesn't really have much of an axe to grind with the US. Even the party officials. The only big grudge they have against us is Taiwan, and while they don't like it, I don't think (as it stands currently) will cause any long term hostility. If it escalates to armed conflict, all bets are off. Funny, most educated Chinese I met in Shanghai, they all know the US is the only Western country that didn't set up shop in the Bund, and it appears to grant us a little goodwill.
Interesting concept. But I think they have seen North Korea as an ally and thorn in the side to the West. A united Korea would likely not want to be dominated by either Japan or the Chinese. It would most likely not be a dictatorship and therefore have less cozy relations with China than with other elected govts. By being North Korea's only major supporter China has neutralized South Korea somewhat, and also kept the U.S. tied down. (In essence they have three large militaries pointed at each other, and therefore not able to point at China.) But the nuclear development threatens instability that the Chinese probably don't want. It is in China's interest to maintain the status quo, because anything else will likely impact them negatively. North Korea getting nukes certainly upsets that, but I think they are not sure what would benefit China most at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Yes the history between the three more then indicates that this will remain true for a long time - my guess is at least 1 more generation ie (20 Years0Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
That is what has my mind aspinning with the overtures that North Korea is doing right now. If a reconlication (SP) between North and South Korea happens then the age old alliance between Korea and China will be possible once again.Quote:
But South Korea can never give up it's ties with the U.S. while the current regime in Pyongyang stays in power. Which means staying in the Japanese-American camp, whether they like it or not.
And that has significant impact on the global economy being that South Korea is if I remeber correctly in the top 20 economies of the world right now.
THere are a few sites that I don't go to at work - so I will read the linked article when I get home.Quote:
Here are the relevant parts from the link I provided:
Like, you mean you will get fired for visiting sites with 'adult', 'hate' or 'French' content? :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
That and a few other sites - I only know of three sites that I can safely go to read material that doesn't violate the company rules and the little watchdog program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Sometimes its a pain in the rear end being a work - but I must earn money to pay for my computer habit. ~D
What would happen to North Korea as a threat if Kim Yong died tomorrow? How would it affect the China situation?
:jumping:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Fantastic! From now on during work hours I won't answer to your posts directly, only by throwing one link after the other at you.
Click on 'm and get fired. :deal2:
Don't click and get kicked around by that snooty Frenchmen. ~:smoking:
I believe you may be misreading the South and North Korean overtures. Are you familiar with S. Korea's Sunshine Policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?oneclick=true
They basically had Hyundai give the North $400 million. It looks like a bribe from the South to keep the status quo, after realizing the costs to the South of reunification.
I wish I could find the original article I'm thinking of, still searching...
Ah, here we go.
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000420.htmlQuote:
Now it turns out that the statements of comity -- and by extension Kim's Nobel -- came with a hidden $400 million price tag. Kim Dae Jung has all but admitted that he paid the bribe to Kim Jong il in order to ensure the historic June 2000 Pyongyang summit took place. Idle question: if $400 million is the going price for a summit, what will the DPRK asking price for denuclearization be?
The South Korean reaction to this also merits further comment. This country seems badly split between conservatives who share the U.S. view of North Korea's intention, and sunshine advocates (one of whom was just elected to the presidency) who seem in complete denial about the situation in North Korea. This faction is deathly afraid of a DPRK collapse, because of the overwhelming costs that will come with reunification. I suspect this fear is what lies behind their willingness to repeatedly bribe the North Koreans into acquiescence. However, unless and until the liberal wing of the South Korean political spectrum comes to grips with the moral and material price of appeasing the North Korean regime, there is little that the U.S. will be able to do to defuse the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Yes kick me around a little it adds character to my otherwise dull life at work watching my team perform their tasks.
Bysides that - there is the other 15 hours that I am not at work to provided a little :duel: with links.
Yes I have just a little knowledge about the sunshine Policy - it used to happen around the same time frame as two joint exercises between US and South Korea. However this time the news reports of activities seem to be more then just status quo regarding the relationship between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
In the past North Korea never ackownledge the South Korea Heros of the Japanese Occupation nor the Korean War.
I think that makes the Drezner bit from a year ago even more disturbing. Sounds like the young generation of S. Koreans are more than willing to buddy up to their Northern brothers and give us the finger while at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Tiny little New Zealand has very good relations with China... anyone know why?
