|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
The question was posed by Mat Marriott. AF Capt. Keith Fitzpatrick,
one of the few NATO spokesmen in the CNN board who's capable of arguing,
took on it. It was a coincidence that in the middle of this discussion
the bombing of the Chinese Embassy was announced.
|
|
Mat Marriott - Friday, 05/07/99, 1:12:43pm (#83012 Nobody up with a justification yet ?! P.S. Only "feedback" so far : Joe S - Friday, 05/07/99, 1:01:01pm (#82974 No one has replied to you, because everyone is ignoring you. Your views are obviously clouded over by hate, rather than by knowledge, which makes your posts meaningless.What you say doesn't make sense. I'm just asking if somebody can justify the statement : Let's not forget this : had Milan Panic been elected, Humankind would probably no longer exist.This is obviously a justification that people supporting the bombing will not be able to give.
Lars2 - Friday, 05/07/99, 1:14:56pm (#83018 NATO PLEASE SEND GROUND FORCES TO KOSOVO!!!
Mili Sefic - Friday, 05/07/99, 1:15:58pm (#83019 russians better be good to NATO...they might get some money
Lars2 - Friday, 05/07/99, 1:19:18pm (#83028 Reuters: "In Brussels, NATO said its air forces kept up pressure on Serb units on the ground in Kosovo despite unfavorable weather, largely pinning them down and preventing them from operating" Woowoo! Go NATO! If the military doesn't leave Kosovo they will be destroyed, Bombing will Continue!
Mat Marriott - Friday, 05/07/99, 4:36:46pm (#83466 Keith FitzPatrick - Friday, 05/07/99, 4:28:38pm (#83453 Here we go again with the nuclear war fantasy. Let me ask you, Matt, if you were the leader of a nuclear power, would you launch a nuclear attack knowing that your enemy's response would destroy your own country? Those are the stakes we are talking about. Is Russia willing to lose everything over Serbia? I guess you can believe that if you want, but the Mutual Assured Destruction principle is still in place today.Let's formulate the two questions : - Is Russia willing to lose everything trying to stop NATO from ocupying Serbia? - Is NATO willing to lose everything trying to ocupy Serbia? Waiting for your answer. I'll give you min afterwards.
Nick N. - Friday, 05/07/99, 4:42:13pm (#83474 Keith Let me ask you, Matt, if you were the leader of a nuclear power, would you launch a nuclear attack knowing that your enemy's response would destroy your own country? Those are the stakes we are talking about. Is Russia willing to lose everything over Serbia? I guess you can believe that if you want, but the Mutual Assured Destruction principle is still in place today.Keith, I agree. While I don't support the war, I do think that all the United States has to do is make some agressive "verbal" nuclear threats against Russia. That would probably shut them up in a hurry. The Russians need a little reminder about HOW MANY nuclear warheads could quickly be pointed at them. Then we could say that the U.S has now powered our missiles up to "full combat readiness", as one of their Defense hacks stated today about Russia's arsenal.
Keith FitzPatrick - Friday, 05/07/99, 4:52:11pm (#83486 MATT You asked: Is Russia willing to lose everything trying to stop NATO from oocupying Serbia?We won't know until NATO actually announces plans for a ground force. I doubt Serbia is worth it to them. I would think threats from Russia would be more credible if NATO were attacking a bordering country. Is NATO willing to lose everything trying to oocupy Serbia?No, NATO won't. They will not attack if there is a credible threat that Russia will start a nuclear war. (But please review my answer to your first question) Waiting for your answer. I'll give you min afterwards.Just my opinions.
Mat Marriott - Friday, 05/07/99, 6:42:47pm (#83695 Keith, i could not post before. So I'll answer you now. Keith FitzPatrick - Friday, 05/07/99, 4:52:11pm (#83486 Keith, you answered the questions Is Russia willing to lose everything trying to stop NATO from ocupying Serbia? We won't know until NATO actually announces plans for a ground force. I doubt Serbia is worth it to them. I would think threats from Russia would be more credible if NATO were attacking a bordering country.Please see my answer to the next question. It also answers the question above. Is NATO willing to lose everything trying to ocupy Serbia? No, NATO won't. They will not attack if there is a credible threat that Russia will start a nuclear war. (But please review my answer to your first question)Of course nobody can see any logical reason for that, if we think in terms of NATO as a defense organization. Russia is not trying to attack anybody, just to survive. But here we are thinking in terms of the PAST. The forces that control NATO now are different. Solana (just to take one example among the "liberals" controlling NATO
today) was the leader of the movement to get Spain out of NATO. That's
how he got a name. Now let's stop thinking in terms of a defensive strategy
but in terms of an attack strategy, the end game towards one world government,
the total despise for the danger of nuclear confrontation (asa stated by
Wesley Clark). In this case it becomes clear that the occupation of Serbia
is VITAL for NATO. Bulgaria or Romania or Slovakia aren't (even if they
border Russia) (if you don't follow me on this point I'll gladly explain
it to you). But as I said before, the key element is to understand that
NATO's strategy is no more defensive but offensive.
