Ukraine Redux

[TrashMan]

 

Except they did and the "civilians" were anything but poorly armed.

 

Well ww2 era guns must be heavy armaments for the mighty Croatian Army.

 

The JNA was arming the "civilians" with proper guns. Some grannies had more guns than a battalion. And were as crazy as the biggest jjhadist zealots. which tends to happen when you populate the area with the biggest nationalists and gun nuts.

 

 

 

 

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

Logical fallacies 101

 

Occam's razor.

 

Occams razor is not accepted as proof by anyone.

The simplest explanation is not always the right one.

 

 

 

 

I see you still haven't learned to use wikipedia.

 

I see you still avoid showing proof for your claims. I did try to find some source to corroborate your claim, couldn't find anything. A person would think that you would be all to happy to show proof for you claims, instead you think calling me lazy is gonna prove anything.

 

Given that the wiki is full of links, I find your "couldn't find anything" claims amusing.

But I suppose you only see things that collaborate your views, and everything else is invisible to your eyes.

 

During this entire thread, I provided 20 times more proof than you ever did.

 

 

 

Shield of what. Are you serious? The only reasons for which they didn't attack you was because they had heavy losses from their conflict with us. If you count small raids from the Ottoman empire as a war, then sure be proud.

 

If that was the case, why wasn't Serbia called the Shield of Europe?

How come there are foreign documents calling Croatia that, and not Serbia?

Probably because you have a history of overblowing everything you do and making revisionist histories.

 

 

 

Again do you really think you did anything during the war? If you count burning villages and chasing away civilians, then yes your mighty Croatian army sent us home crying. Be real, had not the West intervened you wouldn't have stood a snowballs chance in hell of doing anything, let alone defeating the YNA (Especially if the main and the largest force joined the war). The only reason the conflict started was because your country had guarantees from the west that if you started a war they would come.

 

Wait..so did you just accept the fact that we were fighting the JNA? As in - there were JNA forces in Croatia?

Are you changing your tune now? Earlier you were claiming that there was no JNA presence in Croatia and we were only fighting civilians the whole time

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the JNA was there the whole time. In large numbers. And it didn't help them. At all.

 

[Tagaziel]

I think it's pretty hard to say what that man sincerely believes from just watching him.

It's the face we see that matters. He might be the most pleasant person in the world, offering free blowjobs from his private harem, but if he speaks out and makes crazy claims, that's what goes into the world and influences folks.

[Malcador]

Pretty interesting way to apply sincerely then, but alrighty.

 

In less serious matters - http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/world/story/crimea-attorney-general-captures-hearts-japanese-fans-20140320

Edited March 20, 2014 by Malcador

[Valsuelm]

 

 

I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO.

 

But then in this debate lets acknowledge this, these spurious justifications that Russia moved into the Crimea because of the illegal removal of Yanukovych and the threat from Fascists are moot. Lets discuss the real reason the Crimean annexation

There's also the little issue of Crimea having large deposits of gas and oil. Like eastern Ukraine. Now guess where "ethnic Russians" are campaigning for a return to the motherland...

 

 

I hadn't actually realised it was the old oil and gas game, like with Chechnya.

 

 

Natural Resources and who gets to exploit them is behind the majority of conflicts in the last half century. It's one of the first things one should look for when looking at a brewing war situation like Crimea. Cui Bono and what from? Nationalism, ethnicity, 'spreading democracy', etc are generally just casus belli manufactured for the general public, they almost never are why any nation is actually doing what it's doing.

[Sarex]

The JNA was arming the "civilians" with proper guns. Some grannies had more guns than a battalion. And were as crazy as the biggest jjhadist zealots. which tends to happen when you populate the area with the biggest nationalists and gun nuts.

 

Man the claims you make, armed grannies and zealots? Really?!

 

 

Occams razor is not accepted as proof by anyone.

The simplest explanation is not always the right one.

 

Not always but damn near every time.

 

 

Given that the wiki is full of links, I find your "couldn't find anything" claims amusing.

But I suppose you only see things that collaborate your views, and everything else is invisible to your eyes.

 

During this entire thread, I provided 20 times more proof than you ever did.

 

You can't find anything either, can you? So much for those 2400 convicted Croats.

 

If that was the case, why wasn't Serbia called the Shield of Europe?