Clue: Gung Ho...
China probably sees the economic hamper that is North Korea. I think their tie with North Korea was just conveniant, although impersonal after Mao's death. China probably realizes that the Economic Situation in the Korean Peninsula could be more prosperous if an economic power house like South Korea joined with the north. I don't think China's interest is spreading the word of Communism anymore, I think it's about making money, and keeping it's current investments checked and balanced. If North Korea developed a Nuclear Weapon, China's economy would probably suffer from it.
As far as Russia goes, I think it's probably to warm up economic ties, probably for not only Russia designed weapons, but also Oil and Timber in Yakutsk and Siberia. If Separatist Movements started in Siberia, China could probably forget about having access to Siberia's vast timber and oil supplies. It's probably a joint Russian-Chinese pact to keep Siberia in line, just in case.
The Americans haven't turned out to be great allies for the Russians. The Americans have taken advantage of Russian weakness for some time now, and IMO this was very shortsighted. The US led NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia for example, without any real Russian participation in the decision making process. NATO exercises in Georgia, while Chechen and Georgian militants attack targets in Abkhazia and Russia. This while Russia supported the US against the Taliban and deployed troops to Tajikistan to guard against Taliban incursions. The independent Georgian newspaper Alia reports that Georgian security forces were even involved in recruiting some of the Chechen militants.
Russians increasingly believe that the West, especially the United States, has been taking advantage of Russian weakness since the Soviet Union collapsed. Russian interests have not been given much consideration and this has not gone unnoticed. An American businessman in 1992, reported the following statement from an unnamed Russian official: ''Right now, Russia may be on her knees'', the man said. ''But when she gets up, she'll remember how she was treated.'' The US has attempted in several ways to roll back Russian influence in many places, but lacks the means to replace such influence in any meaningful way. Russia is not going to abandon its strategic interests but it may find that China has more respect for them.
Democracy is sometimes used as an excuse for not proceeding with this potential alliance. This has not stopped American alliances with other nations and IMO is more of an excuse than a reason.
Ekho Moskvy radio station;
Out of 6,000 respondents, as reported by the radio station’s polling center, 46 percent said they considered the United States to be Russia’s adversary, while 54 percent said the United States was Russia’s ally.
The Russians are of course expected to forget about the Beslan school massacre while the US cries "never forget" about 911. Having Shamil Basayev the architect of the Beslan massacre come from CIA training camps doesn't help. Chechen militants taken prisoner by the Russians have turned out to be veterans of NATO backed terrorist groups operating in the balkans.
The neocon involvement in “American Committee for Peace in Chechnya,” a pro-Islamic group is a case in point, regarding American hostility. Men such as Richard Pearle, Bill Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Midge Decter, Frank Gaffney, Bruce Jackson, Michael Ledeen, and R. James Woolsey are part of this organization. The Russians are expected to understand the underlying causes of the Chechen conflict but the US is not expect to understand that of Al Qaeda's.
Zacarias Moussaoui, charged with being the 20th hijacker, was reported by the Wall Street Journal to have been "a recruiter for al-Qaeda-backed rebels in Chechnya", before he took up flight training in America.
Kassem Daher, linked by CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) to al-Qaeda, is a Lebanese native who came to Canada in the 1980s as a business immigrant. Daher, who once ran movie theatres in Leduc and Ponoka, left Canada in 1998. An alleged network came to light on Monday following the arrest of Kifah Wael Jayyousi, a former assistant superintendent in Detroit's school system. In one February 1995 conversation, Jayyousi, Daher and Zaky allegedly discussed how the network was moving jihadist soldiers between Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, and Eritrea. Daher said "we are in charge of it in Canada," according to the affidavit, and added that "we have brothers in Lebanon who are ready to go to Chechnya but there's no money."...
The links to Al Qaeda are pretty clear yet the ACPC backs the anti-Russian Chechens militia groups and not the Chechen militia groups friendly to Russia!
Neil Mackay, writes in the Sunday Herald:
"Why would a group of leading American neo-conservatives, dedicated to fighting Islamic terror, have climbed into bed with Chechen rebels linked to al-Qaeda? The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC), which includes Pentagon supremo Richard Perle, says the conflict between Russia and Chechnya is about Chechen nationalism, not terrorism.
