To our Slovenian friends

[Ivan]

Slovenia Sours on NATO
Toronto Sun | 4/28/02


'Freedom in, NATO out': Slovene view of alliance sours

LJUBLJANA (AP) -- It's been a Slovene political mantra for more than a decade: the ultimate goal is to join NATO.
Now, just when membership seems like a sure thing, Slovenes are no longer certain they want to tie their future to the alliance.

"Freedom in, NATO out!" says fresh graffiti in the capital Ljubljana. Slovene news media have begun openly questioning the benefits of NATO membership and anti-NATO activists are regularly being given a say in public debates and television shows.

For the first time, support for NATO membership has dropped below 50 per cent, said a government-financed survey last month.

It's all happening just six months before the former Yugoslav republic may finally be invited to join the alliance at a November summit on NATO expansion in Prague. Up to 10 Baltic and East European countries are expected to join the alliance, which took in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic in 1999.

Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel calls the sudden shift a "striking paradox."

"We are one of the top candidates for entry, yet we seem to have the least public support for this goal," he said recently.

Ever since gaining independence in 1991, Slovenia's pro-western leadership has worked hard to make the country of two million people, bordered by Italy, Hungary and Croatia, a part of the European Union and NATO.

For Balkan and southern European countries, the EU and NATO long have been seen as a ticket to wealth, success -- and the West.

Slovenia's first victory came with associate membership in the EU in 1996; the first blow with NATO rejection a year later. Since then, Slovenia has initiated a flurry of measures and diplomatic efforts in hopes of making sure an invitation to join is a sure thing in November.

The last thing the government needed -- or expected -- was to see public support erode.

Rupel acknowledged anti-NATO activists have created a "noise that's heard far away."

"NATO's member states and its leadership are now asking us whether we really want to become a member," he said.

Opponents of NATO membership are not well-organized. There are some students and professors and several prominent journalists and sociologists. They haven't staged a single demonstration -- but they're speaking up and the mainstream media have given them a stage.

But opponents of membership insist it's too expensive because the government will have to spend money on weaponry and military reorganization and they contend tiny Slovenia will never be heard among the big NATO players.

Others wonder: what's the point? Slovenia enjoys peaceful relations with its neighbours, they argue and not even NATO could thwart the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Miso Alkalaj an anti-NATO activist, said the attacks on the United States, a mighty NATO force, showed "there was no real defence against terrorism, the No. 1 threat of today's world."

In many ways, Slovenia already belongs to the West.

It has a vigorous economy and a stable government. Support for the EU, which unlike NATO promises concrete economic benefits, remains high.
Even so, the government has realized it must fight to ensure NATO membership doesn't slip from its grasp.

Rupel has publicly urged President Milan Kucan to engage opponents. Government officials are preaching the benefits of membership at every opportunity. The NATO question dominates TV talk shows and a special phone line has been set up to give Slovenes more information about the alliance.

"We haven't used all our ammunition yet," Rupel said.

[Fantastic]

I think we should join the NATO. You know the American policy "you are with us or against us", so better for our small country to be with the devil. :rolleyes: :D

[pilatus]

I think so too

[Ivan]

I don't know if this is true, since I've never seen an official historical document confirming that it is, but I've heard stories that Tito was offered to join NATO when it was first forming! But he refused :dontcare: :rolleyes: :redeyes:

[Fantastic]

Smart guy :D :smoking:

[OAnimal]

NATO sucks. We don't need to get the membership. We can do fine without it - like Austria and Switzerland for example.

[Walter BC]

Well it's a delicate question this one. As said it seems that the support for joining NATO is dropping constantly. I see the main reason for that in the way NATO is lead, it's rulled by the US, and people aren't all that excited about that. All the talk how democratic NATO is and all come to end when an imoprtant matter is to be dissgusted, and that it's all dictated by the US interests. I'd like to see in NATO a true protector of human rights, and preventor of "all evil", but not as a promotor and enforcer of US politics in Europe and the rest of the world! This is the main reason to me why the support is not there where it should be.
To me questions of how much we should pay for it, and what our role would be in the alliance are not all that critical as some would like to present. Because if we stay on our own, we must realise all would be even more expensive, and the fact is we never could take care of our own protection in the way we could in the alliance. And I don't know how people can talk about how we will never be endangered again, that our naighbours are peacefull, and things like that. At the moment it is so, but will it be so in some future. Remember what our nation has gone through in the past centuries. I'm not saying NATO is a guarantee that nothing bad can happen to us ever again, but it's better if you can lean on someone that have the potential to help you.
Now I have to finish since I have to go home from work, but I'm sure we'll be in touch.