How come there are foreign documents calling Croatia that, and not Serbia?

Probably because you have a history of overblowing everything you do and making revisionist histories.

 

Because you were Catholic and we were Orthodox. Show me were you read about that shield of Europe thing, or at least what country called you that?

 

 

Again do you really think you did anything during the war? If you count burning villages and chasing away civilians, then yes your mighty Croatian army sent us home crying. Be real, had not the West intervened you wouldn't have stood a snowballs chance in hell of doing anything, let alone defeating the YNA (Especially if the main and the largest force joined the war). The only reason the conflict started was because your country had guarantees from the west that if you started a war they would come.

 

Wait..so did you just accept the fact that we were fighting the JNA? As in - there were JNA forces in Croatia?

Are you changing your tune now? Earlier you were claiming that there was no JNA presence in Croatia and we were only fighting civilians the whole time

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the JNA was there the whole time. In large numbers. And it didn't help them. At all.

 

Are you slow? When did I say that YNA wasn't in the war, did you even read what I wrote all this time? YNA wasn't in Croatia, after it was recognized as being independent, but it was in Bosnia. So no I'm not changing anything, it's just your comprehension skills are not up to the task it seems. My claim still stands. So no, YNA and their zealot grannies were not in Croatia and no, Croatia didn't singlehandedly win the war, in fact it's contribution was only the ethnic cleansing that took place at the end of it.

 

I see you have degenerated to pictures now. I fear you will be using crayons next.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Sarex

[Tagaziel]

Natural Resources and who gets to exploit them is behind the majority of conflicts in the last half century. It's one of the first things one should look for when looking at a brewing war situation like Crimea. Cui Bono and what from? Nationalism, ethnicity, 'spreading democracy', etc are generally just casus belli manufactured for the general public, they almost never are why any nation is actually doing what it's doing.

While noting the economic interests of waging war is important, dismissing other root causes as "manufactured for the general public" is silly. There are plenty of reasons war is fought and economics is just a part of them, not the sole reason. Ideology and religion are just two of the most notable.

[BruceVC]

 

Natural Resources and who gets to exploit them is behind the majority of conflicts in the last half century. It's one of the first things one should look for when looking at a brewing war situation like Crimea. Cui Bono and what from? Nationalism, ethnicity, 'spreading democracy', etc are generally just casus belli manufactured for the general public, they almost never are why any nation is actually doing what it's doing.

While noting the economic interests of waging war is important, dismissing other root causes as "manufactured for the general public" is silly. There are plenty of reasons war is fought and economics is just a part of them, not the sole reason. Ideology and religion are just two of the most notable.

 

 

I agree 100 %, Rostere summed it up nicely in his post on the invasion of Iraq. I'll add another reason wars are fought and its nationalism, like WW1. Its similar to ideology but different in its own respects

[Valsuelm]

 

While noting the economic interests of waging war is important, dismissing other root causes as "manufactured for the general public" is silly. There are plenty of reasons war is fought and economics is just a part of them, not the sole reason. Ideology and religion are just two of the most notable.

 

 

There are exceptions to what I stated, hence me writing 'almost never' but they are rare in modern times, and absent from most if not all major conflicts western nations have been involved in. Ideology/religion have played almost no role in almost all wars in the last half century other than to galvanize some support amongst the masses. Most of the folks who are calling the shots in this world at this point really don't give a poop about the peasants and are motivated by greed and power, things such as ideologies and religion are just tools for them to manipulate the peasants into doing what they wish.

 

Most of the exceptions to this can be found in Africa, but even there it's often outside interests (usually European) manipulating the locals in a divide and conquer fashion to gain access to resources.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

I agree 100 %, Rostere summed it up nicely in his post on the invasion of Iraq. I'll add another reason wars are fought and its nationalism, like WW1. Its similar to ideology but different in its own respects

 

 

Nationalism is an ideology Bruce... and it's not why wars are fought in modern times. Anyone who thinks that buys into the manipulations and propaganda of those who are behind the war.

[BruceVC]

 

 

While noting the economic interests of waging war is important, dismissing other root causes as "manufactured for the general public" is silly. There are plenty of reasons war is fought and economics is just a part of them, not the sole reason. Ideology and religion are just two of the most notable.