The ACPC savaged Russia for the atrocities its forces have committed in the Caucuses, said President Vladimir Putin was “ridiculous”, claimed Russia was more “morally” to blame for the bloodshed than Chechen separatists and played down links between al-Qaeda and the “Chechen resistance”.
The ACPC’s support for the Chechen cause seems bizarre, as many of its members are among the most outspoken US policymakers who have made it clear that Islamist terror must be wiped out. But the organization has tried to broker peace talks between Russia and Chechen separatists."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20050217.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...299318,00.html
http://www.peaceinchechnya.org/about_members.htm
In light of the preceding some of the comments made in the articles become clearer. Not comforting but clearer.
A Russian military source said the exercise should help both sides co-ordinate in the fight against terrorism.
The two countries have invited observers from the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which together with Russia and China form the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
That group recently called on the United States to set a timetable to withdraw its forces from bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which are used to support military operations in Afghanistan. The Uzbek authorities later gave U.S. forces 180 days to pull out, after the United States criticized the Uzbek government for suppressing demonstrators in the city of Andijan in May, leaving hundreds dead, according to human rights groups.
"I believe the implied message of Peace Mission 2005 is very obvious: We are facing the same threat."
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=4703
The addition of India, Iran, Pakistan and Mongolia as “observers” to the SCO, coupled with the abrupt rejection of U.S. requests for observer status, raise important questions concerning the organization’s long-term strategic goals and vision.
At a June meeting in Moscow, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a bilateral statement entitled, “World Order in the 21st Century,” that warned against attempts by “outside forces” to dominate global affairs and opposition to attempts to “impose models of social and political development from outside.”
Realizing the importance of a strong Middle East ally in the SCO, Moscow, with the blessing of Beijing, has made Iran a high organizational priority. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Iranian Ambassador to Russia Gholam-Reza Ansari met in July to discuss the importance of Iran’s membership in the SCO. The Iranian ambassador indicated that he hoped the SCO would manage to play an active role in “settling” regional issues.
Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev recently boasted,
“The organization [SCO] now represents half of all humankind.”
Looks like someone needs a bombing raid or two...
Kaiser, as somebody who likes you and thinks there's something worth saying inside that head of yours.... please stop. Your comments in this vein do not help. For one thing, were we to bomb China, or Russia for that matter, announcing our intention would be the last thing we would do. You're clearly not helping us advance policy, would that be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
But more importantly, IT ISN'T!!! I know you have a strong sense of right and wrong and sometimes it gets misappropriated into over the top statements such as these. I know you have a strong learning of history, and a keen intelligence to learn the lessons to be gleaned there. So let me ask you, when have the policies you jokingly advocate ever worked, anywhere, for more than 1 generation? And if they are just a joke, please, work harder to imply the tongue in cheek.
I like you a lot man, and you're got a good head on your shoulders, but please, enough of the 'they disagreed with us, let's bomb them. They didn't agree quick enough... bomb 'em anyway'. Even if you're right, you're reading our playbook out loud.
The above was a joke (if it wasn't I most likely would have gone into a 2 and a half hour long rant on why China and Russia sucks), I was merely implying that they are out of line by thinking they can intimidate us so easily, and if they feel they can threaten us, then they have another thing coming, that's all.
Sharrukin,
GAH! Russia suffers more from wounded pride then anything else. Russia made its own mess in Chechnya. If anything the U.S. gave the Russians far too much leeway when they were aggressive with Chechnya in the early 90's. That war came from failing to come to an agreement with the Chechens as they had with Tatarstan. Beslan, etc. sprung from that horrendous Russian mistake, not from anything the U.S. did. I can't blame Russia for going in the 2nd time, and agree it had to be done. However, I haven't forgotten which nation started the mess, AND the one in Afghanistan.
Russia contributed greatly to Serbian aggession by supporting them despite their ethnic cleansing. Slavic racism was also manipulated by Russia in supporting Serbia and originally taking a hard line with Chechnya. The Russians have tried to openly thwart democracy in their neighbors and the chicken's are coming to roost. After watching the Russians abandon their post in Bosnia to invade Kosova, it became pretty clear that they had no business being involved at all in the peace process there.
Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
But to be honest, the less the US (and our buisnesses) have to do with Stalin Mk. II (Putin), the happier I am going to be. The country is screwed up enough right now as it is, and because of the astonishing levels of corruption, it is foolish to invest anything in that nation. I think it is sad. Russia has so much going for it... but the country continues to strangle itself.
