Notifications
Clear all
July 23, 2000 6:36 pm
by Fred:
"""If Milo said it on The state television, it must be excact! (LOL)
You know, he won't tell you kis army is/was completely destroyed...
Lolable """
Fred, where have you been?? International experts witnessed, that NATO destroyed less than 20 tanks. I, for instance, have read about in a "Newsweek" magazine, one of the most papular magazines in the US, a few months. Wake up, Mssr.!
Lolable..right..heh, something sure is laughable.
July 23, 2000 6:37 pm
Fred the Serbs will not lose Montenegro I will bet you on that now.The people there do not support west as witnessed by elections they just had.
July 23, 2000 6:44 pm
yo, BACON:
knock off the routine you _clown_. do you smirk as
you type?
same 'crafty' line over and over for almost a
_year_ now. amazing.
same moribund, dull, SNIPING from you. -_- and
_only_ because she's a woman. mind you, a woman
who could kick your ass to next week, fraidy cat.
are you even worth the effort to avoid running you
down in a crosswalk?
grow yourself some cojones, why don'tcha, pince
cabron....
July 23, 2000 6:45 pm
Western corporations are not interested in promoting industrial development in Russia, as the foreign investment figures show.
The primary Western interest in the Commonwealth of Independent States is in the exploitation of its resources. The breakup of the Soviet Union was thus a critical step in opening the possibility of such exploitation. For the former republics of the USSR became much more vulnerable once they became independent. Furthermore, Western corporations are not interested in developing CIS resources for local use. They are interested in exporting them to the West. This is especially true of gas and petroleum resources. Much of the benefit from the export of resources would therefore accrue to foreign countries. Large parts of the former Soviet Union are likely to find themselves in a situation similar to that of Third World countries.
What Germany is seeking, then, with the support of the US, is a capitalist rationalization of the entire European economy around a powerful German core. Growth and high levels of wealth in the core are to be sustained by subordinate activities in the periphery. The periphery is to produce food and raw materials, and it is to manufacture exports for the core and for overseas markets. Compared to the (Western and Eastern) Europe of the 1980s, then, the future Europe will be very different, with lower and lower levels of development as ones moves away from the German center.
Thus many parts of Eastern Europe, as well as much of the former Soviet Union, are meant to remain permanently underdeveloped areas, or relatively underdeveloped areas. Implementation of the new division of labor in Europe means that they must be locked into economic backwardness.
For Eastern Europe and the countries of the CIS, the creation of an "integrated" Europe within a capitalist framework will require a vast restructuring. This restructuring could be very profitable for Germany and the US. It will mean moving backwards in time for the parts of Europe being attached to the West.
The nature of the changes under way has already been prefigured in the effects of the "reforms" implemented in Russia from the early 1990s. It was said, of course, that these "reforms" would eventually bring prosperity. This was, however, a hollow claim from the beginning. For the "reforms" implemented at Western insistence were nothing more than the usual restructuring imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on Third World countries. And they have had the same effects.
The most obvious is the precipitous fall in living standards. One third of the population of Russia is now trying to survive on income below the official poverty line. Production since 1991 has fallen by more than half. Inflation is running at an annual rate of 200 per cent. The life expectancy of a Russian male fell from 64.9 years in 1987 to 57.3 years in 1994. (16) These figures are similar to those for countries like Egypt and Bangladesh. And, in present circumstances, there is really no prospect of an improvement in economic and social conditions in Russia. Standards of living are actually likely to continue falling.
Clearly, there is widespread, and justified, anger in Russia, and in other countries, about the collapse of living standards which has accompanied the early stages of restructuring. This has contributed to a growing political backlash inside Russia and other countries. The most obvious recent example may be found in the results of the December parliamentary elections in Russia. It is also clear that the continuing fall in living standards in the future will create further angry reactions.
Thus the extension of the old world order into Eastern Europe and the CIS is a precarious exercise, fraught with uncertainty and risks. The major Western powers are extremely anxious that it should succeed, to some extent because they see success, which would be defined in terms of the efficient exploitation of these new regions, as a partial solution to their own grave economic problems. There is an increasingly strong tendency in Western countries to displace their own problems, to see the present international competition for the exploitation of new territories as some kind of solution to world economic stagnation.