 

 

There are exceptions to what I stated, hence me writing 'almost never' but they are rare in modern times, and absent from most if not all major conflicts western nations have been involved in. Ideology/religion have played almost no role in almost all wars in the last half century other than to galvanize some support amongst the masses. Most of the folks who are calling the shots in this world at this point really don't give a poop about the peasants and are motivated by greed and power, things such as ideologies and religion are just tools for them.

 

Most of the exceptions to this can be found in Africa, but even there it's often outside interests (usually European) manipulating the locals in a divide and conquer fashion to gain access to resources.

 

 

Nah, less wars in this modern age are about resources or resources is just part of the reason and a smaller part.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I agree 100 %, Rostere summed it up nicely in his post on the invasion of Iraq. I'll add another reason wars are fought and its nationalism, like WW1. Its similar to ideology but different in its own respects

 

 

Nationalism is an ideology Bruce... and it's not why wars are fought in modern times. Anyone who thinks that buys into the manipulations and propaganda of those who are behind the war.

 

 

I don't know if I  agree to that definition...but I could be convinced? For me the Cold War was a war of ideology but for example the Bosnian War was about nationalism

[Meshugger]

 

Wait, you have more confidence in Al-Jazeera than in RT? 

 

I mean really, whose sock puppet account is this? really?

 

You should visit their site more often and check them out for yourself... http://www.aljazeera.com/

 

Al Jazeera is way more credible than RT. I fact, I think it's generally one of the best news sources when it comes to the ME and developing countries in general. To be honest, I have no idea why people would feel they are a bad news source. Maybe it's because uninformed bigots think "Al Jazeera" sounds like "Al Qaeda"? They obviously have a focus - the ME - which shapes what news they're interested in reporting (just like most American news channels have a focus on the US), but that's pretty much it. Personally, I think that their great coverage of the Iraq war (considering they were the only independent news source on the ground), and the later far more crucial role during the Arab Spring has made them the most important - with respect to how much they have changed the previous status quo - news channel thus far into this century.

 

For people in the ME, real (non-English) journalism on TV not tied to their government or other political movements was often very scarce until Al Jazeera came along. AJ was also the first Arab news channel to feature Israelis on panels debating the I-P conflict and during Cast Lead they had an IDF spokesperson in pretty much every news update, that should say something about their intent of impartiality. To compare, name one US news channel which regularly features comment from Palestinian spokespersons on news updates about the I-P conflict. Here's a recent feature I watched the other day about international arms trade, featuring arms trade experts from SIPRI and Jane's Information Group. Watch yourself and see if you think it's professional and serious news TV. This is another feature I saw linked a lot on Facebook earlier.

 

Their "Opinion" pieces by independent journalists can feature crackpots at times though, but at least they draw the line clearly to separate their serious journalism from "interesting opinions from unrelated people".

 

 

I watched Al-Jazeera several times during my business trips and RT as well. Frankly, i see little difference between them except for geographical orientation on their news, which comes naturally. Which is why Bruce's opinion stumped me on how he can so easily dismiss one channel over the other.

[Valsuelm]

 

Nah, less wars in this modern age are about resources or resources is just part of the reason and a smaller part.

 

 

I have bridges I'd like to sell you.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

I agree 100 %, Rostere summed it up nicely in his post on the invasion of Iraq. I'll add another reason wars are fought and its nationalism, like WW1. Its similar to ideology but different in its own respects

 

 

Nationalism is an ideology Bruce... and it's not why wars are fought in modern times. Anyone who thinks that buys into the manipulations and propaganda of those who are behind the war.

 

 

I don't know if I  agree to that definition...but I could be convinced? For me the Cold War was a war of ideology but for example the Bosnian War was about nationalism

 

 

The 'cold war' was not an actual war, however yes, that had a lot to do with economic ideology: Capitalism vs. Socialism/Communism, which could itself could easily be argued to be fundamentally about resources.

 

The Bosnian war was divide and conquer war about resources where the Bosnians, Serbs, and other locals lost, and some powerful economic interests of Germany, U.S. U.K., and other NATO powers won. It's fairly well described in the video Sarex posted that you refused to watch. It was also about isolating Russia economically and NATO took advantage of the fact that Russia was down for the count and under bad leadership for a bit, it paid off for them. They tried it again with Ukraine, but this time Russia was no longer down for the count and no longer under bad leadership (Putin's evil, don't get me wrong... but leading is something he is good at).