Azi
Is that all!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
And what did Nazi Germany suffer from following the Versaille treaty?
Humiliation is the fastest way possible to create an enemy.
It isn't up to the Americans to grant "leeway" to Russia, Europe, or China. This kind of arrogance has alienated much of the world and may very well succeed in creating a powerful bloc of nation to oppose them. As someone from the west I do not think this is in anyone's best interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
The fact that Russia did come to an agreement with the Tatars would suggest that they were not the one's who didn't want such an agreement. Al Qaeda doesn't seem inclined to make deals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Beslan was Russia's fault! Then that makes the Two Towers America's fault doesn't it? Or is that not how it works?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Our terrorists are good freedom fighters and the one's we don't like are just plain terrorists! Sorry but putting a gun to a childs head and pulling the trigger doesn't get a pass from me, and I don't care how sad the story might be!
The US went to Vietnam, but that doesn't excuse Vietcong atrocities... or American one's.
Americans playing footsies with an Al Qaeda linked terror group would suggest that their war on terror is nothing but a sham. I certainly hope this isn't the case but the US and her allies seems to show up time and time again as Al Qaeda's biggest supporter. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya.
And the United States and Europe contributed greatly to Bosnian and Kosovar aggression by supporting them despite their ethnic cleansing. Despite their links to Al Qaeda, despite drug smuggling and organized crime. Oh, wait...thats right...only the Serbs engaged in ethnic cleansing, not the nice Croats or Bosnians. What was Operation Storm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Russia invaded Kosovo? Wow! I did miss a lot!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Well you may get your wish. They don't seem all that interested in the peace process anymore!
That's odd. I don't recall the U.S. humiliating Russia. We didn't force Russia into submission. We didn't force her to sign a treaty under duress. We didn't assign reparations. (Actually we didn't do that Germany after WWI either...and that was not "Nazi Germany" by the way ~:confused: ) We actually invested in Russia once peace came and we have joint projects with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
I think we should have threatened heavy sanctions and outright military support during the first Russian invasion. Sure they could do what they want, so could we, and Russia appeared to be clearly in the wrong. The Chechens did have a right to some autonomy, just as others had. The Chechens had been deported to Siberia and elsewhere by Stalin. They had been allowed to come home by Kruschev.Quote:
It isn't up to the Americans to grant "leeway" to Russia, Europe, or China. This kind of arrogance has alienated much of the world and may very well succeed in creating a powerful bloc of nation to oppose them. As someone from the west I do not think this is in anyone's best interest.
Oh, that's convenient...and intellecually bogus. You will definitely find links, but AQ grew out of the Afghan war...which the Russians instigated. You remember them...the Russians? Of course, the AQ links are the result of Chechnya being a movement like Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosova that were cut off from direct Western support. They had to get support from mid-East sources and you could count on Muslim's being the primary contributors. Dress up your pig however you like, it's still a pig, and it's not flying.Quote:
The fact that Russia did come to an agreement with the Tatars would suggest that they were not the one's who didn't want such an agreement. Al Qaeda doesn't seem inclined to make deals.
From what I've read, the Russians never seriously negotiated with Chechnya before the first war. Big blunder.
Blatant attempt at provokation aside, your logic is warped. First, I did not claim Beslan was in anyway a condonable act. However, there is a direct causal link between it and the way the Russians invaded Chechnya. There is none with 9/11 and instead it was a spate between Osama and the Saudi's that led him to target the U.S.Quote:
Beslan was Russia's fault! Then that makes the Two Towers America's fault doesn't it? Or is that not how it works?
I'm not trying to justify the murder of civilians. Russia clearly had Chechen blood on its hands, but I haven't condoned the terrorism of the Chechens following the 1st War. In fact, I felt the 2nd invasion was inevitable due to terrorist raids from Chechnya. The Chechens had won a measure of autonomy and they screwed it up royally. So you can continue trying to put words in my mouth or trying to skew history, but you seem to be drifting farther from the truth.
