Moscow confirms: Serbia wants Russian missiles and warplanes

ROCKY- In my opinion, your opinion is a complete joke. You are here trolling. Get a life. You probably know no real history of the balkans, only what sounds good to you. Russia is loved by the Serbian people much more than the government shows. Serbia is actually holding up more EU laws and values than any of its Balkan neighbors, even though i think the EU itself is a joke.

as a new reader to this site, I've noticed that some continue to accuse Serbia of warmongering. which war are they referring to in which Serbia actively pre determined, planned , and then launched a war? I'm doing a college thesis on European conflicts and most would disagree with these posts, as Serbia was clearly targeted by the west, then Yugoslavia , for dismemberment. Active within Yugoslavia UN borders, many of todays Balkan states helped in this transition. Croatia, Bosnian, and Slovenia. Yet Serbia was not a part of this "corrective" action and stayed loyal as Yugoslavia. War did break out, but to call Serbia a warmongering state is ridiculous. Germany along with Japan are clear examples, and Austria in WW1. Further, there is a clear. and undeniable fact that radical Islamic fighters from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia were present during those conflicts as well, exporting their ideas to balkans. Are these not the same people the west is bombing now from Libya to Syria? the same serbia fought 25 years ago? my conclusion is that Serbia did, and the rise of what we see today, began in Bosnia with the help from the west, which now is out of control.

("We are considering the issue of delivering air defense systems and MiG-29s to Serbia. That country is our strategic partner in Europe in many spheres, including military-technical cooperation," the source said.)

What the civilized world has always known!
The creation of Serbia by Russia Is for 1 sole purpose, to have a mini Russian or Russian satellite state smack in the middle of Europe! It is quite clear as to why there is always instability in this part of Europe!!! And Serbia wants to join the EU, in my opinion a complete joke!

Also funny that Serbia, after all that happend during the war, is closer in joining the EU then Albania and Bosnia will ever be.
(MikeC, 3 February 2016 19:54) # Comment link

At the end of the day, Serbia was forced by Russia not NATO to accept a water downed version of the so called Ahtisaari plan in the form of UN resolution 1244. UN resolution 1244 has been breached led by the US and UNMIK, EULEX, et al and of course the Albanian KLA Terrorists who were hiding in the mountains after being decimated by the Serbian Army. The Albanian KLA terrorists than marched back into Kosovo from the Albanian mountains and brutally killed and ethnically cleansed civilians declaring themselves as heroes but in reality the lowest cowardly scum of the earth. You can see some Albanians posting on this site declaring how they won a war that they never fought and won! There is no honor among Albanian thieves!

I like to see those Russian made weapons tested in Kosovo, the last I heard they are planning on testing them on the KLA, stay tuned for the results.

Your analysis is correct, NATO bungled the entire operation and those bombers were forced to go to 40,000 feet because the radar was scrambled from old Serbian Technology and the completely shut off rendering AWACS planes above the sky useless. That is just one example, Serbian General Pavkovic made so called West Point Grad General Wesley Clark look like a school boy. Educate yourself.

"An antiseptic war, fought by pilots flying safely three miles high. It seems almost too good to be true--and it was. In fact--as some critics suspected at the time--the air campaign against the Serb military in Kosovo was largely ineffective. NATO bombs plowed up some fields, blew up hundreds of cars, trucks and decoys, and barely dented Serb artillery and armor. According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58."http://www.newsweek.com/kosovo-cover-160273

You have a right wing HDZ party in power in Croatia along with a culture minister who is openly Ustase. Oreskovic was made Croatian Prime Minister in order to try to fool Europe that Croatia is a moderate European Country. Oreskovic unfortunately won't last as the HDZ will eventually replace him as they have far more seats in the parliament.

Serbia has no choice but to fully arm itself militarily including upgrading and producing the Armada Tank which has just finished the design stage. http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150710/1024464826.html

20 percent unemployment and aging population with a massive follow of refugees, is that moron Putin going to loan billions of dollars worth of hardware to the little war mongerers.

It doesn't matter what kinda you try or want to buy, Serbia is literally surronded by Nato members who will crush you easily if you decide to do something dumb and stupid. Times when you felt important in the Balkans are gone and not coming back.

"Serbia will think twice before they wage war against their neighbors. That was another goal and outcome of the war. Bully was taught a lesson

"Serbian Crusher"

Our neighbours had nothing to do in "crushing" Serbia. Before Nato got involved albanian freedomfighters were hiding in the albanian mountains. Croats were crying to the germans and bosnian muslims were staging attacks on its own people to get western countries to help them against the serbs. And Nato bombed a poor little country for 78 days. You tell me one country in Europe that would take such a pounding withouth crying like a little baby? Also funny that Serbia, after all that happend during the war, is closer in joining the EU then Albania and Bosnia will ever be.

What really happened in Kosovo during the bombing campaign is kept hidden from the world. The US/Nato does not want to be humiliated that they took a beating from a small country. First, when the aggressors realized they couldn't penetrate the army, they targeted civilian targets, i.e. hospitals, civilian trains, bakeries, bridges, maternity wards, etc. all in the name of strategic bombing. They claim to have lost only one plane, bullshit!! They lost planes in the hundreds. I recall hearing that they had to bring in more planes continuously because the ones used were "damaged," bullshit! They were destroyed. An average of three planes and countless Tomahawk missiles went down daily. A cousin of mine was on his balcony in Nis when he saw a plane going down in a distance. Another cousin fought in the Kosovo war. He used to call and tell us not to believe anything that was spread on the news, it was all bullshit. Finally, in the end, when Nato mounted 50,000 troops on the border with Macedonia ready to invade, Serbian tanks were buried in the ground just waiting. The army was mobilized waiting for the cowards to come in, but they didn't. Instead the Nato/US cowards called on Russia to reign in the Serbs. According to my cousin, the Serbian soldiers were dug in just waiting to give the cowards a blood bath, but the cowards never came.

I would like to know from some bright minds of this site with which money Croatia and Serbia could pay for all this weapons....
Do they think to sell the women populations to the Arabs?
It's all absurd...

In the 2000's the Swedes pitted three tank formations against each other in a war game. One was armed with the most modern German-built Leopard II tanks, the next with the Swedish STV-103, so-called "S" tank and the third with 1950's vintage Centurions built in Britain. The winner? The unit armed with the geriatric Centurions. The reason? The training, experience and leadership of the unit armed with the Centurions was much better than the other two. This makes the point that once your weapons reach a certain level of sophistication, the weapon itself becomes irrelevant and it is the training and tactical doctrine along with the command and control systems of the opposing sides that will determine the outcome of the battle.


This article is fascinated with individual weapons and their capabilities rather than how they function within an integrated system and so its conclusions need to be ignored. Serbia will never develop nor maintain the type of high level training and funding needed to make the most of The mentioned weapons systems and they will always be outmatched by NATO of which all surrounding countries of Serbia are in or will be. Only took 80+ days of Aerial bombing from 20,000 to defeat Serbia in 1999. That's pathetic by all measures. defeated all around. Shooting down 1 plane out of 33,000 sorties is pathetic. Now, Serbia will think twice before they wage war against their neighbors. That was another goal and outcome of the war. Bully was taught a lesson

Anyway mikey, with or without new toys, any attack against Slovenia, Croatia or Albania means WW3, all three are in NATO and two in EU. You really think world is going to let you start a global conflict twice. And if NATO did so lousy, than why did you losers agree to Dayton or overthrow Milosevic. Don't act like that bombing campaign you 'went through' can be compared to Cambodia or even Vietnam. NATO only hit military targets and of course took time to pin point them in order to avoid civilian casualties.

in my opinion a complete joke!
(Rocky, 3 February 2016 14:25)

That is what I think when I read your comments.

gavrilo

Who's talking about another conflict? We lost some and we won some. To me Republika Srpska is a huge victory. In Kosovo serbs both won and lost at the same time. We lost our churches and our land to terrorists. However, we don't have to care about a people that is worse then animals. Kosovo will explode. Too many people in a small area creating to many problems. It seems to me that albanians and bosnjaks are the present and future troublemakers in the balkans.

To Serb crusher,
I laugh out loud reading your rubbish.
I witness near the border of Albania, in town of Durakovac in Metohija, 3 NATO planes shoot down in one day. 1 was shoot down ,when NATO plane accidentally bomb KLA over the border in Albania,and KLA shoot it down!The other 2 planes by Yugoslav Army.
Alot of planes where hit and crashed quickly over the border's.
Why would NATO request triple the plane load and Airstrikes double up during the day aswell,if you are winning easy the war (like in Iraq, and Afghanistan).
We Serb's, had more causalities soldiers when retreating after the 1244 resolution was sign .
You Shqiptars sound alot like the Scottsman, Robinson, that was Bullsh*ting in the News speaches.
Unless you where in the middle and the battle zone,stop kidding yourself with crap,like NATO and Milosevic speeches!!

To all the Serb bashers, crushers, haters below.

Economics is today's measure. Not weapons.

Buy all the weapons you want.

Serbia will be well protected by NATO. It doesn't neec them.

Instead, let the race begin for market share.

All roads, rivers, air traffic of significance run through Serbia.

North - South
East - West

Serbs should only care about market share and nothing else.

Channel your energies on market share.

Become major capitalists.

Let them all choke on their weapons.

(sj, 4 February 2016 12:39)
Even Russia did not win in Russia ( soviet) - Afghan wars.
Nor Us, Nato or else - they just give their contribution in destruction and destabilization of the M.East countries in those 30 -40 years.

The fact if the matter is that Milosevic was convinced by Holbrook to not interfere in the Croatian invasion RSK in exchange for RS and the Dayton accord. Milosevic distanced himself from the RSK deal as they refused to sign an autonomy deal with Croatia, first Babich, then Martic who was hand picked by Milosevic. Croatia would have been wiped off the map if Serbia stepped in, Milosevic held the army back.
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 14:56)

But Milosevic did send in the army in 1991 and even then they failed to wipe Croatia off the map. In 1995 the Croats were better trained, organised and equipped than they were in 1995. Poor morale and high desertion rates were problems for the Serb forces. Furthermore, what would stop NATO shifting their attention from Serb forces in Bosnia towards those in or coming from Serbia? Had Milosevic sent the army in, would the destruction and casualties have been greater? Of course. Would Croatia have been wiped off the map? Highly unlikely.

