Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

lol

Stays the fact that the strength of the army is of no importance for membership.

On the contrary, membership of NATO is an unwritten first requirement. Military strenght is, especially for potential new members, a real issue.

Furthermore, the EU is not just an economical union. There have been several attempts to create an EU army.


Okay, Argentina used to be member. Still, have not seen a source confirming NAM was bigger than NATO or Warsaw Pact.

It wasn't and the non-aligned countries did never act as one body. They were completely irrelevant as a body.

On the contrary, membership of NATO is an unwritten first requirement. Military strenght is, especially for potential new members, a real issue.

Didn't think of that. True. However, military strength is not a key issue I might hope?

Furthermore, the EU is not just an economical union. There have been several attempts to create an EU army.

Failed attempts. Like WEU.

It wasn't and the non-aligned countries did never act as one body. They were completely irrelevant as a body.

Argentina was never a member?

i just said that i don't see them running out of resources.

Which is not what I said earlier on. If the price drops below a certain point, Russia is in trouble no matter how much it has got. It has dropped below that point enough to burn away almost all the reserves Putin created. The drama around price increases for 'friends' is mainly because they could no longer afford to give their resources away. Once again, it's not a question of quantity, but a question of price.

However, military strength is not a key issue I might hope?

It is. Or rather, conforming to NATO stndards, is.

Argentina was never a member?

Not sure. It probably was, but the NAC lacked internal cohesion and real leadership. They were never a political entity. They were just a loosely affiliated group of countries, many of whom were not quite as non-aligned as they made out to be.

I don't believe The Hague would be mistaken by a wrong translation.

It is even more unbelievable that the leadership of a war for freedom gets prosecuted for war crimes.

Why? It is not because you fight for freedom (I have given you that, Croatia was right to claim independence) that you can't commit crimes.

It is. Or rather, conforming to NATO stndards, is.

Then it's shameful it is a key issue. It shouldn't be.

Not sure. It probably was, but the NAC lacked internal cohesion and real leadership. They were never a political entity. They were just a loosely affiliated group of countries, many of whom were not quite as non-aligned as they made out to be.

Well I just went for a quick search, ended on Wikipedia (I know, but for basic info it's practical) and there it is that Argentina was one of the founding countries, but stepped out of it, probably for the reasons you gave.

Potential new members join NATO in order to show they are capable of being part of an organisation and because this will ensure further military security. (Nobody is foolish enough to attack a member of NATO.) NATO has its own set of requirements. I don't see it as shameful in any way.

Okay, but the original point of that Serb guy (don't remember his name right now) was that Yugoslavia could have been one of the key members of EU because they had a big army. It's that what I would consider as shameful. I don't know what the requirements are to be a member of NATO.
(edited)

Because U were not born in Yugoslavia you are bad witness of what is like to be a citizen of these,for my opinion, beutifull country till war.

----------

One may say that, another will say that as you were a citizen, you are not objective. It might have been nice for you. Ask the non-Serbian former-Yugoslavs what they think about that country ...


----------

lol rubinho, I've only been following this topic for about a week and this is already the 2nd time you are contradicting yourself so the situation would suit you. I don't remember the first time. Last week you told someone he doesn't know anything about Belgium's political situation because he wasn't from Belgium (so actually stating only Belgians know and understand Belgium's situation). And now you're saying to this Serb guy that he can't be objective about his own country (so his opinion is worthless?)

So how can you ever be objective about Belgium? Also considering that you're a Flemmish nationalist which already contradicts an objective opinion about Belgium... Should we also ignore every post you write about Belgium, considering this?

you are a smart guy (a lot smarter than me for example), but sometimes you really need to grow up....

lol rubinho, I've only been following this topic for about a week and this is already the 2nd time you are contradicting yourself so the situation would suit you. I don't remember the first time. Last week you told someone he doesn't know anything about Belgium's political situation because he wasn't from Belgium (so actually stating only Belgians know and understand Belgium's situation). And now you're saying to this Serb guy that he can't be objective about his own country (so his opinion is worthless?)

