IGOR:

Just a simple after-thought that hopefully, you might be able to help me with.

When Russian forces and tanks roled into CS and HU from the DDR & PL (of course at the request of the respective governments)was there any hints of human rights violations or other atrocities that may of been committed by those most friendly, helpful and concerned saviors? Wondering if any arrests and imprisonment of descedants were made maybe like Pavel who went on to become President of CS or if any buildings were leveled by tanks, or looting by senior military officers, or wholesale slaughtering of civilians in streets of Prague or Budapest and outlying villages, or confiscation of property or an occasional torture or rape of an innocent civilian or maybe even someone who threw a stone at a mighty tank and caught a bullet between the eyes in return. Must say that Russian military had some excellant marksmen during that period. GOOD SHOOTING GUYS.

I'm also wondering how well received the Russians were by the general population who were forced to study the Russian language and culture in school.

I don't understand why these friendly saviors, for what ever reason, decided to establish permenant military facilities in these most disruptive countries. Probably at the request of respective governments again. Or maybe because the population was attempting to excercise some form of free speech, or freedom or simply put, "their governments just weren't towing the Moscow line." I just don't know. Perhaps you can help me with that as well.

If my memory serves me correctly, wasn't there massive celebrations in the streets of not only CS and HU but also throughout Eastern Europe when the Russian saviors withdrew? Igor, I don't understand why, afterall weren't these Russian forces friendly and only helping the local governments maintain civility and guidence?

Igor, I thank you in advance for your assistance in helping me to better understand the most esteemed operating proceedures of the former USSR military.

THX-good movie by the way, come on Russia does not need to wory about a nuke strike from the US. Why would the US ever do it, what would be accomplished? I will tell you Mutually Assured Distruction. (MAD)

Hence disquiet on both sides re new Anti-missile system.

What would be the consequences of Russia "nuking"
the Taliban? I see A.S.Massud is preparing for a new offensive. Financed by their Lapis and Emerald mines of course.

Mary, but that was the USSR not Russia -Hum.
Ask the Latvians

Kim

Interesting question. What would be the consequenses to Russia if it shot a Nuke at the Talaban? I would hope the Russians would not do something so foolish because I think that doing such a thing would create new problems for the Russians making things worse than before doing such an act. If anything it would make the Russian army look even more feeble. Think about it Russia couldn't beat a couple thousand guys with AK-47s so grew so desperate as to lob a Nuke.

Kisako
You are very smart in answer-to-say-nothing.

If Milo wants to rule his little socialist garden and play the little dictator on the serbian poeple, Nato has nothing against it.

The problem came with the KLA and earlier with Bosnia-Herzgovina.
If there is a conflict anywhere in the world,wheither in deep Africa or on tiny islands in the middle of nowhere, you will notice that the US can't help interfering. So in Europe it's realy too much for them. They had to go.
On top of that European countries, usualy asleep on international events, felt concerned.
Everybody in the west thought there were massacres of ethnic albanians by the serbs..
Nato didn't started the war between the KLA and Serbia but was too happy to have found an occasion to replay "the Libaration from the Nazi" and to be seen as heroe again.It was too wonderful for Clinton to become the one who cracked down on the last oppression in Europe of the XXth C. Plus, he could make some new muslim allies, useful against the spread of fondamentalism.
It was a bid millions times bigger than " prized Trepca mineral mines". Because this realy deal with domination of the World.


It turned out that in the massgraves they found only 2000 corpses instead of the 11000 previousely estimated.
Nato was misled by the KLA and the civilian population in the way the Chechen are doing now. (the latters may have found the Kosovars tactic very effective but it's actualy not working.)
There were no Hitler-style genocide but a process of physical elimination of the separatist elements.
In this nuance reside the mistake of Nato.
Amnesty Int; wouldn't accuse Nato of breaking the rule of war if the attacks on Serbian territory was fully justified, even if it didn't say so for obvious reasons.
BTW, what's that "rules of war". In the war there is no rule. Period! If there were it should be that the only weapon allowed be stuffed box gloves. There is no "civilian target" in war time. The TV studio was not a civilian target. Neither was the Chinese ambassy or any of the bridges.
But there are civilian poeple.
To sum it up: Nato is a military organisation and is not there where peace is.


Now let's talk about Milosevic.
He wanted to be a great man. He is a looser.
He has been incapable of coping with political solutions of the different conflicts. He always used force to dictate his policy. When an ethnical group want to have independance, he is not able to offer it, unlike the russians. Every countries which had to part with the Soviet Union did it, not without firing a shot (remember Gdansk, Vilnius...) but the russians gave up after a while and succeeded in avoiding civil war (execpt in the special case of Chechenya).
Milosevic didn't do that and it was his fault and his mistake.
He didn't accept the collapse of Yugoslavia as the Russians at the end, accepted the collapse of Soviet Union. He couldn't admit that Serbia could exists and lives more or less in good condition but in peace as a small modest country and without Kosovo.
As president of Yugoslavia and as the most powerful politician in the region, he didn' succeed in creating a peaceful environement neither good diplomatic links with new emerging states in the Balkan. He had to manage a puzzle of ethnic groups and nations but only failed. He failed in making friends for the serbians and only succeeded in making enemies for his poeple.
____________________________________________________

Antonio,

SATAN DOESN'T EXIST!!!!
____________________________________________________

Gonzo
"This anti-missle shiled stuff is interesting but does anyone think a "rouge state" would lauch a rocket at the USA or Russia? "

What rouge state? Cuba, North Korea?

Think rather about the sleeping giant stretching from Marocco to Indonesia Djuma Namangani talking
about.
If ever the Islamist dream come through (Unite all the muslims and lauch a cruisade against the infidels)...

...Think rather about the sleeping giant stretching from Marocco to Indonesia ...

