The whole Austria issue is a mess. Surely we don't want to see another Nazi regime, but for crying out loud, what gives you the right to say who people can and can't elect? I don't see Vietnamese complaining about George Bush Jr. or something. Europe and US always biting too much and won't be long before they choke.

P.S. Don't forget to send more troops to Kosovo, Albanians turning on you now.

Just say the shite Bassayev in hospital laying on bed .He did not look too good,lost a foot.It i on BBC AMERICA.

Just saw the shite Bassayev in hospital laying on bed .He did not look too good,lost a foot.It i on BBC AMERICA.

"We're no Yugoslavia," China army tells U.S http://www.timesofindia.com/050200/05worl33.htm US just can not keep nose out of others business:AUSTRIA, CHINA,RUSSIA,SERBIA,who is next?

Tough New Russian Military Doctrine Is Reaction To NATO, Declares Putin

MOSCOW, Feb 5, 2000 -- (Agence France Presse) A tough new Russian military doctrine is Moscow's answer to changes in NATO's strategy, acting President Vladimir Putin said during a meeting of the Russian Security Council on Friday.

The new military doctrine, which Putin signed in January, allows authorities to use nuclear weapons in more situations than the 1997 version had authorized.

Moscow "cannot but notice the changes in NATO's strategy," decisions which were made without the authorization of the United Nations, Russian news agencies quoted Putin as saying.

Whether in Bosnia or Yugoslavia, Russia has consistently insisted that military forces or armed intervention be deployed under UN direction.

Russia, one of five permanent UN Security Council members, believes that the UN is the only authority that can make such a decision.

The threat of religious extremism was another reason for the changes, Putin said.

"We know the problems which are currently confronting Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan," Putin said, alluding to terrorist acts and hostage-taking committed by fundamentalist Muslims in the region.

In addition, Putin justified the adoption of the new military doctrine, pointing out internal problems, such as the conflict in the North Caucasus.

"Russia cannot remain insensitive" with regard to these changes, he said.

"We must react in an appropriate manner" so that "there won't be a surprise."

The 1997 version of Russia's military doctrine reserved for Russia the right to carry out a first nuclear strike, in response to "an armed aggression that seems to threaten the very existence of the Russian Federation."

This latest version says Russia envisages the possibility "of using all forces and means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, where all other means to settle (a) crisis have been exhausted or have proved ineffective." ((c) 2000 Agence France Presse)

I WONDER WHY NO ONE WANTS CARE WORKERS??-- http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/02/03/carecanada000203

CONSEQUENCES OF KOSOVO

Privet IGOR

"By Ibn 'Umar ( - 152.163.195.182) on Saturday, February 5, 2000 - 04:37 pm:
http://www.infoplease.com/cgi-bin/id/CE000690

"The conflict took a heavy toll in human life. More than 1 million Afghans died in the war and 5 million became refugees in neighboring countries. In addition, 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed and 37,000 wounded."

Actual number is under 14,500 soldiers killed.

SHAME ON YOU ULTRA."

In beginning i said 1,000,000 afghans died. In beginning you said on 14,000 soviets died. Now you saying 14,500 died? 500 is alot. As far as my figures about 200,000. It doesnt matter. Its good to over estimate and show cruilty of american funding for muslim fanatacs.

ok, now im reading 15,000 died. Why you underestimating?

"When you're wounded and left,
On Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out,
To cut up your remains,
Just roll on your rifle,
And blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd,
Like a soldier."

Kissie, Even you kind lady are entitled to your opinion. Everyone crys when it best fits their agendas, even the US. Another, Imagine that! Have a good weekend. 😉
* Nice and sad philosophy of life. Same. I wish I had a good weekend ... - think hard thrice before You go for a brand-name computer.

Chechen war for Independence will continue

Russian Aggressors will be driven back

By Bones ( - 209.211.228.193) on Saturday, February 5, 2000 - 05:37 pm:

> Just to clear up some facts....