But Milosevic did send in the army in 1991 and even then they failed to wipe Croatia off the map. In 1995 the Croats were better trained, organised and equipped than they were in 1995. Poor morale and high desertion rates were problems for the Serb forces. Furthermore, what would stop NATO shifting their attention from Serb forces in Bosnia towards those in or coming from Serbia? Had Milosevic sent the army in, would the destruction and casualties have been greater? Of course. Would Croatia have been wiped off the map? Highly unlikely.
(aaa, 4 February 2016 16:12)

Milosevic never sent any Serbian army in Croatia, only military advisors, the other groups were paramilitary and it's debatable whether Milosevic had command and control of those groups. RSK military was formed from remnants of the JNA. You think the Serbian military had only 50,000-60000 thousand troops in RSK??!!At that time, Serbian had military reserves of 1 million.

The Croatians launched an army of over 100,000 in operation storm in expectation that the Serbian and Bosnian military would intercede, it never happened. The Croatians would have been attacked from both the Bosnian and Serbian armies, it never happened.

The south Slavs were, for a brief time, a united and independent nation. Now as customers and proxies for opposing global powers you will wage war against one another at the behest, and for the profit, of others.

If Sprska is such 'a huge victory', than how come Dodik is too scared to leave Bosnia. Plan was never Sprska, but an ethnically clean part of Serbia governered by Radovan Karadzic, this Pol Pot plan was thank god stopped by Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Clinton. You serbs agreed to this current solution, because otherwise America would have let Tudjman and Izetbegovic kill everyone at Banja Luka. Winners don't sign peace terms, they dictate the. Winners don't become vassals of ottomans and than make up stories 600 years later how they saved entire christian Europe.

Serbs are peaceful neighbors - they want good relationship - for this are buying weapons.

ONGRADULATIONS Serbian LEADERS . fINALY YOU UNDERSDTAND AAS WHERE YOU BELONG TO . The europium union proved through history to be your enigmas -not brothers by any and all the means . never undermined your brothers that are Dying to save YOU FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS . DR SESELL IS CORRECT. your TESLA WAS GREATEST GENIUS FOR THE PLANET WE ALL SHARE . SESELL is one of greatest legal fighters World has ever seen . Lau Hu

they can't afford to buy this. lets face it, lets say Serbia buy this air defense systems, then what they will never use it lol money in the trash, in 10-20 they will probably be out dated which means they need new ones. Waste of money, but go ahead we love to see a bankrupt serbia.

(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:55) Well, so far it's 3 people; a certain "factman", a certain "Peggy" and a certain "John Pilgers". So 3 out of billions of people. Is 3 the "many" you were referring to, dear?!

---

The topic at hand was agreement or disagreement with gavrilos post. Since you, icj1, now refer to billions of people, can you please provide specific reference that a sample size of a billion people people even care about this topic? Subsequently, it would then be useful to substantiate your argument with numerical data on what proportion of this billion, that you only refer to, agree or disagree. Peggy was able to provide a reference to support her posting. Readers anxiously await your reference to support the words that you posted.

Just a disclaimer that the above is according to a certain "factman" and it can safely be ignored since, according to the UN, although some mistakes were made by NATO, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign.
(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:48) # Comment link

I would love to see a bomb blow you away by "accident" or "collateral damage" , that would be quite amusing.

The only ignorance is coming from an idiot like you!! Why don't you explain to the Chinese how the Embassy was blown up by NATO as an "accident"?

Why dont' you explain to the Greeks how the consulate in NIS was hit by a bomb by "accident"?

The facts remain that NATO deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure.

And for that Serbia will never join NATO and only allow transit when it makes economic sense or political sense to do so.

It doesn't matter what kinda you try or want to buy, Serbia is literally surronded by Nato members who will crush you easily if you decide to do something dumb and stupid. Times when you felt important in the Balkans are gone and not coming back.
(UnikKatil, 3 February 2016 21:47)


Your clock has stopped in 1999 and NATO is all and everything. Since that time NATO has been defeated in Afghanistan and US lost its war in Iraq. NATO cannot defeat Russia in Ukraine nor the US remove Russia from Syria - this does tell you something.

As I have said before, the times have moves on and both Croatia and Albanians are becoming more and more vulnerable. Once the push starts mo amount of NATO is coming to your rescue. Just be patient.

Yugoslav army headquarters was 'civilians and infrastructure', last time I checked genocide was planned there in 1992 and 1999. Shameful chetniks even using that name, hajduk army would have been more appropriate.

Of course peggy, since attack against Albania, Slovenia or Croatia means an attack against NATO, not even Seseljs little disciples are that dumb.

(princip, 4 February 2016 11:34)
Tudjman and Izetbegovic could not have stopped an angry grandmother with an empty beer bottle, but you think that if it makes you happy.
Americans allowing the dynamic duo to kill everyone in Banja Luka eh LOL. The Serbs held 80% of ALL territory in Bosnia and locked both the Croats and Bosniaks so tight they could not move then they organised a little tussle between the two great allies using dumb arse Croats and boy has there been hatred for the Croats ever since.
Had Tudjman moved into Bosnia Serbia would have burnt Croatia to the ground mate. The US would have given Tudjman the green light to attack Banja Luka, if it was possible, they had no love for the Serbs, but it was never going to happen because chances of success would have been zero. Its only tales the Croats have been telling themselves and it gets bigger and better with every beer.

that should be better trained etc. than they were in 1991 :)

(icj1, 5 February 2016 04:40) So, according to the UN, there are more than 7 billion people (i.e. the billions that you so eloquently labeled as the "denominator").
Next, I searched who from these billions of people disagree with "gavrilo, 3 February 2016 21:26" and found 3, namely "Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56", "factman, 4 February 2016 04:13" and "John Pilgers" per evidence provided by "Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56".

----

Since this an orginal analysis by icj1, we'll assume that you haven't yet submitted this (un)scholarly work for publication in any other journal. Before you subject your results and conclusions to peer review, you will have to provide significantly more details on your methodologies. Both expert and lay readers will wonder how you "searched" more than 7 billion people. Did you contact them directly? If so, how and over what time period? If your search was restricted to a sampling of a representative subset of this 7 billion people, then how did you define the subset, how large was this subset and what were the search criteria? Sampling of a representative subset, even by amateur statisticians, should minimally include a sampling error. Until some of this basic information is provided, your "search", results and conclusion represent a meaningless farce that readers will continue to mock. Thank you for subjecting yourself to this repeated humiliation.

I would like to know from some bright minds of this site with which money Croatia and Serbia could pay for all this weapons....
Do they think to sell the women populations to the Arabs?
It's all absurd...
(Luigi, 3 February 2016 15:58
=====================
What's absurd is that Croatia started this arms race. What are they trying to achieve?

Serbia should get all its neighbors to spend lots and lots and lots of money on militaries.

And Serbia should just buy some advanced weapons in order to make them spend all those monies.

This will give Serbia competitive advantage over the more important economic markets that need to be captured.

Let them spend big on weapons and then let then choke on the weapons and what it costs to maintain.

How has NATO been defeated in Afghanistan. Karzai is still in power.

How has NATO been defeated in Afghanistan. Karzai is still in power.
(serbstrategy, 4 February 2016 11:23)

In Afghanistan both the US and NATO were defeated completely, but to hide this fact they negotiated an agreement with Kabul that would give the appearance of a NATO victory and thus allow for a withdrawal of troops. There is a small force left but it does not bother the Taliban.
Karzai only governs the presidential compound and nothing more. It’s a farce. The Taliban control the rest of the country. The US has been pushing for a political solution that involves the Taliban since 2005 which is a far departure from earlier rhetoric of total defeat of the Taliban.
In essence, Karzai rules in name only.

NATO cannot defeat Russia in Ukraine
(sj, 4 February 2016 09:37)

I'm perplexed! According to the Kremlin, Russia is not involved in the fighting in Ukraine, so there is nothing for NATO to defeat there. But, perhaps the Kremlin does not have the correct information and it needs to get in touch with the CE of B92 forums sj to get better information about where Russia is involved!
----------

nor the US remove Russia from Syria - this does tell you something.
(sj, 4 February 2016 09:37)

Absolutely, that tells something; namely that US has no intention to stop Russia from wasting its blood and treasure in Syria.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist

The facts remain that NATO deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure.
(factman, 4 February 2016 04:13)

Just a disclaimer that the above is according to a certain "factman" and it can safely be ignored since, according to the UN, although some mistakes were made by NATO, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign.
----------

And for that Serbia will never join NATO
(factman, 4 February 2016 04:13)

That's great! Kosovo's independence from Serbia would not have been possible with Serbia being a NATO member :)

Many people will disagree with you including John Pilgers. Read his book "New Rulers of the World" where he states the exactr opposite. That's just one person saying the opposite.
(Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56)

Well, so far it's 3 people; a certain "factman", a certain "Peggy" and a certain "John Pilgers". So 3 out of billions of people. Is 3 the "many" you were referring to, dear?!

@princip

The fact if the matter is that Milosevic was convinced by Holbrook to not interfere in the Croatian invasion RSK in exchange for RS and the Dayton accord. Milosevic distanced himself from the RSK deal as they refused to sign an autonomy deal with Croatia, first Babich, then Martic who was hand picked by Milosevic. Croatia would have been wiped off the map if Serbia stepped in, Milosevic held the army back.

(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 15:58)

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).

(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:40)

Troops from Serbia were mobilised, and units based in Serbia participated in combat during the early months of the war - so I beg to differ that the extent of involvement was limited to advisors. And the number of 1 million trained reservists was for the whole SFRJ in 1991, not Serbia.