Western analysts rightly suppose that the future will bring political instability. So, as Senator Bradley put it recently, "The question about Russia is whether reform is reversible". (17) Military analysts draw the obvious implication: the greater the military power which can potentially be brought to bear on Russia, the less the likelihood of the "reforms" being reversed. This is the meaning of the following extraordinary statement by the Working Group on NATO Enlargement:
"The security task of NATO is no longer limited to maintaining a defensive military posture against an opposing force. There is no immediate military security threat to Western Europe. The political instability and insecurity in Central and Eastern Europe, however, greatly affect the security of the NATO area. NATO should help to fulfill the Central and Eastern European desires for security and integration into Western structures, thus serving the interests in stability of its members." (18)
This represents an entirely new position on the part of NATO. It is a position which some NATO countries thought imprudent not long ago. And it is alarming, because it does not confront the real reasons behind the present pressure for NATO's extension. However evasive and sophistical the reasoning of the Working Group may be, it appears that the debate in many countries is now closed. It would, of course, be much better if the real issues could be debated publicly. But for the moment they cannot be, and the pressure for NATO enlargement is going to continue.
July 23, 2000 6:49 pm
L'menexe what do you think of that American Psycho on Serbian Cafe?
July 23, 2000 6:52 pm
Fred I think you need to read that article by Gervasi,I just re read it and it is probably one of the most informative pieces of reading.Note it was written in 1996.
July 23, 2000 7:49 pm
Because, he is a looser.
* Does it justify the bombing?
Why he had to sign? Withdrawal was enough. As we have seen. He might have not sign but to withdraw and it was OK.
* Every international "deal" requires a signed document. Serbian troops were withdrawn following an agreement signed by a Serb general (forgot his name) and Gen. Jackson.
Nato didn't want agreement but facts.
* That's why it staged the first round of talks, and when Serbs agreed to withdraw, NATO presented the Appendix. So NATO wanted neither agreement nor facts. Veton Suroi, a political rival of the KLA involved in the talks, gives a candid description of Albright's message to Thaci: "She was saying, you sign, the Serbs don't sign, we bomb. You sign, the Serbs sign, you have NATO in. So it's up to you." If the Serbian would sign it, it would be occupied - not Kosovo - whole of Serbia. Wouldn't sign - would be bombed! So, who's the agressor?
And to conform about what?
* Compose or conform, whatever.
Four Hundreds of thousands kosovars fleeing to the EU via Italy (Member of Nato) is NOT Yugoslav internal affair.
* I also wouldn't stay there when bombs fall, he-heh! And when the "exodus" started? With bombs.
I repeat they were defending the rights of all people of Kosovo from KLA bandits.
* And in defence of those rights bombed the Serbia proper. Some "help". And if Milo was so "bad", all ethnic groups of Kosovo should've been grateful to NATO "liberation". Instead, all but K.-Albs either had fled, or are scared. Why the slogans "NATO, get out of Kosovo!"? By K.-Albs, mind.
To have control a little bit on this mess that obviousely Milo didn't have.
* Right. Milo didn't have this kind of mess before, when even NATO countries themselves don't know how to get out of this crap they were "sponsored" into by US Admin.
I said earlier that Nato came more against the Jihad than against Milo and his socialist party.
* Milo was doing quite good. And almost succeeded in driving KLA out. And there was the point when the "international" pressure on Serbia started to grow. KLA got the space for breathing and regrouping - Agim Ceku's words.
But nobody here wanted to devlop and I intend to raise the question on Serbian caf©.
* They will bury You, pardonnes.
* He had and has it. 13 tanks knocked out by bombing is nothing. The Army was/is intact.
If Milo said it on The state television, it must be excact! (LOL)
Why is that, that if a TV is a state-run one it always has to be a liar? CNN, for instance, did quite a remarkable job of it too.
As for 13 tanks - it is the Damage Assessment results by the US military DA team, following on-site investigation. [insert Your LOL, NATO's vaunted bombing campaign deserves it.]
Topic starter
July 23, 2000 7:51 pm
*International experts witnessed, that NATO destroyed less than 20 tanks.
Did nato destroyed anything else?
How many tanks did the FRY army count? 19? (LOL)
Now, seriousely, remember what I said: It's only when Nato started to destroy at a very fast pace the serbian forces on the ground that Milo changed his mind. Not after children died.
This occured in a matter of three days or so.