[Tagaziel]

The 'cold war' was not an actual war, however yes, that had a lot to do with economic ideology: Capitalism vs. Socialism/Communism, which could itself could easily be argued to be fundamentally about resources.

 

The Bosnian war was divide and conquer war about resources where the Bosnians, Serbs, and other locals lost, and some powerful economic interests of Germany, U.S. U.K., and other NATO powers won. It's fairly well described in the video Sarex posted that you refused to watch. It was also about isolating Russia economically and NATO took advantage of the fact that Russia was down for the count and under bad leadership for a bit, it paid off for them. They tried it again with Ukraine, but this time Russia was no longer down for the count and no longer under bad leadership (Putin's evil, don't get me wrong... but leading is something he is good at).

The fact that you have to argue about it is a pretty strong clue that resources weren't the primary reason. The Cold War was a conflict between democracy/capitalism and communism/planned economics, fought through proxy wars. The plethora of such conflicts, most notably the 19 year long Vietnam war, were motivated primarily by ideology. The containment strategy utilized by the United States was also ideologically motivated, to stop the spread of communism.

 

There are other reasons. For example, violence in Africa is often motivated by ethnicity and religion, rather than control over resources. The same goes for the wars in former Yugoslavia, which were fraught with atrocities. The wars fought by Israel were wars of survival, where its opponents were motivated by the desire to extinguish the fledgling nation. I can keep bringing these examples up.

 

Also, if you're going to make extraordinary claims about Euromaidan being funded and orchestrated by the West, please provide extraordinary evidence to back your claims up.

[Valsuelm]

The fact that you have to argue about it is a pretty strong clue that resources weren't the primary reason.

 

 

That is an amazingly stupid argument that if accepted invalidates pretty much every argument for anything ever, including your own. Perhaps you meant to phrase it differently.

 

The Vietnam War or Second Indochina War (a more apt name) which is really just an extension of the First Indochina War was about a myriad of things, almost all of which boil down to imperialism and resources. The exceptionally uberlucrative drug trade (namely opium), oil, having Indochina under the western capitalist umbrella (which was dominated by the U.S. and U.K.), acting as a check to growing Chinese communist power that was gobbling up resources in Asia, expanding the Anglo-American empire at the expense of the French and the Vietnamese (French were no better there, they just got wrestled out), and Vietnam's strategic location near the very economically important Straights of Malacca to name a few.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Tagaziel]

That is an amazingly stupid argument that if accepted invalidates pretty much every argument for anything ever, including your own. Perhaps you meant to phrase it differently.

I meant the fact that you have to argue and explain at length why it's all about resources, not eg. the lengthy list of reasons you cite.

 

The Vietnam War or Second Indochina War (a more apt name) which is really just an extension of the First Indochina War was about a myriad of things, almost all of which boil down to imperialism and resources. The exceptionally uberlucrative drug trade (namely opium), oil, having Indochina under the western capitalist umbrella (which was dominated by the U.S. and U.K.), acting as a check to growing Chinese communist power that was gobbling up resources in Asia, expanding the Anglo-American empire at the expense of the French and the Vietnamese (French were no better there, they just got wrestled out), and Vietnam's strategic location near the very economically important Straights of Malacca to name a few.

Thank you. A very complex web of reasons for one of the worst wars America fought.

[Zoraptor]

I think it's pretty hard to say what that man sincerely believes from just watching him.

 

Yeah, I rather suspect he's of the opinion that whatever he says will be spun negatively in the west ("cat lovers disgusted at Putin's pro puppy stance") so he deliberately trolls for the visceral thrill of bunching morons panties, rather too many half smiles after saying something controversial for it to be coincidence. Indeed, one of his old advisors said that he basically does do it deliberately on Al-J.

[Mor]

@Valsuelm, I read your latest posts and I agree with most of it, though none of it is out of the ordinary for general discussion about war, what I didn't see is you making a point in relation to the topic at hand.

 

@Zoraptor, Again the everyone misunderstand Putin, Russia or what happens in Russia.. Also most of us don't care what Putin "sincerely believes" (no more than I care about family values and kissing babies during elections), since actions speaks louder. Also I don't know what his advisors said, what I do know that he pays a lot of money for western PR groups and that during his ~15 years of rule he has been meticulously maintaining his image, resulting in a personality cult of a sort.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Mor

[BruceVC]

 

I think it's pretty hard to say what that man sincerely believes from just watching him.