Regardless, from the numbers point of view Serbia had the upper hand, no doubts there (at least with manpower fit for military service). But theres more to it than simply having the larger army. What good are scores of reservists if they are poorly trained, poorly equipped and have poor morale? Lets say a two-prong attack from Serbia and Bosnia was attempted. This hasty-assembled reservist army would come up against well-trained and determined Croat forces, who had the advantage of being in the defensive role. Not to mention having to contend with Muslim and Croat forces in BiH and NATO airpower. As I said previously, there would definitely be greater carnage but not complete annihilation.

There are many damaged buildings throughout Serbia that prove deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure. The Spanish military pilots said as much in newspapers in Spain. And it was proven by the documents sent by the French Major to Serbia's military.

It it is clear when RTS was bombed. The bombing of a news station because you don't like how it reports the news is Orwellian.

It is also a predictable response of foreign militaries to say that those structures were used for military purposes and therefore were legit targets.

That may be true. But one can say anything when one controls major media.

It doesn't mean that one is speaking truth.

Or that the locals of the area won't have long memories.

And that is why Serbia will never join NATO, and always be a nuisance that way.

#

It is also true that Croats used Dubrovnik and churches from which to shell Serbs. And when Serbs volleyed back the world made a big deal of the damage done to Dubrovnik.

And we all know that Bosnian Muslims bombed their own people in order to manufacture enough foreign outrage necessary to create an intervention.

None of that means Serbs were angels (Because they were not. They were in many instances disgusting and revolting).

#

Educate yourself and read Chomsky.

Amnesty Yugoslavia's reply to icj's post is right on the money.
Here is icj's reply to me and Amnesty's reply to that.

icj1, 4 February 2016 14:55) Well, so far it's 3 people; a certain "factman", a certain "Peggy" and a certain "John Pilgers". So 3 out of billions of people. Is 3 the "many" you were referring to, dear?!

---

The topic at hand was agreement or disagreement with gavrilos post. Since you, icj1, now refer to billions of people, can you please provide specific reference that a sample size of a billion people people even care about this topic? Subsequently, it would then be useful to substantiate your argument with numerical data on what proportion of this billion, that you only refer to, agree or disagree. Peggy was able to provide a reference to support her posting. Readers anxiously await your reference to support the words that you posted.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 15:58)
=====================
You see only a juvenile would have such a ridiculous reply to what I wrote.

---------------------------

1. (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 15:58)

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).
(Reader, 4 February 2016 16:25
-------------------------------------
And only a fool would agree with a jouvenile like icj.
Amnesty siad it correctly that I provided a reference to my statement. Have you joined the ranks of icj's group of idiots?

Anyway mikey, with or without new toys, any attack against Slovenia, Croatia or Albania means WW3, all three are in NATO and two in EU. You really think world is going to let you start a global conflict twice. And if NATO did so lousy, than why did you losers agree to Dayton or overthrow Milosevic. Don't act like that bombing campaign you 'went through' can be compared to Cambodia or even Vietnam. NATO only hit military targets and of course took time to pin point them in order to avoid civilian casualties.
(gavrilo, 3 February 2016 21:26)
==============================================
Really? Only hit military targets and took care not to hit civilians? If it wasn't so tragic I would laugh at you.
Many people will disagree with you including John Pilgers. Read his book "New Rulers of the World" where he states the exactr opposite. That's just one person saying the opposite.
Now for your information, Serbia has no intention to attack anyone. The reason for these planes and weapons is because Croatia armed herself FIRST. This is in response to that so it seems that Croatia has bad intentions. Why did they spend so much money arming themselves? WW3 will only happen if US and Russia want it not because Croatia or Albania has anything to say about it.

(thanksforhonesty, 4 February 2016 21:56)

At the end of the day, both Milosevic and the Chetniks were opportunists looking after their own interests - Im sure they could justify any casualties along the way.

(abc, 4 February 2016 22:37)

So the troops who crossed the Danube for the attack on Vukovar, or those coming from Montenegro towards Dubrovnik were Croats also? There were many factors which spilled over into war in the early 90s, Im not saying the Croats didnt contirbute to this. But when you have events leading up to 1990/1991 including the Anti-bureaucratic revolution and the confiscation of weapons from TOs and their distribution to the Serbs, you cant solely pin the blame on the Croats.

Of course it is specualtion, but probability and educated guesses play their parts also. You are right in that both sides had expertise when it came to fighting civilians. Regarding whether the Croats engaged any 'military', read up about Operation Flash and other similar actions leading up to Storm - it will clarify any doubts you may have about the capability of the Croatian military.

Likewise, the siege of Vukovar lasted just under three months in which the larger Serb forces ultimatly succeded - but it was at a heavy cost (not only in terms of casualties). I never said it was impossible, as you mentioned there is always speculation. But if you think that Serbia could achieve this without significant damage/consequences, then you are the one imagining fairytales.

What really happened in Kosovo during the bombing campaign is kept hidden from the world. The US/Nato does not want to be humiliated that they took a beating from a small country.

-- If US and NATO took a beating, then why the f... are you b!tching on a daily basis. You won right? So case closed. But then again as a Serb it is normal to display psychotic behavior where you are both a macho winner and victimized loser at the same time.

NATO only hit military targets
(gavrilo, 3 February 2016 21:26)

Many people will disagree with you including John Pilgers. Read his book "New Rulers of the World" where he states the exactr opposite. That's just one person saying the opposite.
(Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56)

Well, so far it's 3 people; a certain "factman", a certain "Peggy" and a certain "John Pilgers". So 3 out of billions of people. Is 3 the "many" you were referring to, dear?!
(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:55)

If icj1 is using the statistical analysis of 3 out of billions, then icj1 must have a reference to substantiate this claim. Both the numerator (3) and denominator (billions) were only posted by icj1.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 22:19)

Of course :) Since our dear Peggy said "Many people", in order to quantify that we first need to determine the universe. For example, chimps are not not part of the universe, because Peggy said "people". So, according to the UN, there are more than 7 billion people (i.e. the billions that you so eloquently labeled as the "denominator").

Next, I searched who from these billions of people disagree with "gavrilo, 3 February 2016 21:26" and found 3, namely "Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56", "factman, 4 February 2016 04:13" and "John Pilgers" per evidence provided by "Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56".

If Peggy, factman, John Pilgers and/or you disagree with being counted/not counted among the 3, I'll be more than happy to correct it lol

There are many damaged buildings throughout Serbia that prove deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure.
(factman, 4 February 2016 20:15)

Damaged buildings only prove that a building is damaged :) It does not prove how, why and by whom was it damaged!
----------

The Spanish military pilots said as much in newspapers in Spain. And it was proven by the documents sent by the French Major to Serbia's military.

It it is clear when RTS was bombed. The bombing of a news station because you don't like how it reports the news is Orwellian.

It is also a predictable response of foreign militaries to say that those structures were used for military purposes and therefore were legit targets.

That may be true. But one can say anything when one controls major media.
(factman, 4 February 2016 20:15)

Well, it was the UN that said that, although some mistakes were made by NATO, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign... that was not the conclusion of some media.

Serbia will never join NATO, and always be a nuisance that way.
(factman, 4 February 2016 20:15)

Thanks God! That's the best guarantee that Kosovo will remain independent from Serbia. Serbia joining NATO would be more than a harmless nuisance for Kosovo.

Brilliant once again! Serbian printing 500 billion dinar notes would have gotten directly involved to Bosnia and Croatia, but Holbrooke beg them not to.

Subsequently, it would then be useful to substantiate your argument with numerical data on what proportion of this billion, that you only refer to, agree or disagree. Peggy was able to provide a reference to support her posting. Readers anxiously await your reference to support the words that you posted.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 15:58)

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).
(Reader, 4 February 2016 16:25)

This is funny. Irony doesn't even begin to cover it. The boys of python would be highly amused.
Reader, ha. Did you not Read the post, as per your alias might suggest.
AY did not ask ICJ to provide proof to what peggy said. AY asked ICJ to provide supporting evidence to their own claims, as peggy did (though it was a bit cheeky). See, that's exactly how it works. claim something that you want people to believe, you provide the evidence to support your claim. Lacking the fundamental linguistic flexibility is no excuse.

When AY said readers anxiously await... they weren't referring to a multiple of you, but in general to those who read - again not you.


We're all still laughing at the reading factory over here. Reading is not your strongest skill set it would seem.
Perhaps you should rename to interested-spectator-with-tenuous-grasp-of-conceptualization. it'd be long winded, yes, but more accurate.

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).
(Reader, 4 February 2016 16:25)

----

You may wish to scroll the topic and individual posts and as a "Reader" actually recognize that icj1 wrote "So 3 out of billions". Peggy did not quote billions. If icj1 is using the statistical analysis of 3 out of billions, then icj1 must have a reference to substantiate this claim. Both the numerator (3) and denominator (billions) were only posted by icj1. Moreover the statistical function (out of) was exclusively employed by icj1. Certainly he/she of all people should have at least some reference supporting the use of the "billions" denominator and this rather pedestrian statistical function. Odd that icj1 is silent and you chose to reply in her place...dear, Dude. Yes the laughable material from icj1 and other monikers is indeed endless.

@aaa
in the early months of the war, in the first few weeks when the yugoslav army attacked slovenia, that was soldiers mobilized from croatia, under rule of croat generals. the yugo government wasn't even fully aware of what was going on with the military.
that 10 day war stopped when slovenia and croatia settled it (notice yugo was not part of the picture).
furthermore, the croat war started when serbs within croatia were denied the same democratic freedoms croats from within yugoslavia were eventually grated - which is namely separation. it is the croats who started this, and fought serbs from croatia. it was not serbia that started this war either.
thats 2 started by croatia, not serbia.

now relating to a hypothetical battle between "trained" croats and "trained" serb military. it's all speculation. sure powerful croat army was able to cleans 1/4 million peasants in 5 days. sounds powerful, but really not all that impressive -- according to albanians serb army did the same to 2 million albianians in 2 days. so yes both militaries can fight civilians - no surprise there. did either fight another military? well, croats didn't. yugo army was able to withstand the barrage of nato's full might for 2+ months. they lost in the end. so we can see yugo army could not match a military might that was 80% of the worlds military budget -- no surprise.
so, in the end its fairytales against fairytales in this epic debate you're playing through in your head.