Facts don't need to be cleared up. Facts stand alone by themselves, and are either known, or unknown to persons. What you really mean is that you want to put your slant and spin on the facts, or clear them out of mens' awareness.

>>By Antonio ( - 209.239.218.25) on Saturday,
>>February 5, 2000 - 12:00 am:

>>"The last time U.S. soldiers did any serious
>>fighting was in Vietnam. Back then the VC and
>>the NVA kicked the American butt outta
>>town."


>* Sorry buddy but the US left Vietnam after the
>Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1975.

Ahh yes, the Paris Peace Accords, where Illuminati agent and Bilderburger member Henry Kissinger promised the North Vietnamese that the U.S. would pay them 4 billion dollars. After the U.S. regime reneged on the deal, the Vietnamese refused to turn over thousands of American POWs and remains of American KIAs.


>As
>far as the VC kicking our ass outta town, after
>TET in '68 the VC ceased to be an effective
>fighting force. Hence a US victory.

Some victory. Remember the news footage of the brave American soldiers fleeing from the NVA forces in Da Nang? Remember the brave American soldiers booting out all the civilians from the aircraft that were supposed evacuate civillians, so that the brave American soldiers could flee instead?

> The NVA
>was only able to wage a conventional war after
>most of the US left.

This is my point. The U.S. forces are a bunch of pansies who depend on advanced technology to win their wars for them.

> Check the history idiot,

Where does your knowledge of history come from? Time Magazine? The Washington Post? Dan Blather?

>EVERY set battle with main line US forces the
>NVA were defeated, SOUNDLY.

What was Da Nang 1975? Who left the battlefield? Whose helicopters fled Saigon? Whose flag flies over Vietnam now? You seem to be in serious denial of reality, and perhaps you would be a candidate for psychiatric treatment.

> Also, lets not
>forget all the outside aid they received from
>China and Russia that helped them in the war.

You mean.... that China and Russia together can kick the U.S. butt outta town? It is no secret that the Russians were helping the Vietnamese, but what proof do you have that the Chinese were helping them? Some help. Vietnam and China have always been at each other's throats.

>The US Military didn't loose Vietnam the
>politicians that directed it did.

So the U.S. politicians were helping the Vietnamese too? Well then, why doesn't the U.S. military declare war against the politicians? Why doesn't the U.S. military have half the guts as found in third world militaries where they mount coups against traitor politicians and then execute them? If the U.S. politicans are such losers, but the U.S. military eats their •••• and kisses their ass, then how can you say that the U.S. military are anything other than candy-ass faggots. By the way, did you know that the U.S. military allows fags in its ranks? Is anyone surprised?

If the U.S. military had any balls whatsoever, it would rise up and overthrow all the U.S. politicians that caused it to lose the war in Vietnam.

> O, and we
>supposedly received back ALL our POWs, did
>you after leaving Afghanistan?

You say supposedly. But everyone knows that tens of thousands of U.S. POWs were never returned because the U.S. regime reneged on its agreement in Paris to pay 4 billion dollars to the Vietnamese. In the late eighties the U.S. was trying to establish diplomatic relations with Vietnam and only got a few of the bodies of American KIAs. Green Beret Lt Col James Bo Gritz entered Vietnam and proved that there were still live POWs whose existence the Vietnamese denied, and the U.S. regime officially denied. The U.S. regime in order to avoid embarrasment and condemnation for abandoning
its POWs and MIAs and KIAs simply just denied that there were any remaining in Vietnam. Who is such a fool that they would believe anything the U.S. politicians said? Even you admit they lost the war for you!

>>"In all the U.S. campaigns of aggression in the
>>last decade, such as Panama, Iraq, and
>>Yugoslavia, the U.S. Air Force and the
>>Tomahawk missiles got a workout, but the
>>Army and the Marines were never provided
>>with much more than the opportunity to mop
>>up after the Air Force."


>* O one with no military knowledge, I'll tackle
>just one of those "aggressions" you speak of.