Mat Marriott - Friday, 05/07/99, 6:51:05pm (#83710 On my posting Mat Marriott 5/7/99 5:20pm in particular to I wrote "In this case it becomes clear that the occupation of Serbia is VITAL for NATO. Bulgaria or Romania or Slovakia aren't (even if they border Russia) (if you don't follow me on this point I'll gladly explain it to you)."you answered Yes, please explain. What I hear you say is that NATO wants to attck and destroy Russia. A key to our quest for world domination is to capture a small country with a poor economy and no natural resourses. We will use that country as a stepping stone to attack Russia, but we will not occupy the countries that border Russia. It is somehow better to attack from Serbia.After this, max p - Friday, 05/07/99, 5:42:37pm (#83577 wrote This is simple. Because Bulgaria, Romania etc are already in the NATO sphere of influence and will be accomplices in the division of Russia into a number of small and powerless states.I answer both postings. Indeed Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia are already in the NATO sphere of influence. Which means that if Milan Panic had won the elections in Yugoslavia, we would have already in 1998 the whole Eastern Europe, and most important of all, the whole Adriatic and the countries more close to WEST EUROPE in the NATO sphere of influence. But max p, you make a mistake. The goal of an offensive as strategy against Russia will never be "the division of Russia into a number of small and powerless states". You forget that Russia has the capacity to destroy a few thousand planets like this. The goal can only be the annihilation of Russia ! And the only (crazy but theoretically imaginable) tactic is to strike first, i.e. the mad belief in the timing advantage. Had Milan Panic win the elections agaisnt Milosevic, NATO would be able to have deployed its nukes in Poland, etc, by 1998. And Russia couldn't retaliate. Its subs depend on Turkey to pass the Dardanelles, no port available in Montenegro, no Serbia available to counter-deploy. Which means that nuclear confrontation would have taken place in 1998.
Keith FitzPatrick - Friday, 05/07/99, 6:53:08pm (#83715 Mat Marriott - Friday, 05/07/99, 6:42:47pm (#83695 "Keith, i could not post before. So I'll answer you now."Actually, you did answer before - something about the strategic importance of an impoverished country (Serbia) with no natural resources. Your explanation didn't make much sense to me. I guess its because we are looking at this from two different frames of reference. You are seeing NATOs actions from the eyes of the old USSR which felt the need to have total military and political control of all the countries on its borders. You obviously feel NATO has the same motivation. But it contend it's hard to motivate 18 countries (not counting France as part of NATO) toward the goal of world domination.
H.C.Maddox - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:00:50pm (#83728 Bukila - Friday, 05/07/99, 6:51:01pm (#83709 Hi to everybody, NATO murderers have hit the centre of Nis (in south) with cluster bombs. Killed 15 civilians...the bodycount will surly be much bigger. A hospital has been damaged (some say it was a direct hit). Chinese embassy in Belgrade (two direct hits). Is NATO seeking for a world war? But off coures the damn liers have a new story to counterarrest this events: american soldiers were beaten and tortured!!! Poor, poor guys, the bad Serbs even wanted to cut their ears... they were probably raped too! This one certainly cannot be shrugged off as some "mistake"; the hospital is marked with the large red on white cross. In the middle of the day these pilots knew they were targeting a civilian hospital. Also I hear there are apartments and sports stadium nearby. Very stupid again of them.
K Rehmert - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:01:54pm (#83729 H.C.Maddox, It seems that NATO struck Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Anybody got any Marshmellows
Keith FitzPatrick - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:02:47pm (#83731 MAT!!! "But max p, you make a mistake. The goal of an offensive as strategy against Russia will never be "the division of Russia into a number of small and powerless states". You forget that Russia has the capacity to destroy a few thousand planets like this. The goal can only be the annihilation of Russia ! And the only (crazy but theoretically imaginable) tactic is to strike first, i.e. the mad belief in the timing advantage. Had Milan Panic win the elections agaisnt Milosevic, NATO would be able to have deployed its nukes in Poland, etc, by 1998. And Russia couldn't retaliate. Its subs depend on Turkey to pass the Dardanelles, no port available in Montenegro, no Serbia available to counter-deploy. Which means that nuclear confrontation would have taken place in 1998."Try to tread water! Now slowly swim to the edge of the pool and grab hold of the side. Now take a few deep breaths and relax! Wow, I thought you were in trouble because you obviously went off the deep end with this comment! You imply that NATO was going to try a first strike nuke attack against Russia! Boy you are paranoid. Even if it were possible to launch a successful first strike, the fall out would drift across the world contaminating the U.S. and eventually Europe. China would also launch at the first signs of launches by NATO. Of course I would expect you to believe NATO would use nukes since you believe Russia would. You need to lay off the caffine!