 

Yeah, I rather suspect he's of the opinion that whatever he says will be spun negatively in the west ("cat lovers disgusted at Putin's pro puppy stance") so he deliberately trolls for the visceral thrill of bunching morons panties, rather too many half smiles after saying something controversial for it to be coincidence. Indeed, one of his old advisors said that he basically does do it deliberately on Al-J.

 

 

You guys need to realize that despite what you think the concept of Trolling is an Internet phenomena, don't mistake behavior on forums with behavior in RL. World leaders don't " Troll" they make strategic decisions that have real consequences in the best interests of there country

[Nepenthe]

 

 

I think it's pretty hard to say what that man sincerely believes from just watching him.

 

Yeah, I rather suspect he's of the opinion that whatever he says will be spun negatively in the west ("cat lovers disgusted at Putin's pro puppy stance") so he deliberately trolls for the visceral thrill of bunching morons panties, rather too many half smiles after saying something controversial for it to be coincidence. Indeed, one of his old advisors said that he basically does do it deliberately on Al-J.

 

 

You guys need to realize that despite what you think the concept of Trolling is an Internet phenomena, don't mistake behavior on forums with behavior in RL. World leaders don't " Troll" they make strategic decisions that have real consequences in the best interests of there country

 

 

Clearly you've never had to deal with the corruption of power... I see it regularly in how some loser becomes a minor cabinet secretary and starts immediately having delusions of grandeur... now imagine that scale up to the level of czar putin. Ho boy.

 

 

Russia’s expansionist actions in Ukraine pose a real threat for Sweden, and one that could be repeated in the Baltic states, said Peter Hultqvist, chairman of the Parliamentary Defense Committee (PDC).

 

Umm. No, not really. There is no historical claim or contested land that Russia could invade to 'protect' local Russians. 

 

Well, apart from Finland.

 

 

 

 

 

I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO.

 

But then in this debate lets acknowledge this, these spurious justifications that Russia moved into the Crimea because of the illegal removal of Yanukovych and the threat from Fascists are moot. Lets discuss the real reason the Crimean annexation

There's also the little issue of Crimea having large deposits of gas and oil. Like eastern Ukraine. Now guess where "ethnic Russians" are campaigning for a return to the motherland...

 

 

I hadn't actually realised it was the old oil and gas game, like with Chechnya.

 

 

Natural Resources and who gets to exploit them is behind the majority of conflicts in the last half century. It's one of the first things one should look for when looking at a brewing war situation like Crimea. Cui Bono and what from? Nationalism, ethnicity, 'spreading democracy', etc are generally just casus belli manufactured for the general public, they almost never are why any nation is actually doing what it's doing.

 

 

True. I was under the impression that this was just about buffer zones in reality, but it was even more base than that. Looks like there are several layers of maskirovka this time around.

[obyknven]

Price of confrontation with Russia - USA lose 100 billions dollars per day and it's only beginning.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/14/russia-suspected-of-pulling-billions-of-dollars-out-of-the-us-feds-grasp/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-14/it-begins-past-week-foreigners-sell-record-amount-over-100-billion-treasurys-held-fe

 

A month ago we reported that according to much delayed TIC data, China had just dumped the second-largest amount of US Treasurys in history. The problem, of course, with this data is that it is stale and very backward looking. For a much better, and up to date, indicator of what foreigners are doing with US Treasurys in near real time, the bond watchers keep track of a less known data series, called "Treasury Securities Held in Custody for Foreign Official and International Accounts" which as the name implies shows what foreigners are doing with their Treasury securities held in custody by the Fed on a weekly basis. So here it goes: in the just reported latest data, for the week ended March 12, Treasurys held in custody by the Fed dropped to $2.855 trillion: a drop of $104.5 billion. This was the biggest drop of Treasurys held by the Fed on record, i.e., foreigners were really busy selling.

This brings the total Treasury holdings in custody at the Fed to levels not seen since December 2012, a period during which the Fed alone has monetized well over $1 trillion in US paper.

 

 

Meanwhile dear comrade Obama promise  moar sanctions for god of sanction.