You say I have no military knowledge. I have fought on the ground in a certain Caucasus region country, and have survived aireal, GRAD missile, artillery, mortar and automatic grenade bombardment, and heavy machine gun and sniper fire. Furthermore, I survived an explosion of two anti-tank land mines which destroyed a non-armored small vehicle I was riding in which was loaded with explosives, ammunition, rockets, and a half-full tank of fuel.

So where does your military knowledge come from?

> If memory serves me right it was Iraq who
> invaded Kuwait NOT the US, that's
> AGGRESSION dumbass.

On July 25, 1990, George Bush declared to the U.S. Congress that Saddam Husein was a champion of democracy, the "Moderate of the Middle East," and "our friend in the Middle East".
George Bush (whose grandfather Preston Sheldon "Pappy" Bush financed the Bolsheviks and Adolf Hitler through the Wall Street Berriman Brothers firm) and James Baker sent April Glaspie to give Saddam Husein a message, that the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait was an Arab matter and that no matter what the U.S. would
sit on the sidelines and not intervene. In other words, even though the Mossad had warned the world that Iraqi forces were about to invade Kuwait, the U.S. gave Hussein the green light to do invade. And the Iraqis had good reason to invade anyways - the Kuwaitis had been overproducing on their OPEC-established oil quotas and deliberately causing a worldwide oil glut and driving the prices down with the intention of damaging the Iraqi economy.

You wanna talk about aggression?
Everyone knows that the U.S. regime is the world's premier imperialist aggressor. Go home Globo-Cop!

> Now onto basic military logic, FIRST, soften
>your targets up. SECOND, attack them! As you
>can see this concept works well and we didn't
>even have to destroy the entire city. Imagine
>that.

You only destroyed Serbian civilian apartment buildings and maternity wards and passenger trains and churches and embassies etc. You also destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. U.S. forces continue to bomb Iraqi civilians. Yeah, we see that civilians are in the cross-hairs of the American gunners.

>>"Quite simply, the average U.S. soldier has
>>never fought in a real war (unless you call
>>video games a "war") and has never had his
>>mettle and courage (or lack thereof) tested."


>* Again, you show your ignorance. One is called
>simulators (which if the RF would use, you might
>do better)

You just prove my point. Simulators are just video games, requiring no courage or self-sacrifice on the part of the American soldiers, as there is no real risk of death or injury, but only a low score and a delayed career advancement.

> and as far as our mettle, First we
>showed up and Second refer to the battle of
>Medina Ridge for an example. And what are
>you referring to when you say "average U.S.
>Soldier"?


>>"The Russians, on the other hand, have
>>fought in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and
>>Chechnya."


>* May I remind you that you were defeated in
>Afghanistan AND in the 1st Chechen War.

As I pointed out before, the U.S. was supplying Stinger missiles and other arms to the Afghan terrorists. Green Beret Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz" (about whom the Rambo movies were inspired)
and other Americans provided training to Afghan terrorists. In Afghanistan the Russians were not fighting mere Mohammedan terrorists, but U.S. proxies.

>I believe the word "humilitated" was used by
>your own news sourses too for the first one.

Wanna talk about humiliated? go talk to U.S. Vietnam vets. Remember Hanoi Jane? She's a lot better off financially than most of them!

>The 2nd Chechen War hasn't come full circle
>yet but I hope they do better this time.

>>"In both places the Russians faced an enemy
>>which was receiving indirect U.S. financial
>>and military assistance (the Afghans through
>>the CIA and Pakistan, and the Chechens
>>through the CIA and the Turks, Afghans et
>>al)."

>* As the USSR & China supplied the NVA/VC >so quit your crying.

Whose crying? The Americans are the ones crying and gnashing their teeth over Chechnya. And the Albanians in Kosovo are already spitting in your general direction. And the Kurds in Iraq have also found out the hard way that that the U.S. always hangs its friends out to dry. People all around the world are now wise to the fact that Americans are nothing but a bunch of self-centered greedy manipulating users of people and lovers of things - i.e., true materialists who would sell their own grandmothers out (or dispose of them in a nursing home). When push comes to shove, one can never expect Americans to stick by a friend in need.