[Red Devil]

Well, I know a lot about pros and cons of NATO, but I am not going to speak about that here.

I will only say one thing from Slovenian point of view: Can you imagine Slovenia rejecting NATO invitation this year and Croatia being accepted to NATO five to ten years from now? Do you know what would this mean for Slovenian reputation and for the unsolved matters with Croatia?

Red Devil

[Porca Troia]

it is not whether you want to join NATO or not. it is whether you can afford to join NATO or not. you give examples of austria and switzerland. you compare the minefield you live in to these epitomes of western civilization. france is not part of NATO either, but they have the technology and nuclear power to confront many enemies. you have no choice in the matter. either join or crumble.

[OAnimal]

Originally posted by Porca Troia
it is not whether you want to join NATO or not. it is whether you can afford to join NATO or not. you give examples of austria and switzerland. you compare the minefield you live in to these epitomes of western civilization.
Why do you even bother with the questions that are not of your concern? Minefield? This just tells me, you have no idea what you are speaking about, pal.

[Red Devil]

Originally posted by Porca Troia
it is not whether you want to join NATO or not. it is whether you can afford to join NATO or not. you give examples of austria and switzerland. you compare the minefield you live in to these epitomes of western civilization. france is not part of NATO either, but they have the technology and nuclear power to confront many enemies. you have no choice in the matter. either join or crumble.

That is simply not true. Slovenians do not live in any minefield and are threatened by no enemies. USA for example has much more to worry about. It is a matter of political reputation and economic rating.

Red Devil

[tok87]

Well, thats a nice question, i dont know what to answer to you yet.
If u join u have some positive and some negative points and viceversa is the same.

I have to think a litlle bit more.

[Petko]

I say Slovenia should do the same thing as I think Yugoslavia should do, don't join
Yeah, USA will have your back and what not :rolleyes: but you guys aren't really in so much danger, as for Yugo, we can take care of our current enemies by ourselves, if only no one, including NATO doesn't step in to decide otherwise
Not to mention that Russia is very powerful still, as much as people might deny, and along with China, can become the world power in a few years time
And we all know (hopefully) that NATO has been formed, mainly to keep an eye on China and surround Russia
For the Slovenes especially, it would be very unnecessary that you guys should join, just like Switzerland, Slovenia is generally a very peaceful country :)
As for Yugo, (I know this is off topic) why should be join a group that is being run under USA when they've just destroyed our country in the past 10 - 15 years? :mad2:

[Majk]

We don't need NATO and we can do just fine without it. The proof for that are some European countries which are not members of NATO but still have blossoming economies and highly developed societies. These countries are Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, just for example.
The main reason why I'm against NATO is simple. I don't want to be a member of an organisation which is led, controlled and dominated by the biggest global terrorist of the 20th century- that is the United States. America's foreign policy just sickens me and when i look at all the terror that they have spread around the world and all the attrocities they have committed i'm completely confident that i don't want to support such a country. And it's disgusting to listen our politicians sucking up to America and talking about shared values. Thank you very much for such values. Moral reasons itself are enough for me to say no to NATO.

And when pro-NATO activists say that joining NATO will provide security and stability, a question rises. How will joining the organisation that is currently at war provide us safety and stability? I mean, just use the common sense. NATO is at war and our safety and stability will improve if we join them?

[Petko]

MAJK - :thumbsup:

:)

[Porca Troia]

you are in no danger?!?!?
are you guys asleep or naive?
the war today is no longer communism vs. capitalism
the war today is islam vs. christianity
you are the gateway to europe for muslims and the US and western europe are well aware.
join or crumble.