I would love to see a bomb blow you away by "accident" or "collateral damage" , that would be quite amusing.
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:50)

Well, sure... everybody is free to select his/her own amusements :)
----------

The only ignorance is coming from an idiot like you!!
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:50)

Haha, no need to lose it again mate! But I can still help point you in the right direction. The UN's address is 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017; feel free to contact and tell them they are idiots for determining that although some mistakes were made by NATO, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign.
----------

Why don't you explain to the Chinese how the Embassy was blown up by NATO as an "accident"?

Why dont' you explain to the Greeks how the consulate in NIS was hit by a bomb by "accident"?
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:50)

Of course, I'll explain if the Chinese or the Greeks ask me about it :)

(To-Reader, 4 February 2016 20:03) We're all still laughing at the reading factory over here. Reading is not your strongest skill set it would seem. Perhaps you should rename to interested-spectator-with-tenuous-grasp-of-conceptualization. it'd be long winded, yes, but more accurate.
---
Accurate insight that is hilarious and witty. The reading factory over there also produces impressive writing. I'm a fan.

"The only ignorance is coming from an idiot like you!! Why don't you explain to the Chinese how the Embassy was blown up by NATO as an "accident"? "
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:50)

It was explained like that to the Chinese some decade ago right after it took place, China protested, of course, but accepted that it happened like that.

Speaking of Dubrovnik, does miss peggy and serb boys remember what Milo the genius, current prime minister of Montenegro said during it after seeing Croatian flag, 'Because pf that flag, I'll never play chess again'. No wonder JNA lost so badly and Milosevic had to change tactics.

Troops from Serbia were mobilised, and units based in Serbia participated in combat during the early months of the war - so I beg to differ that the extent of involvement was limited to advisors. And the number of 1 million trained reservists was for the whole SFRJ in 1991, not Serbia.

Regardless, from the numbers point of view Serbia had the upper hand, no doubts there (at least with manpower fit for military service). But theres more to it than simply having the larger army. What good are scores of reservists if they are poorly trained, poorly equipped and have poor morale?
(aaa, 4 February 2016 19:43)

Yugoslavia had an army of 300,000 thousand and reservists of 3.2 Million in 1989 before the civil war.

I would agree with you that Serbia had zero appetite for war and Milosevic would have never sent troops into Croatia, that was never his intention.

-- If NATO took a beating, then why the f... are you b!tching on a daily basis. You won right? So case closed.

###

NATO did not take a beating.

But NATO did need to resort to deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure in order to bring Serbs to the table (in conjunction with asking Russia to push them to the table).

NATO was unable to hit military targets of significance nor destroy Serb military personnel because they were forced to fly high and above cloud cover due to anti-aircraft defenses. Many planes took hits (only 6 brought down). Too risky. So back up on high they went. This was very well reported in the Newsweek cover story. And Spanish pilots reported it to La Prensa.

With a humanitarian crisis looming (needing to get 1M people back to their homes before the onset of colder weather), NATO resorted to deliberate terrorization of civilians and to inflict destruction on the economy because ground troops were a red line for many coalition members.

All of this is freely available on the internet from quality sources, and the common man and woman in the field.

Doesn't mean that Milosevic didn't have it coming to him because he was an SOB.

But neither does it mean that NATO played clean.

(Jugoslavija, 5 February 2016 17:28)

The ground forces had 1 million trained reservists that could be mobilised in wartime (this may be higher when support personal are included, and Im not sure whether TOs were included in the official reserve numbers) - but the total reserves for the entire SFRJ including all service branches was 3.2 million as you stated.

If anybody hates Serbs then hate us all, we aren't divided.

I think you'll find that even 45% of Bosnia is enough for us. As you so clearly pointed out, we have 45% territory with 1 million, you obviously have 55% with 2.8 million.

Let us know when it gets a little cramped. Wonder what that will look like, 55% divided by Muslims and possibly Croats

What's the ethos of Islam again?, six children,seven?

NB, I was referring to RS

P.S. CE = Chief Economist
(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:35)

Good to see that you agree with sj teachings that you are an idiot.
(sj, 5 February 2016 00:12)

Did you read what you quoted dear lol But if you think that the CE of B92 forums sj is an idiot, that's certainly your business :)

P.S. CE = Chief Economist

NATO did not take a beating.
(factman, 6 February 2016 05:04)

Well, according to our dear friend Jugoslavija, Serbian General Pavkovic (with not even 1/100 of NATO's power in 1999) was able to outsmart Wesley Clark (the worse General in United States history appointed by Bill Clinton)!
----------

But NATO did need to resort to deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure in order to bring Serbs to the table
(factman, 6 February 2016 05:04)

According to the UN, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist
(icj1, 5 February 2016 15:48)

----

According to acronym finder web site:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/Business/CE.html
There are 219 definitions for the CE acronym. In the context of business, CE may be used to denote Chief Executive. Though other meanings are included, they do not define CE as Chief Economist.
Other broader uses include: Communauté Européenne (French: European Community); Civil Engineer; Consumer Electronic, Conformité Européenne (European health & safety product label).
We all plainly recognize the extreme difficulty you have in basic reading, comprehension, and simple logical association, however, you may wish to reference appropriate sources before attempting to assign additional conventions to established acronyms.

One more can be added to the previous three.

One day it will come to light what sort of monsters the Serbs are (to use trolling terms), but in time as more wool is removed from peoples eye's, other monsters will begin to appear.

Has any one else been curious, but this Chomsky is pretty popular, I'm sure others must have read this book.

Now that I think about what I said, I have to sound very stupid to make these trolls sound even a little smarter.

--*onslaught's, please*--

(icj1, 8 February 2016 21:03) That's why I clarify what do I mean by "CE" hahaha sorry you had to waste your time doing research for nothing :)
---
Thank you for confessing that your meaningless drivels are composed of unrecognizable terms that are only understood by icj1, which may also include one Reader who can't read.
Dude, humiliating you is an effortless task.

Aaa, so Milosevic was just another politician who used nationalism to stay in power, not a homicidal maniac. And if you think that it was to protect serbian people, did those ww2 era chetniks care about casualties. Sloba was no Draza.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist
(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:35)

Good to see that you agree with sj teachings that you are an idiot. Keep it up you’re on the right track. Recognition of one’s problem is the first step to a cure.
“Absolutely, that tells something; namely that US has no intention to stop Russia from wasting its blood and treasure in Syria.”
And I imagine the US is there for a vacation, hmm?

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).
(Reader, 4 February 2016 16:25
==========================
Reader, are you sure you are not icj? Your certainly sound a lot like him/her.

Serbia is surrounded by nato countries most all of those countries are former Soviet states. EU membeship is attached with NATO entry. This is why Serbia is not signing the EU entry and if they do sign they have to give up big chunk of serbia because America demands it. And there is No compasation for that. It is also called theft.

I see a lot of Serbian fan boys commenting saying they kicked natos ass lol..I think that's funny because Serbs lost Slovanian war they lost Croatian war and then they went to Bosnia and carved out 80% genocidal territory after killing thousands and thousands of civilians.but then when the Bosnians built up there military and pushed back and regained 55% territory. And had surrounded Serb stronghold banjaluka wich was predicted to fall because banjaluka had no military defence whatsoever all there military was on the front lines wich had been crushed Serbia said hold on a second we want to negotiate now after 4 years of slaughtering people. The biggest mistake imposed on the Bosnian government was the Dayton agreement had Washington not threatened Bosnian forces that they would be bombed there would be no Serbs in Bosnia either.but that's ok if another war was to happen in Bosnia today the Bosnians have all the military might and will push out any Serb resistance very very easily.Especially considering there is only 1 million Serbs living in Bosnia and 2.8 million Bosnian and Croatian citizens who are war hungry ..Serbs are hated by every country on the planet and I would be Ashamed to be Serb..I only pity the good Serbian people who don't want war and only want peace.Unfortunately majority of Serb population are genocidal but there is a lot of good Serbs to..just remember genocidal Serbs who are reading this u have no friends and if need be the world will bomb u again..

P.S. CE = Chief Economist
(icj1, 5 February 2016 15:48)

----

According to acronym finder web site:
[link]
There are 219 definitions for the CE acronym. In the context of business, CE may be used to denote Chief Executive. Though other meanings are included, they do not define CE as Chief Economist.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 February 2016 18:27)

EUREKA! Did you have such a revelation during your sleep yesterday night lol

That's why I clarify what do I mean by "CE" hahaha sorry you had to waste your time doing research for nothing :)

That's why I clarify what do I mean by "CE" hahaha sorry you had to waste your time doing research for nothing :)
(icj1, 8 February 2016 21:03)

Do you even realize how stupid you look and are? No Economist uses "CE"

Why can't B92 have a Chief Economist (CE) with the duties below, which are from a common source:

Chief economist is a single position job class having primary responsibility for the development, coordination, and production of economic and financial analysis. It is distinguished from the other economist positions by the broader scope of responsibility encompassing the planning, supervision, and coordination of the economic research.

I salute you icj1

(So What, 9 February 2016 13:56) Why can't B92 have a Chief Economist (CE) with the duties below, which are from a common source:

Chief economist is a single position job class having primary responsibility for the development, coordination, and production of economic and financial analysis. It is distinguished from the other economist positions by the broader scope of responsibility encompassing the planning, supervision, and coordination of the economic research.

I salute you icj1

---

You'll have to ask B92 why they don't have a chief economist. You'all also have to ask B92 why they don't have a CE, which your common source does not define.

Meanwhile as you're saluting icj1, you may wish to straighten-up, pull-up your underwear and turn around to face icj1. At this point you should inform them that B92 hasn't yet assigned a chief economist or a CE (whatever that means) and suggest that icj1 reword his repetitive drivel as "icj1's chief economist".

("We are considering the issue of delivering air defense systems and MiG-29s to Serbia. That country is our strategic partner in Europe in many spheres, including military-technical cooperation," the source said.)