Haven't seen much evidence of ethnic cleansing by Bosnians or Kosovars although I'm sure there are a number of cases. The US waited far too long to halt the Serbs in destabilizing the area. Croats did some ethnic cleansing...partially in response to what the Serbs did before them in the Krajina. Most of the Serbs actually fled, just as the Croats had done. The Serbs started a war in Croatia before it even declared independence.Quote:
And the United States and Europe contributed greatly to Bosnian and Kosovar aggression by supporting them despite their ethnic cleansing. Despite their links to Al Qaeda, despite drug smuggling and organized crime. Oh, wait...thats right...only the Serbs engaged in ethnic cleansing, not the nice Croats or Bosnians. What was Operation Storm?
Try looking at cause and effect a little instead of spouting BS revisionist stuff.
You sure did. I remember it, June 19, 1999. Russian troops leave their post in Bosnia to sieze the Pristina airfield.Quote:
Russia invaded Kosovo? Wow! I did miss a lot!
The American advisors. A corrupt or incompetent bunch of fools whose only claim to fame is that they succeeded in destroying the Russian economy! Called "One of the greatest peacetime economic and social disasters in history" this with their Russian friends was the wholesale looting of Russian resources. And the ungrateful Russians didn't thank you for that? Amazing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
None of this BTW, happened without the knowledge and complicity of Western governments, banks and financial houses. Is it any surprise that with such a track record the Russians think the Chinese have more to offer? The Chinese understand management of change better than Russia's idiot American and western advisors.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-crusade.html
http://www.cepr.net/testimony/weisbr...is_1998_09.htm
"In retrospect, it's hard to see what could have been done wrong that wasn't."
"Democracy, too, has been compromised. The unpopularity of these destructive economic policies has fostered increasingly authoritarian practices on the part of Russian President Boris Yeltsin. The Clinton Administration, wedded to these policies, has supported a number of anti-democratic measures, including President Yeltsin's dissolution of the democratically elected Parliament in 1993. "
So when they say;Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
"I believe the implied message of Peace Mission 2005 is very obvious: We are facing the same threat."
They haven't misunderstood anything!
American hostile intent is clear and they have taken logical steps to counter it.
Quote: sharrukin
The fact that Russia did come to an agreement with the Tatars would suggest that they were not the one's who didn't want such an agreement. Al Qaeda doesn't seem inclined to make deals.
So none of this would have been true in 1970!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
”It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between 'the Islamic Religion' and non-Islamic social and political institutions."
Alija Izetbegovic - “Islamic Declaration”, 1970
In case you don't know who he is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alija_Izetbegovic
Since Al Qaeda ia an American creation DUE to western support your logic doesn't hold water. Croatia, Bosnia, and the Kosovars were NOT cut off from western aid. Their primary contributors were western. The entire Croatian military was built by the west.
And the exact same thing can be, and has been said about American involvement in the middle east. The United States is being attacked because of their presence and policies in the middle east. So there is a "direct causal link" there as well. That doesn't justify it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
The old "Blame the Victim" line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
"its the Israeli's who are to blame".
"America brought it upon themselves."
I have heard it all before, and its garbage.
"The man thought to be behind last week's bombs in Riyadh is a young Saudi Arabian called Khaled Jehani. Jehani left his native land at 18 and fought in Bosnia and Chechnya. By the late Nineties he was based in one of the many training camps in Afghanistan, probably one controlled by bin Laden. In the spring of 2001 he recorded a martyrdom video, later found in the rubble of an al-Qaeda house in Kabul. Jehani fought US-led forces at Tora Bora six months later, escaped across the border at the end of the fighting and went to ground for at least a year in the seething, anarchic cities of Pakistan. From Pakistan he made his way, probably via Yemen, into Saudi Arabia several months ago."
"According to Italian media explosive and detonators for Madrid attack came from Bosnia. According to Croatian sources terrorist were trained in Bosnia where they get logistical support. According to Spanish sources Al- Qaeda chiefs in Spain maintained close and friendly relations to muslim Bosnia, which was used as launching pad for this and many other terrorist attacks. Zenica, for example, was and steel is important field of training for muyahidin.
38 people have been implicated in Madrid terrorist attack so far and 24 of them are directly charged. Of that number 1/3 fought in Bosnia where they acquired knowledge needed for 3/11. They probably got Bosniaks passports, like recently killed head of Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia."
You decided to train and arm Osama Bin Laden in response to the Afghan invasion and now are assisting many of the same boys with Chechnya. Does there ever come a time when shooting yourself in the foot seems like a bad idea?
Quote:
Russia invaded Kosovo? Wow! I did miss a lot!