>>"The Russian forces have been through hell
>>and have demonstrated the will to fight,
>>whereas the Americans have no stomach to
>>fight in any war which might put them at risk of
>>dying."

>* No, the RF doesn't give a •••• about it's troops
>and the US does.

Yeah... and you can tell that to the Marines. So if the US cares so much about its troops, then why does it use them as guinea pigs in the Nevada test site, and in LSD experiments. How about Gulf War Syndrome! Now the US soldiers pay the price for their use of depleted uranium tank-buster bullets. If the US cares so much about its troops, then how come the regime abandoned the Vienam POWs and MIAs? If the US cared so much about its troops, then why did it send Marines into the sitting-duck positions on low ground near the Beirut Airport? If the US cares so much about its troops, then why do they allow faggots to remain in the military under the "don't ask don't tell" policy? The US is allowing perverts to butt-boof all the new recruits. If the US cares so much about its soldiers, then why does it condemn and dishonorably discharge Michael New for refusing to wear a UN blue beret and serve under UN, not US, command in Bosnia? For his loyalty and dedication to the US, Michael New was screwed by the US military command and court martialed.
Oh Yeah.... the US really cares about its troops.

> As far as dying goes two
>things come to mind. One, the RF still fight as
>they did in WW2 as the US has progressed
>past those antiquated tactics and now uses it's
>Land, Sea and Air doctrine.

I wasn't talking about tactics. I was talking about courage, self-sacrifice, and endurance under hardship. These are things that the US soldiers have not had to have since Vietnam because everything has been made sterile and easy like a video game. The US never sends in ground forces now except to mop up what has been bombed to smithereens by B-2s and B-52s.
As for tactics, so what. Take an equal number of US soldiers and Russian soldiers and put them on a level battlefield with the same weapons, and the Russians will win. The only place the US soldiers will win is in a video arcade.


> Which I may add,
>works great! And Two, Why die for your country
>when you can let the other S.O.B die for theirs.
>Nuff said.

You just prove my point. Americans would never die for their country. That means that America is not a country worth dying for.

>>"Should U.S. forces go toe to toe with the
>>Russians, given equal firepower and numbers
>>to both sides, I would bank on the Russians
>>winning easily. The only reason why American
>>forces would be victorious over Russian
>>forces is the American technological and
>>logistical superiority."


>* You've just proved my point exactly. Given
>equal numbers our tactics, technology and
>logistics would defeat the RF. So why are you
>still betting on a loser? That old saying must be
>correct, "there's a sucker born every minute."

You have just proved my point. Americans only go with thre winning team, and will boo their own home team if it owns a losing record. This proves that americans are a fickle and disloyal bunch, and can not be relied upon as one would rely upon a true friend in thick and thin.
Judging by the quality of American public schools, it's apparent that America is the Mother of all Suckers. Why can't Johney read?

On the other hand, Russians learn Calculus in the 10th grade.

>And this is also the reason Russia has changed
>its willingness to use Nuclear weapons, it
>recognizes the short falls of its conventional
>forces at the present. And also why they're
>looking for other allies, i.e China

Why shouldn't Russia use nuclear weapons on the U.S.? But perhaps if an alliance with China is successful, the need to use nuclear weapons on U.S. imperial forces can be reduced, until some time when Russia can develop some other means to restrain American madness.

Proof that the U.S. regime is an organized criminal terrorist organization which operates its own child pornography and prostitution rings.
The White House and Congress is supplied with prostitutes from these rings, which kidnap American children and use the U.S. air force as a means to transport sex slaves around the world and avoid the customs and passport checks that screen civilian transportation.

http://www.4bypass.com/feature.htm

By Antonio ( - 209.239.217.16) on Sunday, February 6, 2000 - 06:12 am:
Proof that the U.S. regime is an organized criminal terrorist organization which operates its own child pornography and prostitution rings.

looks to me that the US mst be copying the Pope and the Catholic priest child molestation belief system!