What the civilized world has always known!
The creation of Serbia by Russia Is for 1 sole purpose, to have a mini Russian or Russian satellite state smack in the middle of Europe! It is quite clear as to why there is always instability in this part of Europe!!! And Serbia wants to join the EU, in my opinion a complete joke!

20 percent unemployment and aging population with a massive follow of refugees, is that moron Putin going to loan billions of dollars worth of hardware to the little war mongerers.

It doesn't matter what kinda you try or want to buy, Serbia is literally surronded by Nato members who will crush you easily if you decide to do something dumb and stupid. Times when you felt important in the Balkans are gone and not coming back.

In the 2000's the Swedes pitted three tank formations against each other in a war game. One was armed with the most modern German-built Leopard II tanks, the next with the Swedish STV-103, so-called "S" tank and the third with 1950's vintage Centurions built in Britain. The winner? The unit armed with the geriatric Centurions. The reason? The training, experience and leadership of the unit armed with the Centurions was much better than the other two. This makes the point that once your weapons reach a certain level of sophistication, the weapon itself becomes irrelevant and it is the training and tactical doctrine along with the command and control systems of the opposing sides that will determine the outcome of the battle.


This article is fascinated with individual weapons and their capabilities rather than how they function within an integrated system and so its conclusions need to be ignored. Serbia will never develop nor maintain the type of high level training and funding needed to make the most of The mentioned weapons systems and they will always be outmatched by NATO of which all surrounding countries of Serbia are in or will be. Only took 80+ days of Aerial bombing from 20,000 to defeat Serbia in 1999. That's pathetic by all measures. defeated all around. Shooting down 1 plane out of 33,000 sorties is pathetic. Now, Serbia will think twice before they wage war against their neighbors. That was another goal and outcome of the war. Bully was taught a lesson

Anyway mikey, with or without new toys, any attack against Slovenia, Croatia or Albania means WW3, all three are in NATO and two in EU. You really think world is going to let you start a global conflict twice. And if NATO did so lousy, than why did you losers agree to Dayton or overthrow Milosevic. Don't act like that bombing campaign you 'went through' can be compared to Cambodia or even Vietnam. NATO only hit military targets and of course took time to pin point them in order to avoid civilian casualties.

"Serbia will think twice before they wage war against their neighbors. That was another goal and outcome of the war. Bully was taught a lesson

"Serbian Crusher"

Our neighbours had nothing to do in "crushing" Serbia. Before Nato got involved albanian freedomfighters were hiding in the albanian mountains. Croats were crying to the germans and bosnian muslims were staging attacks on its own people to get western countries to help them against the serbs. And Nato bombed a poor little country for 78 days. You tell me one country in Europe that would take such a pounding withouth crying like a little baby? Also funny that Serbia, after all that happend during the war, is closer in joining the EU then Albania and Bosnia will ever be.

as a new reader to this site, I've noticed that some continue to accuse Serbia of warmongering. which war are they referring to in which Serbia actively pre determined, planned , and then launched a war? I'm doing a college thesis on European conflicts and most would disagree with these posts, as Serbia was clearly targeted by the west, then Yugoslavia , for dismemberment. Active within Yugoslavia UN borders, many of todays Balkan states helped in this transition. Croatia, Bosnian, and Slovenia. Yet Serbia was not a part of this "corrective" action and stayed loyal as Yugoslavia. War did break out, but to call Serbia a warmongering state is ridiculous. Germany along with Japan are clear examples, and Austria in WW1. Further, there is a clear. and undeniable fact that radical Islamic fighters from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia were present during those conflicts as well, exporting their ideas to balkans. Are these not the same people the west is bombing now from Libya to Syria? the same serbia fought 25 years ago? my conclusion is that Serbia did, and the rise of what we see today, began in Bosnia with the help from the west, which now is out of control.

I like to see those Russian made weapons tested in Kosovo, the last I heard they are planning on testing them on the KLA, stay tuned for the results.

ROCKY- In my opinion, your opinion is a complete joke. You are here trolling. Get a life. You probably know no real history of the balkans, only what sounds good to you. Russia is loved by the Serbian people much more than the government shows. Serbia is actually holding up more EU laws and values than any of its Balkan neighbors, even though i think the EU itself is a joke.

You have a right wing HDZ party in power in Croatia along with a culture minister who is openly Ustase. Oreskovic was made Croatian Prime Minister in order to try to fool Europe that Croatia is a moderate European Country. Oreskovic unfortunately won't last as the HDZ will eventually replace him as they have far more seats in the parliament.

Serbia has no choice but to fully arm itself militarily including upgrading and producing the Armada Tank which has just finished the design stage. http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150710/1024464826.html

Also funny that Serbia, after all that happend during the war, is closer in joining the EU then Albania and Bosnia will ever be.
(MikeC, 3 February 2016 19:54) # Comment link

At the end of the day, Serbia was forced by Russia not NATO to accept a water downed version of the so called Ahtisaari plan in the form of UN resolution 1244. UN resolution 1244 has been breached led by the US and UNMIK, EULEX, et al and of course the Albanian KLA Terrorists who were hiding in the mountains after being decimated by the Serbian Army. The Albanian KLA terrorists than marched back into Kosovo from the Albanian mountains and brutally killed and ethnically cleansed civilians declaring themselves as heroes but in reality the lowest cowardly scum of the earth. You can see some Albanians posting on this site declaring how they won a war that they never fought and won! There is no honor among Albanian thieves!

It doesn't matter what kinda you try or want to buy, Serbia is literally surronded by Nato members who will crush you easily if you decide to do something dumb and stupid. Times when you felt important in the Balkans are gone and not coming back.
(UnikKatil, 3 February 2016 21:47)


Your clock has stopped in 1999 and NATO is all and everything. Since that time NATO has been defeated in Afghanistan and US lost its war in Iraq. NATO cannot defeat Russia in Ukraine nor the US remove Russia from Syria - this does tell you something.

As I have said before, the times have moves on and both Croatia and Albanians are becoming more and more vulnerable. Once the push starts mo amount of NATO is coming to your rescue. Just be patient.

I would like to know from some bright minds of this site with which money Croatia and Serbia could pay for all this weapons....
Do they think to sell the women populations to the Arabs?
It's all absurd...

Your analysis is correct, NATO bungled the entire operation and those bombers were forced to go to 40,000 feet because the radar was scrambled from old Serbian Technology and the completely shut off rendering AWACS planes above the sky useless. That is just one example, Serbian General Pavkovic made so called West Point Grad General Wesley Clark look like a school boy. Educate yourself.

"An antiseptic war, fought by pilots flying safely three miles high. It seems almost too good to be true--and it was. In fact--as some critics suspected at the time--the air campaign against the Serb military in Kosovo was largely ineffective. NATO bombs plowed up some fields, blew up hundreds of cars, trucks and decoys, and barely dented Serb artillery and armor. According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58."http://www.newsweek.com/kosovo-cover-160273

To all the Serb bashers, crushers, haters below.

Economics is today's measure. Not weapons.

Buy all the weapons you want.

Serbia will be well protected by NATO. It doesn't neec them.

Instead, let the race begin for market share.

All roads, rivers, air traffic of significance run through Serbia.

North - South
East - West

Serbs should only care about market share and nothing else.

Channel your energies on market share.

Become major capitalists.

Let them all choke on their weapons.

But Milosevic did send in the army in 1991 and even then they failed to wipe Croatia off the map. In 1995 the Croats were better trained, organised and equipped than they were in 1995. Poor morale and high desertion rates were problems for the Serb forces. Furthermore, what would stop NATO shifting their attention from Serb forces in Bosnia towards those in or coming from Serbia? Had Milosevic sent the army in, would the destruction and casualties have been greater? Of course. Would Croatia have been wiped off the map? Highly unlikely.
(aaa, 4 February 2016 16:12)

Milosevic never sent any Serbian army in Croatia, only military advisors, the other groups were paramilitary and it's debatable whether Milosevic had command and control of those groups. RSK military was formed from remnants of the JNA. You think the Serbian military had only 50,000-60000 thousand troops in RSK??!!At that time, Serbian had military reserves of 1 million.

The Croatians launched an army of over 100,000 in operation storm in expectation that the Serbian and Bosnian military would intercede, it never happened. The Croatians would have been attacked from both the Bosnian and Serbian armies, it never happened.

they can't afford to buy this. lets face it, lets say Serbia buy this air defense systems, then what they will never use it lol money in the trash, in 10-20 they will probably be out dated which means they need new ones. Waste of money, but go ahead we love to see a bankrupt serbia.

gavrilo

Who's talking about another conflict? We lost some and we won some. To me Republika Srpska is a huge victory. In Kosovo serbs both won and lost at the same time. We lost our churches and our land to terrorists. However, we don't have to care about a people that is worse then animals. Kosovo will explode. Too many people in a small area creating to many problems. It seems to me that albanians and bosnjaks are the present and future troublemakers in the balkans.

Serbia should get all its neighbors to spend lots and lots and lots of money on militaries.

And Serbia should just buy some advanced weapons in order to make them spend all those monies.

This will give Serbia competitive advantage over the more important economic markets that need to be captured.

Let them spend big on weapons and then let then choke on the weapons and what it costs to maintain.

To Serb crusher,
I laugh out loud reading your rubbish.
I witness near the border of Albania, in town of Durakovac in Metohija, 3 NATO planes shoot down in one day. 1 was shoot down ,when NATO plane accidentally bomb KLA over the border in Albania,and KLA shoot it down!The other 2 planes by Yugoslav Army.
Alot of planes where hit and crashed quickly over the border's.
Why would NATO request triple the plane load and Airstrikes double up during the day aswell,if you are winning easy the war (like in Iraq, and Afghanistan).
We Serb's, had more causalities soldiers when retreating after the 1244 resolution was sign .
You Shqiptars sound alot like the Scottsman, Robinson, that was Bullsh*ting in the News speaches.
Unless you where in the middle and the battle zone,stop kidding yourself with crap,like NATO and Milosevic speeches!!