How many dead in this invasion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
How many wounded?
How many bullets were fired?
An invasion without bullets, bloodshed, or casualties!
Is there any accusation you won't use to smear those you don't like?
Talk about bullshit revisionism!
Not to get in the middle of your heated debated with Red Harvest but what role did the Russian Organized Crime play in this problem also? What role did the corruption of the Russian Government have to play in this problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
I wonder why my bother spent not one but two tours as a peacekeeper in that area - if the West was building up the Croatian Military?Quote:
The entire Croatian military was built by the west.
Yes indeed it seems to me that both of you are playing at revisionism to me.Quote:
Talk about bullshit revisionism!
Yes, that sums up everything in your post on this subject quite nicely. ~;) That is the most hilarious pile of tripe I've seen in awhile. Thanks for the entertainment. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
...wtf...? We ruined Russia's economy...? What was there to ruin after the Soviet collapse? This is like accusing the US of vandalizing a condemned building.
The United States along with other western governments helped to do considerable damage to the Russian economy. They had lots of help from corrupt officials and crime bosses inside Russia itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
This is one of the reasons that Communism has retained an appeal for the Russian people. Things were better under Communism, and are only now improving under Putin.
In 1998 Russian GDP was half of what it was in 1989, life expectancy in Russia was falling, the only industrial country with such a trend. Some 70 percent of Russians lived below or just above the poverty line, and capital investment in Russia was only 10% of what it was ten years previously. Would you call this a success?
The west and the United States has its share of the blame, just as many Russians do.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-crusade.html
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/...ssia/Cohen.pdf
http://www.cepr.net/testimony/weisbr...is_1998_09.htm
Russia contributed greatly to Serbian aggession by supporting them despite their ethnic cleansing. Slavic racism was also manipulated by Russia in supporting Serbia:
Well and the US supported the Ethnic Cleansing of the Serbs by the Croats during operation Storm (200 000 refugees), and the Ethnic Cleansing of all the non-Albanian (or no pro UCK Albanian) in Kosovo (Kosova is Albanian and officially Kosovo I Metohija is STILL Serb).
The ethnic cleansing (so-called, because all protagonists are from the same ethnicity –expect for Kosovo) was used by both parts involved in the conflict.
Haven't seen much evidence of ethnic cleansing by Bosnians or Kosovars although I'm sure there are a number of cases. The US waited far too long to halt the Serbs in destabilizing the area. Croats did some ethnic cleansing...partially in response to what the Serbs did before them in the Krajina. Most of the Serbs actually fled, just as the Croats had done. The Serbs started a war in Croatia before it even declared independence:
I can give you evidence: UNWFP figures for refugees in Krajina I and II, Northern Bosnia (Serbian refugees from Sarajevo, Tuzla, etc, I remember the places, not the spelling) in October 1992, six months after the start of the war in Bosnia: 160,516 (22.043 children): 30.10 % from Croatia, 4.40 from Slovenia, 67.50% from Bosnia. You know how I know, I was there. And if you give me the usual “they left voluntarily”, if won’t bother to answer.
The problem is apparently you just reproduce what you read, so it will be difficult for me to change you perception.
No, the Serbs didn’t start the war. The Slovenes did, in shooting down a JNA helicopter
In Croatian, the President Tudjman declare “thank God, my wife is neither Serb nor Jew” and demand an oath of loyalty only for the Serbs, fired all the Serbs from Croatia from their office, denying them of a cultural autonomy, took the old Ustasa flag, currency (kuna), made all the WW2 Croatian War Criminal heroes of Croatia. The Serbs, who remember the genocide and the death camps like Jasenovac where 750000 of their parents were slaughtered, were a little bit worried. In a big rally, some Croats even were the black uniform of the Ustasa without any official comment.
Redleg, sorry but yes, not only the US rearmed (helped by Germany wich provided the equipment from former East Germany)), trained and even helped Croatia in planning the attack and provided experts. If not, how the Croats were able to use their helicopters and planes without any NATO planes enforcing the Deny Fly policy, which, by the way was applied against the Serbs?
Were you UNPROFOR, IFOR or SFOR?
The 4th of August 1995, NATO bombed the Serbian Centres of Communications. The Storm Operation (Oluje) started, by chance, the 4th of August 1995, finish the 8th. 200,000 Serbs fled. US ambassador declared US agrees to the operation if short and clean. That ignored the first operation in Okucani (1st of May 1995) when 15,000 Serbs were expelled.