I've said that against Mitch I believe, yes. Read what Mitch said about Belgium. Then you'll realize why I said that. He was again freaking out in his populist anti-leftwing nonsense. Don't only look at what I said, look at what I responded to too.

Btw, I think in most cases, people who are involved are not objective, for instance this Serb guy. Just like I am not completely objective when discussing about Belgium/Flanders. Also, I never said not being objective makes an opinion worthless, it makes it worth less, that is true.

And I'm not smarter than you (you are studying for engineer, crazy dude :p), I probably have more general knowledge.
(edited)

I don't believe The Hague would be mistaken by a wrong translation.

Yes, I agree it's unbelievable but this is what actually happened. I gave quite a detailed explanation about it. I have written what this sentence really means and I have also written how it has been translated. Which part of my explanation you don't believe or don't understand?

Why? It is not because you fight for freedom (I have given you that, Croatia was right to claim independence) that you can't commit crimes.

Haven't you already realised that I agree with that? There were definately crimes comitted as in almost any war but the ones responsible for crimes cannot be Tudjman and the generals unless they gave orders to kill civilians. And why would they do that and make record of it in transcripts?

Also, it is extremely difficult to determine which people were chased away and which simply fled. Someone might have ran away because he saw his neghbour getting killed and didn't see that he started shooting on the soldiers first. Was such killing a war crime or ethnical cleaning? Obviously not. How would you determine the real truth? Almost impossible. How is it particularly related to leadership? Hardly in any way.

Also, it very much depends on soldiers' personal discipline how they actually perform on the field and these were not professional soldiers, remember? There is a famous video of Gotovina going crazy on his soldiers about their poor behaviour during combat. You should see that and you would simply know it's honest and real. How can Gotovina, a professional soldier himself, be responsible for people he was not able to even train before going to combat with them? I know people who were at war there and with some of them I would not watch over sheep together and let alone go fight with. How would you lead such people to fight for your country's freedom? You really think this is so black and white? You really think there weren't any unlawful killings during D-day in Normandy? Was general Eisenhower responsible for those? This is so crazy what they did to Gotovina that it's really unbelievable. The only thing you could really blame him is that he was running away from the court but when we now see the absurd verdict, you can see that he simply knew what was about to happen.

Find me a simmilar example in history if you think this is such a normal situation. I am telling you that this is like accusing general Eisenhower of crimes during D-day. The only reason why Croatians have to suffer this is their political strength and position in the world. Nothing else.

Thanks for the friendly reply. I was kind of fearing a furious comeback :p Completely true that no one can be objective when they're involved. Same goes for me of course. Sometimes it's funny to read what people say at some point and then saying completely the opposite a few months later. (again, this goes for me as well). I guess I shouldn't have read the start of this topic :-)

PS: My general knowledge sucks, I would even get beaten by a goldfish :(

Thanks for the friendly reply. I was kind of fearing a furious comeback :p

I am still amazed by this. Why wouldn't I reply friendly? You really have a wrong image of me, it's not because I have strong opinions that I don't reply friendly. When someone gives his POV in such a way, I'll answer him the same way.

I guess I shouldn't have read the start of this topic :-)

I'm not following you ...

in the first pages there are posts of some people which just seem to be really weird comparing it to their behaviour at this moment.

I might have a wrong image of you, yes. I actually have a really strange image of you. You're a pleasant person in most topics, but I just can't stand you in the politics-topic. You're such a pain in the ass over there, but I guess you know that yourself already, as I'm probably not the first one telling you this :p

/sorry for the offtopic

in the first pages there are posts of some people which just seem to be really weird comparing it to their behaviour at this moment.

Still not following.

I might have a wrong image of you, yes. I actually have a really strange image of you. You're a pleasant person in most topics, but I just can't stand you in the politics-topic. You're such a pain in the ass over there, but I guess you know that yourself already, as I'm probably not the first one telling you this :p

You're not the first one, no ;-)