The facts remain that NATO deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure.

And for that Serbia will never join NATO and only allow transit when it makes economic sense or political sense to do so.

Yugoslav army headquarters was 'civilians and infrastructure', last time I checked genocide was planned there in 1992 and 1999. Shameful chetniks even using that name, hajduk army would have been more appropriate.

Serbs are peaceful neighbors - they want good relationship - for this are buying weapons.

@aaa
in the early months of the war, in the first few weeks when the yugoslav army attacked slovenia, that was soldiers mobilized from croatia, under rule of croat generals. the yugo government wasn't even fully aware of what was going on with the military.
that 10 day war stopped when slovenia and croatia settled it (notice yugo was not part of the picture).
furthermore, the croat war started when serbs within croatia were denied the same democratic freedoms croats from within yugoslavia were eventually grated - which is namely separation. it is the croats who started this, and fought serbs from croatia. it was not serbia that started this war either.
thats 2 started by croatia, not serbia.

now relating to a hypothetical battle between "trained" croats and "trained" serb military. it's all speculation. sure powerful croat army was able to cleans 1/4 million peasants in 5 days. sounds powerful, but really not all that impressive -- according to albanians serb army did the same to 2 million albianians in 2 days. so yes both militaries can fight civilians - no surprise there. did either fight another military? well, croats didn't. yugo army was able to withstand the barrage of nato's full might for 2+ months. they lost in the end. so we can see yugo army could not match a military might that was 80% of the worlds military budget -- no surprise.
so, in the end its fairytales against fairytales in this epic debate you're playing through in your head.

I would like to know from some bright minds of this site with which money Croatia and Serbia could pay for all this weapons....
Do they think to sell the women populations to the Arabs?
It's all absurd...
(Luigi, 3 February 2016 15:58
=====================
What's absurd is that Croatia started this arms race. What are they trying to achieve?

If Sprska is such 'a huge victory', than how come Dodik is too scared to leave Bosnia. Plan was never Sprska, but an ethnically clean part of Serbia governered by Radovan Karadzic, this Pol Pot plan was thank god stopped by Tudjman, Izetbegovic and Clinton. You serbs agreed to this current solution, because otherwise America would have let Tudjman and Izetbegovic kill everyone at Banja Luka. Winners don't sign peace terms, they dictate the. Winners don't become vassals of ottomans and than make up stories 600 years later how they saved entire christian Europe.

(princip, 4 February 2016 11:34)
Tudjman and Izetbegovic could not have stopped an angry grandmother with an empty beer bottle, but you think that if it makes you happy.
Americans allowing the dynamic duo to kill everyone in Banja Luka eh LOL. The Serbs held 80% of ALL territory in Bosnia and locked both the Croats and Bosniaks so tight they could not move then they organised a little tussle between the two great allies using dumb arse Croats and boy has there been hatred for the Croats ever since.
Had Tudjman moved into Bosnia Serbia would have burnt Croatia to the ground mate. The US would have given Tudjman the green light to attack Banja Luka, if it was possible, they had no love for the Serbs, but it was never going to happen because chances of success would have been zero. Its only tales the Croats have been telling themselves and it gets bigger and better with every beer.

Anyway mikey, with or without new toys, any attack against Slovenia, Croatia or Albania means WW3, all three are in NATO and two in EU. You really think world is going to let you start a global conflict twice. And if NATO did so lousy, than why did you losers agree to Dayton or overthrow Milosevic. Don't act like that bombing campaign you 'went through' can be compared to Cambodia or even Vietnam. NATO only hit military targets and of course took time to pin point them in order to avoid civilian casualties.
(gavrilo, 3 February 2016 21:26)
==============================================
Really? Only hit military targets and took care not to hit civilians? If it wasn't so tragic I would laugh at you.
Many people will disagree with you including John Pilgers. Read his book "New Rulers of the World" where he states the exactr opposite. That's just one person saying the opposite.
Now for your information, Serbia has no intention to attack anyone. The reason for these planes and weapons is because Croatia armed herself FIRST. This is in response to that so it seems that Croatia has bad intentions. Why did they spend so much money arming themselves? WW3 will only happen if US and Russia want it not because Croatia or Albania has anything to say about it.

ONGRADULATIONS Serbian LEADERS . fINALY YOU UNDERSDTAND AAS WHERE YOU BELONG TO . The europium union proved through history to be your enigmas -not brothers by any and all the means . never undermined your brothers that are Dying to save YOU FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS . DR SESELL IS CORRECT. your TESLA WAS GREATEST GENIUS FOR THE PLANET WE ALL SHARE . SESELL is one of greatest legal fighters World has ever seen . Lau Hu

in my opinion a complete joke!
(Rocky, 3 February 2016 14:25)

That is what I think when I read your comments.

Of course peggy, since attack against Albania, Slovenia or Croatia means an attack against NATO, not even Seseljs little disciples are that dumb.

NATO cannot defeat Russia in Ukraine
(sj, 4 February 2016 09:37)

I'm perplexed! According to the Kremlin, Russia is not involved in the fighting in Ukraine, so there is nothing for NATO to defeat there. But, perhaps the Kremlin does not have the correct information and it needs to get in touch with the CE of B92 forums sj to get better information about where Russia is involved!
----------

nor the US remove Russia from Syria - this does tell you something.
(sj, 4 February 2016 09:37)

Absolutely, that tells something; namely that US has no intention to stop Russia from wasting its blood and treasure in Syria.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist

How has NATO been defeated in Afghanistan. Karzai is still in power.

The facts remain that NATO deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure.
(factman, 4 February 2016 04:13)

Just a disclaimer that the above is according to a certain "factman" and it can safely be ignored since, according to the UN, although some mistakes were made by NATO, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign.
----------

And for that Serbia will never join NATO
(factman, 4 February 2016 04:13)

That's great! Kosovo's independence from Serbia would not have been possible with Serbia being a NATO member :)

Many people will disagree with you including John Pilgers. Read his book "New Rulers of the World" where he states the exactr opposite. That's just one person saying the opposite.
(Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56)

Well, so far it's 3 people; a certain "factman", a certain "Peggy" and a certain "John Pilgers". So 3 out of billions of people. Is 3 the "many" you were referring to, dear?!

What really happened in Kosovo during the bombing campaign is kept hidden from the world. The US/Nato does not want to be humiliated that they took a beating from a small country. First, when the aggressors realized they couldn't penetrate the army, they targeted civilian targets, i.e. hospitals, civilian trains, bakeries, bridges, maternity wards, etc. all in the name of strategic bombing. They claim to have lost only one plane, bullshit!! They lost planes in the hundreds. I recall hearing that they had to bring in more planes continuously because the ones used were "damaged," bullshit! They were destroyed. An average of three planes and countless Tomahawk missiles went down daily. A cousin of mine was on his balcony in Nis when he saw a plane going down in a distance. Another cousin fought in the Kosovo war. He used to call and tell us not to believe anything that was spread on the news, it was all bullshit. Finally, in the end, when Nato mounted 50,000 troops on the border with Macedonia ready to invade, Serbian tanks were buried in the ground just waiting. The army was mobilized waiting for the cowards to come in, but they didn't. Instead the Nato/US cowards called on Russia to reign in the Serbs. According to my cousin, the Serbian soldiers were dug in just waiting to give the cowards a blood bath, but the cowards never came.

@princip

The fact if the matter is that Milosevic was convinced by Holbrook to not interfere in the Croatian invasion RSK in exchange for RS and the Dayton accord. Milosevic distanced himself from the RSK deal as they refused to sign an autonomy deal with Croatia, first Babich, then Martic who was hand picked by Milosevic. Croatia would have been wiped off the map if Serbia stepped in, Milosevic held the army back.

The fact if the matter is that Milosevic was convinced by Holbrook to not interfere in the Croatian invasion RSK in exchange for RS and the Dayton accord. Milosevic distanced himself from the RSK deal as they refused to sign an autonomy deal with Croatia, first Babich, then Martic who was hand picked by Milosevic. Croatia would have been wiped off the map if Serbia stepped in, Milosevic held the army back.
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 14:56)

But Milosevic did send in the army in 1991 and even then they failed to wipe Croatia off the map. In 1995 the Croats were better trained, organised and equipped than they were in 1995. Poor morale and high desertion rates were problems for the Serb forces. Furthermore, what would stop NATO shifting their attention from Serb forces in Bosnia towards those in or coming from Serbia? Had Milosevic sent the army in, would the destruction and casualties have been greater? Of course. Would Croatia have been wiped off the map? Highly unlikely.

(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 15:58)

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).

(sj, 4 February 2016 12:39)
Even Russia did not win in Russia ( soviet) - Afghan wars.
Nor Us, Nato or else - they just give their contribution in destruction and destabilization of the M.East countries in those 30 -40 years.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist
(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:35)

Good to see that you agree with sj teachings that you are an idiot. Keep it up you’re on the right track. Recognition of one’s problem is the first step to a cure.
“Absolutely, that tells something; namely that US has no intention to stop Russia from wasting its blood and treasure in Syria.”
And I imagine the US is there for a vacation, hmm?

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).
(Reader, 4 February 2016 16:25
==========================
Reader, are you sure you are not icj? Your certainly sound a lot like him/her.

The south Slavs were, for a brief time, a united and independent nation. Now as customers and proxies for opposing global powers you will wage war against one another at the behest, and for the profit, of others.

How has NATO been defeated in Afghanistan. Karzai is still in power.
(serbstrategy, 4 February 2016 11:23)

In Afghanistan both the US and NATO were defeated completely, but to hide this fact they negotiated an agreement with Kabul that would give the appearance of a NATO victory and thus allow for a withdrawal of troops. There is a small force left but it does not bother the Taliban.
Karzai only governs the presidential compound and nothing more. It’s a farce. The Taliban control the rest of the country. The US has been pushing for a political solution that involves the Taliban since 2005 which is a far departure from earlier rhetoric of total defeat of the Taliban.
In essence, Karzai rules in name only.