And Warren Christopher to declare:” It simplified things”.
Bosnia: The unelected President Izetbegovic, author of the Islamic Declaration, made clear his intention when he declared the impossibility of a link between Islam and others non-Islamic systems. According to him, it was no possibility of peace or coexistence between Islamic Religion and non-Islamic Social or political Institutions. The Croats and the Serbs didn’t like the idea. I worked in Gorazde and one of my translators (Bosniac) told me that in this town, Muslims coming from Sandzak started to loot, rape and kill Serbs, then left, leaving the population to face the consequences…
The problem was NATO bombed the Serbs who wanted independence or autonomy in Croatia (12% of Croatia's population, 90% in local area) and Bosnia (47 % of Bosnia's population), and bombed the Serbs because they refused to give independence or autonomy to the Albanians in Kosovo (10% of the Serbia's population and 90% locally). So, basically, NATO bombed the Serbs for what ever reasons.. ~:confused:
So, I will advise you to apply your own advice: Try looking at cause and effect a little instead of spouting BS revisionist stuff.
Brenus, Sharrukin, etc.
Your stating how mistreated the Serbs were after they started these wars is not particularly convincing. The Serbian mess was created by Serb nationalism. It is a textbook example of the worst face of ethnic nationalism and it kicked into high gear in 1990. It shows you have zero concept of root cause or cause and effect.
There were many Serbians fleeing in Bosnia to Krajina, which had been hijacked by Serbs trying to separate it from Croatia. Serbs fractured the country as a result of their efforts to suppress Kosovo Albanians, etc. There was an active military campaign going on in Bosnia as the result of Serbian's not agreeing with Bosnian/Croats in Bosnia Herzegovina about independence approved with 99% in favor and 66% voting (Serbs boycotted.)
The aggressor was obvious: The Serb nationalists seeking to make a Greater Serbia at the expense of the other groups. They attempted to kill or drive out those who opposed efforts at the land grabs. They were successful while they had superior weaponry. Pointing out retaliation for their acts only shows you can't tell the difference between cause and effect. Once such an ethnic fight is kicked off, it is bound to get ugly with crimes on both sides.
The Serbs were stopped by U.S./NATO intervention and backing the militaries opposed to the Serbs. It was the right thing to do. It doesn't matter what race, ethnicity, or religion is behind it, what the Serbs did was wrong and we were right to stop it. It will however take quite some time to repair the damage that the Serb's aggression caused. Letting the Serbs overrun and subjugate their neighbors would have been as foolish as it was to let the Germans or Russians to do so.
While I have sympathy for Serb civilians who suffered on a personal level, at a national level, justice was served by stopping their efforts to subjugate their neighbors. It is unfortunate that ethnic partitioning was the result, but that is often the result of such nationalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Yeah, I have read Newsweek and TIME as well!
The world is a little more complicated than that.
Yes, it is, that's why I've read far more than that. I particularly enjoyed some of the Russian coverage (through translations), what was passing for journalism there at the time was very amusing. Sort of National Enquirer style...Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
I trained soldiers who were sent on both the IFOR and SFOR. My brother was involved if I remember correctly UNPROFOR - if that was the first one in and then IFOR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I am sorry to say it was a little bit more complicated.
I will try to make it short. The first Nationalists were not the Serbs. The first to import weapons were the Croats, even before Milosevic took power and turned to nationalism. Before he was a perfect communist, and denounced the Manifesto of the Serbian Academy (denouncing the Ethnic Cleansing of the Serbs by the Albanians in Kosovo) as nationalist and against the spirit of Tito and the Comradeship…
In Croatia, the first real clashes started when the Croatian HVO surrounded the JNA military bases. After negotiation that was resolved.
In Vukovar, the first rockets were launched by the Croats (Boro Paravac, the same who wore Ustasa uniform) against Borovo Selo in May.
The Croatian Police Officer *(don’t remember his name, the guy was a real heroes) who tried to keep the talks with the Serbs was killed by his own second in command.
