Optimism over Serbia-Iraq defense ties

I am proud that Serbia is helping our Iraqi friends.
They have been through so much,the invasion in 2003,the bombings,the death of 600.000 Iraqis,civil war all instigated by a small group of neocons in Washington.America has turned from a respected democarcy into a nightmare.
I think the Non-Proliferation treaty should be cancelled,every stable country should have the right to manufacture nuclear weapons to be shield itself from any attacks,Iran too.

I think the Non-'Proliferation treaty should be cancelled,every stable country should have the right to manufacture nuclear weapons '

CG who is going to define whether a country is 'stable' or not? You? The US, Russia, the UN? Or did you mean every country has a right to have nuclear weapons?

Did you support the lifting of the arms embargo on former Jugoslavija (Croatia and Bosnia) as well? OK so who's definition of 'country' would be use? Is Palastine a country, and qualify for nuclear weapons? Is Kosovo? What about poor countries that can't afford it and are threatened by neighbours who have the bomb?

Do you support the arming of all teachers at schools to 'protect' themselves against kids that might bring weapons into school? Perhaps doctors in hospitals should be armed to protect against assault? This does happen.

Serbs and Iraqis were always in a best of relations, the ties between the two nations go back in history in fields of ingeneering, military, politics, etc. Also people of both countries are victims of most brutal USA/Great Britain imperial politics.
Traumatic national destiny, but things will from now on get much better.

I wish us more this kind of contracts and hopefully there will be more needs to supply Iraq with weapons. Sutanovac could pay visit to Afghanistan as well and establish same kind of
cooperation :).

OK, one american puppet government deals with another american puppet government. Talks should go smoothly.

bganon

Look,we had enough material to manufactures 50 H-bombs in Vinca(we owned about 200 kg U235 ).
If Serbia would have armed itself I assure you that we never,never would have been attacked by NATO and we wouldn`t have this mess right now.
And guess what,the first thing the Djindjic government did was selling this stuff back to the Americans.

So I ask you: Is it better to be prepared for whatsoever or just to hope for the best?Milosevic did the latter and we know the result.

Please don`t be so naive.Naivity and forgetting the biggest enemy of us Serbs.

Naivity CG? Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, even though they knew about the US bomb programme. You are obviously trying to suggest that having weapons is a detterant.

Lets look at that theory again in our own backyard? Would smaller forces numbering thousands dare to attack one of the largest armies in Europe, equipped with heavy weapons? Would they not be dettered from doing so? (JNA vs Slovenia or Croatia).

What by the way would we have done with nukes or a hydrogen bomb to prevent the break up of Jugoslavija? Threaten to drop a bomb on Ljubljana?! Or perhaps in order to keep Kosovo Serbia we could wipe out all life in Kosovo, creating a radioactive wasteland for generations - that way it would remain Serbian right!

Your assurances sound completely empty, not only because you do not have a crystal ball and cannot possibly know what would happen in such a situation, but also because the whole weapon as a detterant theory is flawed, just like its pro death penalty little brother theory is. Murder still goes on and wars still go on.

Biljana you need to clarify your comment. Do you mean you wish there were more deals like this with the legitimate govts of Iraq and Afghanistan which are very favorable of US intervention or the militant rebels and Taliban who are against the US interventions.
I have a strong suspicion your comments were suppose to be anti-American but just did not end up that way.

pss

I was speaking about the economical benefits, or meant to say anyway that these kinds of deals may only contribute to our economy by filling the budget. My comment has nothing to do with being pro or anti American.

However, I must add that I really have no moral dilemma when it comes to buyers. Who ever is interested in buying our weaponry, be it legitimate govts (of any country) or Taliban (or any other terrorist formation), we should sell it out. This again has nothing to do with taking anyone’s side, but simply speaking pure economy.
Serbia in that case wouldn’t do anything that the USA hasn’t already done it and most probably still do.
Unfortunately, Sutanovac has no guts to make any move if not in line with Brussels and Washington.

As I understand it Peggy any country may develop nuclear weapons, although invariably if its not secret the UN might march in to for on the spot inspections.

India and Pakistan both have the bomb has that stopped conflict between the two countries? I don't know that the US 'allowed' them to have a bomb either.
As I understand it France (not exactly the greatest ally of the US) also has its own independent nuclear weapon. Did they need US permission before making it?

Peggy are you suggesting that if more nations have nuclear weapons that more bombs will make the world safer?

Bgannon, I would like to ask you one question.
At present only America decides who has nuclear weapons and who doesn't.

Do you think it is fair that the US is the only one allowed to decide this. They attacked Iraq on a lie that they were manufacturing nuclear weapons. Even if they did, who give America to decide who is to have one?
Israel is allowed to have it but nobody else. Why?

Is Israel the only responsible country there? I don't think so.

So what's you answer. Who gets to decide this?

You seem to indicate that you would not let Russia make this decision. Do you think that Russia is not as good at judging this?

Bgannon, I am not suggesting that more nukes out there makes a safer world at all.
All I am saying is that at present the US makes the rules.
You say UN does. I happen not to agree as the US does whatever it likes regardless of what the UN says.

Take Iraq for example. US went in there without UN approval and invaded a country on the pretense that they were developing nukes. So the US has appointed themselves the one and only institution who will decide who does and who doesn't have nukes. UN had nothing to say about that.

So my question to you was do you agree that America gets to decide these things?
If not how do we keep America in check? I can't see a way short of using force against them. No way this is possible because as we can only see the US owns the UN so who is going to administer punishment?

From reading your post I got the impression that you were against Russia having a say in this. If the US can decide then Russia can as well.

Forget what is supposed to happen, as reality is quite different. US is making all the rules now and we need balance back. That means we need Russia to make some rules as well.