There are many damaged buildings throughout Serbia that prove deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure. The Spanish military pilots said as much in newspapers in Spain. And it was proven by the documents sent by the French Major to Serbia's military.

It it is clear when RTS was bombed. The bombing of a news station because you don't like how it reports the news is Orwellian.

It is also a predictable response of foreign militaries to say that those structures were used for military purposes and therefore were legit targets.

That may be true. But one can say anything when one controls major media.

It doesn't mean that one is speaking truth.

Or that the locals of the area won't have long memories.

And that is why Serbia will never join NATO, and always be a nuisance that way.

#

It is also true that Croats used Dubrovnik and churches from which to shell Serbs. And when Serbs volleyed back the world made a big deal of the damage done to Dubrovnik.

And we all know that Bosnian Muslims bombed their own people in order to manufacture enough foreign outrage necessary to create an intervention.

None of that means Serbs were angels (Because they were not. They were in many instances disgusting and revolting).

#

Educate yourself and read Chomsky.

Amnesty Yugoslavia's reply to icj's post is right on the money.
Here is icj's reply to me and Amnesty's reply to that.

icj1, 4 February 2016 14:55) Well, so far it's 3 people; a certain "factman", a certain "Peggy" and a certain "John Pilgers". So 3 out of billions of people. Is 3 the "many" you were referring to, dear?!

---

The topic at hand was agreement or disagreement with gavrilos post. Since you, icj1, now refer to billions of people, can you please provide specific reference that a sample size of a billion people people even care about this topic? Subsequently, it would then be useful to substantiate your argument with numerical data on what proportion of this billion, that you only refer to, agree or disagree. Peggy was able to provide a reference to support her posting. Readers anxiously await your reference to support the words that you posted.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 15:58)
=====================
You see only a juvenile would have such a ridiculous reply to what I wrote.

---------------------------

1. (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 15:58)

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).
(Reader, 4 February 2016 16:25
-------------------------------------
And only a fool would agree with a jouvenile like icj.
Amnesty siad it correctly that I provided a reference to my statement. Have you joined the ranks of icj's group of idiots?

(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:55) Well, so far it's 3 people; a certain "factman", a certain "Peggy" and a certain "John Pilgers". So 3 out of billions of people. Is 3 the "many" you were referring to, dear?!

---

The topic at hand was agreement or disagreement with gavrilos post. Since you, icj1, now refer to billions of people, can you please provide specific reference that a sample size of a billion people people even care about this topic? Subsequently, it would then be useful to substantiate your argument with numerical data on what proportion of this billion, that you only refer to, agree or disagree. Peggy was able to provide a reference to support her posting. Readers anxiously await your reference to support the words that you posted.

Brilliant once again! Serbian printing 500 billion dinar notes would have gotten directly involved to Bosnia and Croatia, but Holbrooke beg them not to.

There are many damaged buildings throughout Serbia that prove deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure.
(factman, 4 February 2016 20:15)

Damaged buildings only prove that a building is damaged :) It does not prove how, why and by whom was it damaged!
----------

The Spanish military pilots said as much in newspapers in Spain. And it was proven by the documents sent by the French Major to Serbia's military.

It it is clear when RTS was bombed. The bombing of a news station because you don't like how it reports the news is Orwellian.

It is also a predictable response of foreign militaries to say that those structures were used for military purposes and therefore were legit targets.

That may be true. But one can say anything when one controls major media.
(factman, 4 February 2016 20:15)

Well, it was the UN that said that, although some mistakes were made by NATO, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign... that was not the conclusion of some media.

Serbia will never join NATO, and always be a nuisance that way.
(factman, 4 February 2016 20:15)

Thanks God! That's the best guarantee that Kosovo will remain independent from Serbia. Serbia joining NATO would be more than a harmless nuisance for Kosovo.

What really happened in Kosovo during the bombing campaign is kept hidden from the world. The US/Nato does not want to be humiliated that they took a beating from a small country.

-- If US and NATO took a beating, then why the f... are you b!tching on a daily basis. You won right? So case closed. But then again as a Serb it is normal to display psychotic behavior where you are both a macho winner and victimized loser at the same time.

I see a lot of Serbian fan boys commenting saying they kicked natos ass lol..I think that's funny because Serbs lost Slovanian war they lost Croatian war and then they went to Bosnia and carved out 80% genocidal territory after killing thousands and thousands of civilians.but then when the Bosnians built up there military and pushed back and regained 55% territory. And had surrounded Serb stronghold banjaluka wich was predicted to fall because banjaluka had no military defence whatsoever all there military was on the front lines wich had been crushed Serbia said hold on a second we want to negotiate now after 4 years of slaughtering people. The biggest mistake imposed on the Bosnian government was the Dayton agreement had Washington not threatened Bosnian forces that they would be bombed there would be no Serbs in Bosnia either.but that's ok if another war was to happen in Bosnia today the Bosnians have all the military might and will push out any Serb resistance very very easily.Especially considering there is only 1 million Serbs living in Bosnia and 2.8 million Bosnian and Croatian citizens who are war hungry ..Serbs are hated by every country on the planet and I would be Ashamed to be Serb..I only pity the good Serbian people who don't want war and only want peace.Unfortunately majority of Serb population are genocidal but there is a lot of good Serbs to..just remember genocidal Serbs who are reading this u have no friends and if need be the world will bomb u again..

that should be better trained etc. than they were in 1991 :)

(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:40)

Troops from Serbia were mobilised, and units based in Serbia participated in combat during the early months of the war - so I beg to differ that the extent of involvement was limited to advisors. And the number of 1 million trained reservists was for the whole SFRJ in 1991, not Serbia.

Regardless, from the numbers point of view Serbia had the upper hand, no doubts there (at least with manpower fit for military service). But theres more to it than simply having the larger army. What good are scores of reservists if they are poorly trained, poorly equipped and have poor morale? Lets say a two-prong attack from Serbia and Bosnia was attempted. This hasty-assembled reservist army would come up against well-trained and determined Croat forces, who had the advantage of being in the defensive role. Not to mention having to contend with Muslim and Croat forces in BiH and NATO airpower. As I said previously, there would definitely be greater carnage but not complete annihilation.

NATO only hit military targets
(gavrilo, 3 February 2016 21:26)

Many people will disagree with you including John Pilgers. Read his book "New Rulers of the World" where he states the exactr opposite. That's just one person saying the opposite.
(Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56)

Well, so far it's 3 people; a certain "factman", a certain "Peggy" and a certain "John Pilgers". So 3 out of billions of people. Is 3 the "many" you were referring to, dear?!
(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:55)

If icj1 is using the statistical analysis of 3 out of billions, then icj1 must have a reference to substantiate this claim. Both the numerator (3) and denominator (billions) were only posted by icj1.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 22:19)

Of course :) Since our dear Peggy said "Many people", in order to quantify that we first need to determine the universe. For example, chimps are not not part of the universe, because Peggy said "people". So, according to the UN, there are more than 7 billion people (i.e. the billions that you so eloquently labeled as the "denominator").

Next, I searched who from these billions of people disagree with "gavrilo, 3 February 2016 21:26" and found 3, namely "Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56", "factman, 4 February 2016 04:13" and "John Pilgers" per evidence provided by "Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56".

If Peggy, factman, John Pilgers and/or you disagree with being counted/not counted among the 3, I'll be more than happy to correct it lol

I would love to see a bomb blow you away by "accident" or "collateral damage" , that would be quite amusing.
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:50)

Well, sure... everybody is free to select his/her own amusements :)
----------

The only ignorance is coming from an idiot like you!!
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:50)

Haha, no need to lose it again mate! But I can still help point you in the right direction. The UN's address is 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017; feel free to contact and tell them they are idiots for determining that although some mistakes were made by NATO, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign.
----------

Why don't you explain to the Chinese how the Embassy was blown up by NATO as an "accident"?

Why dont' you explain to the Greeks how the consulate in NIS was hit by a bomb by "accident"?
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:50)

Of course, I'll explain if the Chinese or the Greeks ask me about it :)

"The only ignorance is coming from an idiot like you!! Why don't you explain to the Chinese how the Embassy was blown up by NATO as an "accident"? "
(Jugoslavija, 4 February 2016 17:50)

It was explained like that to the Chinese some decade ago right after it took place, China protested, of course, but accepted that it happened like that.

Serbia is surrounded by nato countries most all of those countries are former Soviet states. EU membeship is attached with NATO entry. This is why Serbia is not signing the EU entry and if they do sign they have to give up big chunk of serbia because America demands it. And there is No compasation for that. It is also called theft.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist
(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:35)

Good to see that you agree with sj teachings that you are an idiot.
(sj, 5 February 2016 00:12)

Did you read what you quoted dear lol But if you think that the CE of B92 forums sj is an idiot, that's certainly your business :)

P.S. CE = Chief Economist

Troops from Serbia were mobilised, and units based in Serbia participated in combat during the early months of the war - so I beg to differ that the extent of involvement was limited to advisors. And the number of 1 million trained reservists was for the whole SFRJ in 1991, not Serbia.

Regardless, from the numbers point of view Serbia had the upper hand, no doubts there (at least with manpower fit for military service). But theres more to it than simply having the larger army. What good are scores of reservists if they are poorly trained, poorly equipped and have poor morale?
(aaa, 4 February 2016 19:43)

Yugoslavia had an army of 300,000 thousand and reservists of 3.2 Million in 1989 before the civil war.

I would agree with you that Serbia had zero appetite for war and Milosevic would have never sent troops into Croatia, that was never his intention.