The Nato strategy was to destroy first infrastructures useful to the army,
such as car factories, amunition factories, fuel depots, road, bridges, headquarters, state TV buildings and transmiters, barracks, airports,...then to attack the serbian forces on the battlefield with apache helicopters.
They didn't destroyed the army because the army withdrew after three days of countinuous defeat in the second phase. Milo saved his army on time.
Such a strategy, if succeful, is, I agree, criminal toward the civilians who suffer a great deal.
all "four Hundreds of Thousands" members of Albanian mafia(exagarration, of course, but you get the point), the most hated Mafia by majority of EU country for its barbaric ways, they are out of Yugo. Still fail to see how that would justify such unlawful agression.
I'm talking about 400 000 refugees. If it's not enough I don't know what you need to understand.
On top of that if it's the most feared mafia, it's even a bigger problem for nato and non nato countries of Europe. They didn't want kosovo trash in theyr garden.
"Fred I am surprised that after such a period of time here and on Serba Cafe that you are still naieve about the situation there. "
I don't beleive craps posted by some vulgar extremists on Serba café. If it goes, the first inhabitant of Serbia who posts a message not conform to the party line is traced down and jailed.
I'm weighting the pro and the cons. I'm not saying nato is all clean and Madleine is all bright.
Some say CNN made us blind, but nobody seems to say what made the Serbs blind. I'v got a lot of job wiht that.
"the Serbs will not lose Montenegro I will bet you on that now.The people there do not support west as witnessed by elections they just had. "
The Serbs not. But Milo and co, Yes. Montenegrins want to stay with Serbia. But if Milosevic continues this way he will have the honnor to achieve the complete desintegration of the federation of Yugoslavia.
July 23, 2000 8:03 pm
Fred did you read Gervasi
July 23, 2000 8:55 pm
Conrad, what WB means? With bacon, or without bacon?
July 23, 2000 10:05 pm
igor:
i havent read enough material from american psycho
to give you much of an answer...
he posted the lyrics to a song by a late
'70s/early '80s punk band, asking someone else to
guess what they were, so i answered the
question...
why, what do _you_ think of him?
(no no no it aint me, babe)
July 24, 2000 12:41 am
Fred,
I have never seen you using LOL so much. Are you getting upset and by laughing trying to sound confidant? You were told and given links to prove you wrong, can you actually admit that much? Or the best you can do is change a subject to roads, military targets, etc.?
"""I'm weighting the pro and the cons""""
Seeing is believing. That goes for you.
"""Did nato destroyed anything else? """
That wasn't the original argument. Please don't try to change it, k? And, to answer your question, yes, they did: the TV station with civilians in it and the Chinese embassy(accident, whatta bummer). And couple of bridges and factories. And lots of civilians, for whom you sound sorry so much, heh.
"""I don't beleive craps posted by some vulgar extremists on Serba café."""
There's also a lot well-educated, well-spoken individuals who have nothing to do with vulgarity, but of course you must've missed them somehow. Follow Adam or Zink for instance.
"""I'm not saying nato is all clean and Madleine is all bright. """
Thank you for not saying it 😉 geeez..
"""But if Milosevic continues this way.."""
What way, Fred? The results of the pols showed most of Serbs and Montenegrins w/in the Montenegro want to stay as a whole. Unless NATO would like to "defend" those people from evil Milo. LOL anyone?
"""I'm talking about 400 000 refugees. """
Oh, those refuges! You mean the 400,000 refuges that fled Kosovo during 4 month noble bombing compaign?
July 24, 2000 1:15 am
"""They didn't destroyed the army because the army withdrew after three days of countinuous defeat in the second phase. Milo saved his army on time. """
Fred, is that chest-pounding really nessesary?
What continuous defeat? Defeat comes
as a result of a fight, continuous comes as a
result of numreous defeats...
unless you're talking about the defeat of a factory,a defeat of a bridge by boming them [insert...]
As for Milo-the-saviour, I think you contradict yourself by callimg him stupid but giving him credit for saving his army from a "fair'n'square" fight with the flying objects. That requires a lot of brains, Fred, lots of'em.
July 24, 2000 1:24 am
One more note Fred the KLA told the people to flee.Also not all villages were experiencing fighting only the ones that had KLA there.The KLA were using civilian shields.Gee that sounds a lot like Chechnya.Seems like these Muslims are cowards hiding behind civilians and lets mention kidnapping also.See the parallel?