I am proud that Serbia is helping our Iraqi friends.
They have been through so much,the invasion in 2003,the bombings,the death of 600.000 Iraqis,civil war all instigated by a small group of neocons in Washington.America has turned from a respected democarcy into a nightmare.
I think the Non-Proliferation treaty should be cancelled,every stable country should have the right to manufacture nuclear weapons to be shield itself from any attacks,Iran too.

I think the Non-'Proliferation treaty should be cancelled,every stable country should have the right to manufacture nuclear weapons '

CG who is going to define whether a country is 'stable' or not? You? The US, Russia, the UN? Or did you mean every country has a right to have nuclear weapons?

Did you support the lifting of the arms embargo on former Jugoslavija (Croatia and Bosnia) as well? OK so who's definition of 'country' would be use? Is Palastine a country, and qualify for nuclear weapons? Is Kosovo? What about poor countries that can't afford it and are threatened by neighbours who have the bomb?

Do you support the arming of all teachers at schools to 'protect' themselves against kids that might bring weapons into school? Perhaps doctors in hospitals should be armed to protect against assault? This does happen.

OK, one american puppet government deals with another american puppet government. Talks should go smoothly.

bganon

Look,we had enough material to manufactures 50 H-bombs in Vinca(we owned about 200 kg U235 ).
If Serbia would have armed itself I assure you that we never,never would have been attacked by NATO and we wouldn`t have this mess right now.
And guess what,the first thing the Djindjic government did was selling this stuff back to the Americans.

So I ask you: Is it better to be prepared for whatsoever or just to hope for the best?Milosevic did the latter and we know the result.

Please don`t be so naive.Naivity and forgetting the biggest enemy of us Serbs.

pss

I was speaking about the economical benefits, or meant to say anyway that these kinds of deals may only contribute to our economy by filling the budget. My comment has nothing to do with being pro or anti American.

However, I must add that I really have no moral dilemma when it comes to buyers. Who ever is interested in buying our weaponry, be it legitimate govts (of any country) or Taliban (or any other terrorist formation), we should sell it out. This again has nothing to do with taking anyone’s side, but simply speaking pure economy.
Serbia in that case wouldn’t do anything that the USA hasn’t already done it and most probably still do.
Unfortunately, Sutanovac has no guts to make any move if not in line with Brussels and Washington.

Naivity CG? Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, even though they knew about the US bomb programme. You are obviously trying to suggest that having weapons is a detterant.

Lets look at that theory again in our own backyard? Would smaller forces numbering thousands dare to attack one of the largest armies in Europe, equipped with heavy weapons? Would they not be dettered from doing so? (JNA vs Slovenia or Croatia).

What by the way would we have done with nukes or a hydrogen bomb to prevent the break up of Jugoslavija? Threaten to drop a bomb on Ljubljana?! Or perhaps in order to keep Kosovo Serbia we could wipe out all life in Kosovo, creating a radioactive wasteland for generations - that way it would remain Serbian right!

Your assurances sound completely empty, not only because you do not have a crystal ball and cannot possibly know what would happen in such a situation, but also because the whole weapon as a detterant theory is flawed, just like its pro death penalty little brother theory is. Murder still goes on and wars still go on.

Biljana you need to clarify your comment. Do you mean you wish there were more deals like this with the legitimate govts of Iraq and Afghanistan which are very favorable of US intervention or the militant rebels and Taliban who are against the US interventions.
I have a strong suspicion your comments were suppose to be anti-American but just did not end up that way.

I wish us more this kind of contracts and hopefully there will be more needs to supply Iraq with weapons. Sutanovac could pay visit to Afghanistan as well and establish same kind of
cooperation :).

Serbs and Iraqis were always in a best of relations, the ties between the two nations go back in history in fields of ingeneering, military, politics, etc. Also people of both countries are victims of most brutal USA/Great Britain imperial politics.
Traumatic national destiny, but things will from now on get much better.

Bgannon, I would like to ask you one question.
At present only America decides who has nuclear weapons and who doesn't.

Do you think it is fair that the US is the only one allowed to decide this. They attacked Iraq on a lie that they were manufacturing nuclear weapons. Even if they did, who give America to decide who is to have one?
Israel is allowed to have it but nobody else. Why?

Is Israel the only responsible country there? I don't think so.

So what's you answer. Who gets to decide this?

You seem to indicate that you would not let Russia make this decision. Do you think that Russia is not as good at judging this?

As I understand it Peggy any country may develop nuclear weapons, although invariably if its not secret the UN might march in to for on the spot inspections.

India and Pakistan both have the bomb has that stopped conflict between the two countries? I don't know that the US 'allowed' them to have a bomb either.
As I understand it France (not exactly the greatest ally of the US) also has its own independent nuclear weapon. Did they need US permission before making it?

Peggy are you suggesting that if more nations have nuclear weapons that more bombs will make the world safer?

Bgannon, I am not suggesting that more nukes out there makes a safer world at all.
All I am saying is that at present the US makes the rules.
You say UN does. I happen not to agree as the US does whatever it likes regardless of what the UN says.

Take Iraq for example. US went in there without UN approval and invaded a country on the pretense that they were developing nukes. So the US has appointed themselves the one and only institution who will decide who does and who doesn't have nukes. UN had nothing to say about that.

So my question to you was do you agree that America gets to decide these things?
If not how do we keep America in check? I can't see a way short of using force against them. No way this is possible because as we can only see the US owns the UN so who is going to administer punishment?

From reading your post I got the impression that you were against Russia having a say in this. If the US can decide then Russia can as well.

Forget what is supposed to happen, as reality is quite different. US is making all the rules now and we need balance back. That means we need Russia to make some rules as well.