NATO did not take a beating.
(factman, 6 February 2016 05:04)

Well, according to our dear friend Jugoslavija, Serbian General Pavkovic (with not even 1/100 of NATO's power in 1999) was able to outsmart Wesley Clark (the worse General in United States history appointed by Bill Clinton)!
----------

But NATO did need to resort to deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure in order to bring Serbs to the table
(factman, 6 February 2016 05:04)

According to the UN, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist
(icj1, 5 February 2016 15:48)

----

According to acronym finder web site:
[link]
There are 219 definitions for the CE acronym. In the context of business, CE may be used to denote Chief Executive. Though other meanings are included, they do not define CE as Chief Economist.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 7 February 2016 18:27)

EUREKA! Did you have such a revelation during your sleep yesterday night lol

That's why I clarify what do I mean by "CE" hahaha sorry you had to waste your time doing research for nothing :)

Just a disclaimer that the above is according to a certain "factman" and it can safely be ignored since, according to the UN, although some mistakes were made by NATO, there was no deliberate targeting of civilians or unlawful military targets by NATO during the campaign.
(icj1, 4 February 2016 14:48) # Comment link

I would love to see a bomb blow you away by "accident" or "collateral damage" , that would be quite amusing.

The only ignorance is coming from an idiot like you!! Why don't you explain to the Chinese how the Embassy was blown up by NATO as an "accident"?

Why dont' you explain to the Greeks how the consulate in NIS was hit by a bomb by "accident"?

Subsequently, it would then be useful to substantiate your argument with numerical data on what proportion of this billion, that you only refer to, agree or disagree. Peggy was able to provide a reference to support her posting. Readers anxiously await your reference to support the words that you posted.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 4 February 2016 15:58)

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).
(Reader, 4 February 2016 16:25)

This is funny. Irony doesn't even begin to cover it. The boys of python would be highly amused.
Reader, ha. Did you not Read the post, as per your alias might suggest.
AY did not ask ICJ to provide proof to what peggy said. AY asked ICJ to provide supporting evidence to their own claims, as peggy did (though it was a bit cheeky). See, that's exactly how it works. claim something that you want people to believe, you provide the evidence to support your claim. Lacking the fundamental linguistic flexibility is no excuse.

When AY said readers anxiously await... they weren't referring to a multiple of you, but in general to those who read - again not you.


We're all still laughing at the reading factory over here. Reading is not your strongest skill set it would seem.
Perhaps you should rename to interested-spectator-with-tenuous-grasp-of-conceptualization. it'd be long winded, yes, but more accurate.

Aaa, so Milosevic was just another politician who used nationalism to stay in power, not a homicidal maniac. And if you think that it was to protect serbian people, did those ww2 era chetniks care about casualties. Sloba was no Draza.

LOL, so you are asking icj1 to provide proof of what peggy said. It really does not work that way dear :).
(Reader, 4 February 2016 16:25)

----

You may wish to scroll the topic and individual posts and as a "Reader" actually recognize that icj1 wrote "So 3 out of billions". Peggy did not quote billions. If icj1 is using the statistical analysis of 3 out of billions, then icj1 must have a reference to substantiate this claim. Both the numerator (3) and denominator (billions) were only posted by icj1. Moreover the statistical function (out of) was exclusively employed by icj1. Certainly he/she of all people should have at least some reference supporting the use of the "billions" denominator and this rather pedestrian statistical function. Odd that icj1 is silent and you chose to reply in her place...dear, Dude. Yes the laughable material from icj1 and other monikers is indeed endless.

(To-Reader, 4 February 2016 20:03) We're all still laughing at the reading factory over here. Reading is not your strongest skill set it would seem. Perhaps you should rename to interested-spectator-with-tenuous-grasp-of-conceptualization. it'd be long winded, yes, but more accurate.
---
Accurate insight that is hilarious and witty. The reading factory over there also produces impressive writing. I'm a fan.

(thanksforhonesty, 4 February 2016 21:56)

At the end of the day, both Milosevic and the Chetniks were opportunists looking after their own interests - Im sure they could justify any casualties along the way.

(abc, 4 February 2016 22:37)

So the troops who crossed the Danube for the attack on Vukovar, or those coming from Montenegro towards Dubrovnik were Croats also? There were many factors which spilled over into war in the early 90s, Im not saying the Croats didnt contirbute to this. But when you have events leading up to 1990/1991 including the Anti-bureaucratic revolution and the confiscation of weapons from TOs and their distribution to the Serbs, you cant solely pin the blame on the Croats.

Of course it is specualtion, but probability and educated guesses play their parts also. You are right in that both sides had expertise when it came to fighting civilians. Regarding whether the Croats engaged any 'military', read up about Operation Flash and other similar actions leading up to Storm - it will clarify any doubts you may have about the capability of the Croatian military.

Likewise, the siege of Vukovar lasted just under three months in which the larger Serb forces ultimatly succeded - but it was at a heavy cost (not only in terms of casualties). I never said it was impossible, as you mentioned there is always speculation. But if you think that Serbia could achieve this without significant damage/consequences, then you are the one imagining fairytales.

Speaking of Dubrovnik, does miss peggy and serb boys remember what Milo the genius, current prime minister of Montenegro said during it after seeing Croatian flag, 'Because pf that flag, I'll never play chess again'. No wonder JNA lost so badly and Milosevic had to change tactics.

(icj1, 5 February 2016 04:40) So, according to the UN, there are more than 7 billion people (i.e. the billions that you so eloquently labeled as the "denominator").
Next, I searched who from these billions of people disagree with "gavrilo, 3 February 2016 21:26" and found 3, namely "Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56", "factman, 4 February 2016 04:13" and "John Pilgers" per evidence provided by "Peggy, 3 February 2016 22:56".

----

Since this an orginal analysis by icj1, we'll assume that you haven't yet submitted this (un)scholarly work for publication in any other journal. Before you subject your results and conclusions to peer review, you will have to provide significantly more details on your methodologies. Both expert and lay readers will wonder how you "searched" more than 7 billion people. Did you contact them directly? If so, how and over what time period? If your search was restricted to a sampling of a representative subset of this 7 billion people, then how did you define the subset, how large was this subset and what were the search criteria? Sampling of a representative subset, even by amateur statisticians, should minimally include a sampling error. Until some of this basic information is provided, your "search", results and conclusion represent a meaningless farce that readers will continue to mock. Thank you for subjecting yourself to this repeated humiliation.

That's why I clarify what do I mean by "CE" hahaha sorry you had to waste your time doing research for nothing :)
(icj1, 8 February 2016 21:03)

Do you even realize how stupid you look and are? No Economist uses "CE"

(icj1, 8 February 2016 21:03) That's why I clarify what do I mean by "CE" hahaha sorry you had to waste your time doing research for nothing :)
---
Thank you for confessing that your meaningless drivels are composed of unrecognizable terms that are only understood by icj1, which may also include one Reader who can't read.
Dude, humiliating you is an effortless task.

-- If NATO took a beating, then why the f... are you b!tching on a daily basis. You won right? So case closed.

###

NATO did not take a beating.

But NATO did need to resort to deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure in order to bring Serbs to the table (in conjunction with asking Russia to push them to the table).

NATO was unable to hit military targets of significance nor destroy Serb military personnel because they were forced to fly high and above cloud cover due to anti-aircraft defenses. Many planes took hits (only 6 brought down). Too risky. So back up on high they went. This was very well reported in the Newsweek cover story. And Spanish pilots reported it to La Prensa.

With a humanitarian crisis looming (needing to get 1M people back to their homes before the onset of colder weather), NATO resorted to deliberate terrorization of civilians and to inflict destruction on the economy because ground troops were a red line for many coalition members.

All of this is freely available on the internet from quality sources, and the common man and woman in the field.

Doesn't mean that Milosevic didn't have it coming to him because he was an SOB.

But neither does it mean that NATO played clean.

(Jugoslavija, 5 February 2016 17:28)

The ground forces had 1 million trained reservists that could be mobilised in wartime (this may be higher when support personal are included, and Im not sure whether TOs were included in the official reserve numbers) - but the total reserves for the entire SFRJ including all service branches was 3.2 million as you stated.

P.S. CE = Chief Economist
(icj1, 5 February 2016 15:48)

----

According to acronym finder web site:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/Business/CE.html
There are 219 definitions for the CE acronym. In the context of business, CE may be used to denote Chief Executive. Though other meanings are included, they do not define CE as Chief Economist.
Other broader uses include: Communauté Européenne (French: European Community); Civil Engineer; Consumer Electronic, Conformité Européenne (European health & safety product label).
We all plainly recognize the extreme difficulty you have in basic reading, comprehension, and simple logical association, however, you may wish to reference appropriate sources before attempting to assign additional conventions to established acronyms.

One more can be added to the previous three.

One day it will come to light what sort of monsters the Serbs are (to use trolling terms), but in time as more wool is removed from peoples eye's, other monsters will begin to appear.

Has any one else been curious, but this Chomsky is pretty popular, I'm sure others must have read this book.

Now that I think about what I said, I have to sound very stupid to make these trolls sound even a little smarter.

--*onslaught's, please*--

If anybody hates Serbs then hate us all, we aren't divided.

I think you'll find that even 45% of Bosnia is enough for us. As you so clearly pointed out, we have 45% territory with 1 million, you obviously have 55% with 2.8 million.

Let us know when it gets a little cramped. Wonder what that will look like, 55% divided by Muslims and possibly Croats

What's the ethos of Islam again?, six children,seven?

NB, I was referring to RS

Why can't B92 have a Chief Economist (CE) with the duties below, which are from a common source:

Chief economist is a single position job class having primary responsibility for the development, coordination, and production of economic and financial analysis. It is distinguished from the other economist positions by the broader scope of responsibility encompassing the planning, supervision, and coordination of the economic research.

I salute you icj1

(So What, 9 February 2016 13:56) Why can't B92 have a Chief Economist (CE) with the duties below, which are from a common source:

Chief economist is a single position job class having primary responsibility for the development, coordination, and production of economic and financial analysis. It is distinguished from the other economist positions by the broader scope of responsibility encompassing the planning, supervision, and coordination of the economic research.

I salute you icj1

---

You'll have to ask B92 why they don't have a chief economist. You'all also have to ask B92 why they don't have a CE, which your common source does not define.

Meanwhile as you're saluting icj1, you may wish to straighten-up, pull-up your underwear and turn around to face icj1. At this point you should inform them that B92 hasn't yet assigned a chief economist or a CE (whatever that means) and suggest that icj1 reword his repetitive drivel as "icj1's chief economist".