The JNA intervened in November. Do you know what happened in between? Open hunt of the Serbs… Serbs who went in the hospital finished in the Danube. The Croatian Doctor nicked named the Angel of Vukovar by the media is the Mengele of Vukovar for the Serbs. I saw the video… Kids in kid garden, slaughtered by hammers, clubs etc… I spoke with people, I met them…
The nationalism didn’t start in 1990, but in the 1970, with the Croatian Spring (Tudjman) (repressed by Tito) and the publication of the Islamic declaration of Izetbegovic… The Serbs were late on this one.
Still, you don’t answer a simple question: Why the Albanians from Kosovo have the right of Independence and not the Serbs of Croatia, of Bosnia, the Croats of Bosnia? Aren’t they nationalists?
And why the JNA didn’t push to Zagreb, after the fall of Vukovar and Osijek? Why the Serbs didn’t push to Zagreb from Knin when they could?
I can write a book about that but not now. I won’t convince you, you believe the media. I was there, never met one journalist on the field (in hotels, yes), but you will believe them… I can’t compete against years of manipulation and lies.
Redleg, UNPROFOR was the interposition forces, with an impossible mission. IFOR was the first with the possibility to shoot against all. The SFOR was just an improvement.
Brenus,
Your contempt for all the other groups is rather obvious. You can go on with your "poor mistreated Serb" line as long as you like. You get real convenient with your recollection and omissions, and it simply isn't worth my time to fill in the gaps. I've seen the carefully contrived Serb arguments before. It is very much like reading the extreme nationalists on the other end.
No, the Bosnian break up made no sense, nor did the Krajina. There were no natural division points--hence the patchwork quilt. The problem was that Serbian Nationalists wanted to run Yugoslavia as "Greater Serbia." That drove everyone else out and Yugoslavia was effectively no more. After that it turned into very ugly land fights in mixed zones of neighboring states. The Serbian action in Kosova is particularly repulsive since it was 80% Albanian and Serbia had taken away their autonomy and attempted to stamp out Albanian culture.
Contrary to what the Serbs seem to think, they did not own the rest of the country. Finding every Serb enclave in other provinces and trying to make it independent with Serb rule, thereby carving up existing nations, was not a workable solution--it was a land grab. It also clearly illustrated the Serb first approach of the Serb Nationalists.
Unlike you, I'm under no illusions that everyone on any given side was a saint. However, I do realize that when there is an armed conflict or oppression, you have to make an attempt at deciding matters. Stopping a single ethnic group that is attacking all the rest *outside* of their own majority provinces of Serbia, Vojvodina, and Montenegro is a very good start.
Red Harvest, unfortunately you simplified.
So, OK the Serbs are the badies: Oups, Muslims against Muslims did happened, Croats against Muslim did happened, the territorial problem between Slovenia and Croatia… Probably Serbs manipulations… Stopping one camp was not enough, I afraid. Croatia was on the edge of a blockade for action in Bosnia. Didn’t happen, but not far…
I worked in Gorazde, that is showing my contempt with the Muslims, I suppose. Working with Croatian Organisations from Osijek probably shows my contempt with Croats.
But I agree with you, the break down made no sense… They were neighbours fighting neighbours. I don’t know what the Serbs think, what I know is without the refusal of the young Serbs to be enlisted in the JNA at the beginning of the war, Milosevic would have won.
What you think, apparently, is all the others have the right to have their independence (or autonomy), except the Serbs. “Ethnic cleansing” is wrong except if it is done against the Serbs. Ah, no, you sympathise… The Serbian action in Kosovo was repulsive, but you don’t mind of the Croatian politic against the Serbs… The Albanians did not expel only the Serbs from Kosovo, but also the Goranci, the Turks, the Croats, the Roms, the Bosniac and the Ashkenali (altogether representing 10% of the population). They speak Albanians, are Muslims (most of them), BUT they are not Albanians. Well, some Albanians were also expelled, not belonging to the good clan. Of course, the Serbs, but you do sympathise.
The Great Serbia is a dream, as much the Great Croatia, and the Islamic Republic of Bosnia. You probably never read something about the last two… If you did, I don’t understand your point of view.
If the natural division is what is needed to have a border, you will have a problem in a lot of countries…
I took the Serbs point of view, because the others were well published and understood. By the way, Serbia and Montenegro is still the most multi-cultural entity in the Former-Yugoslavia. And the Serbs were the majority in Krajina. Not anymore…
You speak about my omissions: Which one. I will be happy to answer. I know this debate is about joined manoeuvres between china and Russia, but…