Clinton and Putin understood it very well. They agreed to create a common intelligence service. This is HUGE.
This means that from now Russia and US not only trust each other but are collaborating on defense level.
Top analysts and officials contemplate Russia joining Nato in the long run. Unthinkable one year ago.

They also officialy and publicaly acknowledged of a new common threat.
This new threat obviousely doesn't refer to former soviets allies.
Pres Clinton in his speech in Moscow said that he would like to reduce the nuclear arsenal to Start II level and even lower but that it became difficult because of that new threat.

I beleive the Chechen conflict is at the center of this change of attitude.

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/godkillers

Try this Antonio, they are more interested in your choice of topic.

Kim

By Gonzo ( - 208.23.211.39) on Wednesday, June 7, 2000 - 03:48 pm:
>THX-good movie by the way, come on Russia does
>not need to wory about a nuke strike from the
>US. Why would the US ever do it, what would be
>accomplished? I will tell you Mutually Assured
>Distruction. (MAD)


The US has given ample demonstration in the last ten years (to say nothing of its entire aggressive land-grabbing expansionist history)
of its ability and willingness (madness and meanness) to wreak wholesale slaughter and destruction on any nation that opposes its will or resists its interference in their own internal or international affairs.

Therefore, not only the Russians but all other nations of the earth have an interest in preserving the ABM treaty and preventing the US from becoming a totally invincible and impervious juggernaut.

Bush adviser warns Europe to spend more on arms

US troops will not police all trouble spots, she insists

The US elections: special report

Martin Kettle in Washington
Wednesday June 7, 2000
The Guardian

A new Republican administration would press European nations to make massive increases in their defence budgets during the next decade to help free up
the United States military from international peacekeeping, George W Bush's top foreign policy adviser says.

Condoleezza Rice, in line to become the first African-American woman to be national security adviser or even secretary of state should Mr Bush take office,
said this week that the US must be much more selective in the future about deploying American troops to the world's trouble spots, saying that "doing good"
was "not a strategic concept".

She added that the much-vaunted closeness between Bill Clinton and Tony Blair would not make relations difficult if Mr Bush wins the presidency. "The
British-American relationship is bigger than any single personal relationship," Ms Rice said.

In a clear warning to European countries that they may soon have to make a highly charged choice between in creased defence spending and existing
government social programmes, Ms Rice said there had been a "near collapse" in military spending in some parts of Europe. She specifically excluded
Britain from these criticisms.

"When you look at some of the things that Europe needs to be able to do to be a force and a presence in the region, some of them are expensive.
Infrastructure, command and control, air support, these are expensive items. So yes, I think spending is probably going to have to increase."

The recent European defence initiative adopted by the EU at Helsinki last year was "in the United States' interests", Ms Rice added. "The greater danger is
that European militaries will not do enough, not that they'll do too much," Ms Rice added.

US forces would only be deployed under a Bush presidency when there was a US strategic interest at stake, she said. "It's not that humanitarian issues
aren't important. You can't ignore killing in Rwanda or Sierra Leone. But the question is whether these are places into which you would want to introduce
American military power."

Ms Rice did not offer an exact definition of US strategic interest, but she said that treaty obligations and the threat of wider conflict would be prime examples.

"It can't be just for social en gineering. It can't be for civil functions that really are police functions. It can't be state-building like we tried in Haiti," she said.
"Doing good is not a strategic concept, and it draws you away from the kinds of responsibilities that can prevent a wider war."

Kosovo "clearly fitted into the strategic category", she said, although Mr Bush wanted Europe to take over control there under "a process that puts us in a
position to get our forces out".

Ms Rice was fiercely critical of President Clinton's handling of the planned national missile defence system, on which the US and Russia failed to agree this
week. Mr Clinton had imposed so many constraints on US missile-testers that "we're not getting our best shot", she said, adding that she "wanted to look at"
ship- and aircraft-based anti-missile defence systems as well as the land-based system now under examination.

Ms Rice, who is a former provost of Stanford University in California and who was a White House adviser to President George Bush, welcomed the fact that
Mr Clinton and the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, remained at odds on missile defence in their weekend talks in Moscow. "The positive thing about the
trip was that there was not a grand bargain about missile defence which ties the hands of the next president," she said.

Mr Bush believes he can persuade Mr Putin that it is time to "move beyond the old cold-war logic" of the 1972 ABM treaty, which bars the development of
anti-missile defence systems, even though Mr Clinton failed to do so, Ms Rice said. She called Mr Bush's recent statement that he wanted to make
missile-defence systems available to America's European allies and Israel "a commitment to consultation".

A Bush administration "would want to build a system that wouldn't decouple the defence of the allies from the defence of the United States", she said. The
Clinton plan, which seeks to protect only the US from missile attack, "clearly decouples", she said.

© Copyright Guardian Media Group plc. 2000


Any comments? Disclaimer:Posting this article does not mean I agree with its content!!- Kim

Viva Chechnya

Khala Barayeva, 22 a Chechen women fighter, cousin of Arbi has sacrifized her life in the Kamikaze attact that has shaken the earth under the feat of the Vodka Army. She has inevitably joined the caravan of martyrs. She has become a role model for millions of faithful around the world. Alkan Khala has turned into a instant meat grinder of Russian elite forces. Basayev's word that he has formed Kamikaze fighters has come true. Dozens of fighters are waiting in line to taste the ultimate desire of martydom. Now the cruel drama unleashed by Evil Empire of Russsia will reach its climax and Russian heads will roll at greater pace.

It is a reminder that Muslims aspiration for for martydom has no parallel. In the materialistic western world the slogan is 'you want to be a millionaire' and in Caucasus it is 'you want to be a martyr'. Martyr only afer making a meat grinder of the Russian Army.