Keith FitzPatrick - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:08:19pm (#83736 Brooks Vista - Friday, 05/07/99, 6:55:48pm (#83717 "And China was supposed to approve the G8 Peace Proposal. Gee...wonder what will happen now? Guess I was right, NATO doesn't want peace..."Gee, let me think, what will happen now? Tomorrow, China will lodge an official protest (SP Lee is probably writing the text right now). NATO will make a humble apology. Clinton will make a personal apology. China will call us "Imperalist Warmongers." The U.S. will order another shipment of goods from China. All will be forgotten.
Dragovic Djordje - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:09:03pm (#83738 I used to laugh on the people that feared that result of this so called "strike on Yugoslavia" will be WWIII. Now, IF the news about bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade are true..... Is it possible? I simply can't believe it!
Eva De Wispelaere - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:09:46pm (#83740 Hi Bukila No I'm far from being crazy. But some are. Gee, they will
have fun in the White Hous, I wonder what will J. Shea "the Govnar" say?
Collateral damage? The chinees will not buy this crap. I pray for the people
in Belgrade in Nis Best regards
Jean Dessuède - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:10:06pm (#83742 H.C.Maddox: Hi to everybody, NATO murderers have hit the centre of Nis (in south) with cluster bombs. Killed 15 civilians...the bodycount will surly be much bigger. A hospital has been damaged (some say it was a direct hit).Aaaah, these Serb apologists... Never happier as when a juicy kindergarten or hospital has been hit. Mat Marriott - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:16:34pm (#83759 On my post Mat Marriott 5/7/99 6:42pm Keith FitzPatrick - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:02:47pm (#83731, you write You imply that NATO was going to try a first strike nuke attack against Russia! Boy you are paranoid. Even if it were possible to launch a successful first strike, the fall out would drift across the world contaminating the U.S. and eventually Europe. China would also launch at the first signs of launches by NATO.I will accept that I'm paranoid if you answer me one of these two questions (you can choose which ) : - Give me ONE reason for NATO expansion, in spite of the fact Russia warned repeatedly this was an attack to world peace ? - What military objective could be so important that NATO would resort
to carpet bombing of Serbia ?
Pavel - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:16:42pm (#83760 Nato has confirmed that one of its cluster bombs aimed at an airfield target in the Yugoslav city of Nis may have mistakenly hit a civilian area. Could anyone tell me what's the advantage of using cluster bombs
on airfield??
H.C.Maddox - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:17:42pm (#83761 Jean Dessuède - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:10:06pm (#83742 H.C.Maddox: Hi to everybody, NATO murderers have hit the centre of Nis (in south) with cluster bombs. Killed 15 civilians...the bodycount will surly be much bigger. A hospital has been damaged (some say it was a direct hit). Aaaah, these Serb apologists... Never happier as when a juicy kindergarten or hospital has been hit. Ah, serb apologists...a term made up and used by the propaganda fed sheep who are on NATOs bandwagon since they are all not "big" enough to admit NATO erred gravely. As I've said before NATO has not helped anyone in Kosovo whatsoever. Fact is if this were humanitarian to PREVENT atrocities, we would have seen the massive troop buildup starting last year when this was being planned. Like the 500,000 troops that were deployed to the persian gulf to save an OIL RICH country. Obviously the US/NATO politicians value oil much more than the lives of the Kosovo civilians. So by the time NATO goes into Kosovo, if they ever do, IT WILL BE TOO LATE. No-one will be home; there will be no-one there to save. NATO is not part of the solution in the Balkans; NATO is now part of the problem.
Mat Marriott - Friday, 05/07/99, 7:23:11pm (#83769 While Keith answers my question, check this page - Institut of Strategic Studies. This is, as far as I know, worldwide, the most complete compilation of facts, uncovering the true goals of NATO. Very good indeed (only a few minor errors, like presenting NATO losses
without saying that they have not yet been confirmed).
|
CNN removed the link to the Board from its main page, a few days after
the bombing started. This link was bringing 95% of the visitors to the
board.
May 19 the link was restored. This is certainly due to the fact that
people got used to the bombing "routine", and interest for the message
board is very low.
Last update : May 20 1999.