[BruceVC]

Price of confrontation with Russia - USA lose 100 billions dollars per day and it's only beginning.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/14/russia-suspected-of-pulling-billions-of-dollars-out-of-the-us-feds-grasp/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-14/it-begins-past-week-foreigners-sell-record-amount-over-100-billion-treasurys-held-fe

 

A month ago we reported that according to much delayed TIC data, China had just dumped the second-largest amount of US Treasurys in history. The problem, of course, with this data is that it is stale and very backward looking. For a much better, and up to date, indicator of what foreigners are doing with US Treasurys in near real time, the bond watchers keep track of a less known data series, called "Treasury Securities Held in Custody for Foreign Official and International Accounts" which as the name implies shows what foreigners are doing with their Treasury securities held in custody by the Fed on a weekly basis. So here it goes: in the just reported latest data, for the week ended March 12, Treasurys held in custody by the Fed dropped to $2.855 trillion: a drop of $104.5 billion. This was the biggest drop of Treasurys held by the Fed on record, i.e., foreigners were really busy selling.

This brings the total Treasury holdings in custody at the Fed to levels not seen since December 2012, a period during which the Fed alone has monetized well over $1 trillion in US paper.

 

 

Meanwhile dear comrade Obama promise  moar sanctions for god of sanction.

 

Oby here are real facts that since Russia invaded Crimea the Russian economy has been badly effected... your credit ratings have tumbled,your main stock market index has fallen by roughly 20% and your currency has hit historic lows against the dollar. No matter what you pretend to believe whenever the West gets hit hard economically because of Crimea Russia gets hit twice as hard

 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/03/20/sp-cuts-outlook-on-russia-to-negative/

 

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/17/news/economy/russia-crimea-sanctions/index.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/fitch-downgrades-russia-outlook-negative-over-ukraine-crisis-064301757.html;_ylt=A0LEVx.mDCxTljwAMKVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbThmbm1hBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1NNRTM4OV8x

[TrashMan]

 

 

Nationalism is an ideology Bruce... and it's not why wars are fought in modern times. Anyone who thinks that buys into the manipulations and propaganda of those who are behind the war.

 

 

I don't know if I  agree to that definition...but I could be convinced? For me the Cold War was a war of ideology but for example the Bosnian War was about nationalism

 

 

All wars boil down to the same - convincing people that violence is the answer to their problems. Convincing them that they are in danger (moral, cultural, physical, economical), their self-interest and protective impulses channeled outwards will do the rest.

 

The greatest of crimes are committed with people thinking them for the good. Justifications differ. Explanations differ. But in it's core it's all the same.

All wars are nothing but a litany of excuses and smokescreens. Nationalism, religion - those things are not at the core.

[TrashMan]

 

Man the claims you make, armed grannies and zealots? Really?!

 

Are you saying that it's impossible for Serbs to be zealots? Or that it's impossible for a granny to hold a gun?

 

 

 

 

 

Occams razor is not accepted as proof by anyone.

The simplest explanation is not always the right one.

 

Not always but damn near every time.

 

Not even close. And it's damn poor at history and political/social sciences, because they are everything but simple.

 

 

 

 

You can't find anything either, can you? So much for those 2400 convicted Croats.

 

You again like to ignore the links and black on white.

Go ahead and claim that wikipedia lies about everything.

 

I asked you to provide a number of Serbian court cases. Provide SOMETHING.

 

 

 

 

Are you slow? When did I say that YNA wasn't in the war, did you even read what I wrote all this time? YNA wasn't in Croatia, after it was recognized as being independent, but it was in Bosnia. So no I'm not changing anything, it's just your comprehension skills are not up to the task it seems. My claim still stands. So no, YNA and their zealot grannies were not in Croatia and no, Croatia didn't singlehandedly win the war, in fact it's contribution was only the ethnic cleansing that took place at the end of it.

 

And you have been proven wrong on all of it, but you refuse to believe.

 

Despite video evidence. Despite black-on-white papers. Despite your own president confirming it.

JNA was in Croatia. Fighting. It was in Knin. It was in Vukovar. During the entire war.

JNA tanks. JNA aircraft. JNA ships. JNA soldiers. All in Croatia, long after independance was declared.

 

 

Any further discussion is pointless.

 

 

 

I see you have degenerated to pictures now. I fear you will be using crayons next.

 

I could be using feces and it would still be a million years ahead of your posts.

 

Edited March 21, 2014 by TrashMan