[ItalianBoy]

I think its Muslims Vs. Freedom.
Cuz I aint no religious person and according to a poll 1 out of 4 people belive in god. So you can see what I mean.

[Andrija PFC]

Ha Porca, explain how NATO membership will save Slovenia from Islam? Look at immigration in the West: so many Muslims! 6 million in France! And France is a NATO member!

2nd, Slovenia, if it joins NATO, should be ready to two things:
1) increase military budget
2) send its soldiers to places like Afghanistan

[ItalianBoy]

Well actually the only country that gets soldiers sent is the USA! to then get talked shit form people like you.
They save your ass BUT! they are the ugly yanks! Anyway. IMO we should really watch this immigration thing.

[OAnimal]

Majk, very well said. :thumbsup:

There is no christianity vs islam war. There is a war against terorism under way, but to say terorism = islam is just to easy - it's not like that.

[Porca Troia]

from this side of the atlantic, you undeveloped swine, it is a war on terrorism. however, in the pile of dust these terrorists come from it's a jihad. call it whatever, you guys are stuck in the middle. you will need to make very important decisions for your own welfare.
and you idiot, france is NOT part of NATO, that is why you never hear of them in any war. that is why they don't allow for allied forces to fly over their country.

[Red_Bandit]

http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm

http://www.dlis.dla.mil/nato/default.asp

i guess these websites are wrong and Porca is right when he says France is not part of NATO
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Red Devil]

Porca Troia, get real and watch your behaviour! It seems you are one of those Americans who think that the USA is centre of the world and know nothing about what is happening outside the USA.

Red Devil

[Fantastic]

Originally posted by Porca Troia
france is NOT part of NATO, that is why you never hear of them in any war. that is why they don't allow for allied forces to fly over their country.

And that is was they waren`t attacked by terrorists :rolleyes:

[ItalianBoy]

Originally posted by Red Devil
Porca Troia, get real and watch your behaviour! It seems you are one of those Americans who think that the USA is centre of the world and know nothing about what is happening outside the USA.

Red Devil

Actually thats the way you guys treat us! You say this dumb things like " keep watching CNN" come on! We aint stupid like you like us to be! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I think that the real question is this:
Would it benefit NATO is Slovenia joined them?;) :silly: :D

[Porca Troia]

label me as an unworldly yankee if it pleases you. although i am far from it, i will take that over the gypsy inbred you are.

[Andrija PFC]

Don't yell at Porca, he's just confused. He can't distinguish between the fact that France simply has a special status within NATO (they don't want US troops on their soil - De Gaulle got this special status back in the 60s I think), but that it is, nonetheless, a member. Second, it's not just the USA sending troops around, I believe most of the NATO troops in the Balkans for example, are non-American. Also, Romania (which is not even part of NATO but wishes to be) will be sending a few hundred soldiers to Afghanistan.

[ItalianBoy]

But that ones that fight are always Americans or ENG. I never heard of the great Slovenian army or Italian or French or German etc to do anything as big as the USA or the ENG have done.

[Petko]

But Italianboy, think about it, according the the US the American's won the WORLD WAR 2 :rolleyes:
Obviously they won't say it was someone else because they want to take all the glory

[ItalianBoy]

And they are right! If it was not for them we would most likely speak German! hitler almost had the Atom! And plus not ALL the warII but at least 70% of the major fights were won by the USA, which had nothign to do with EUR!

[Red Devil]

Originally posted by ItalianBoy

Anyway, I think that the real question is this:
Would it benefit NATO is Slovenia joined them?;) :silly: :D

This is going to be a surprise for you! Slovenia is not (yet) a part of NATO and it exists only for a little more than 10 years, but Slovenian soldiers already did more good than many other countries! They were and are still participating in many UN peace-keeping actions all around the Balkans. They know the region and are respected there much more than other NATO and UN soldiers. Slovenia also played a big role in international diplomatic relations with the Balkans already.

Yes, Slovenia can contribute a lot to the NATO! Especially to the reputation of NATO (as part of peace-keeping and humanitarian missions, similar than in UN). They have great experience from the former federaly organized Yugoslavia, they know the Balkans well (and there will always be tensions there) and its geographical location is of strategic importance.

Red Devil

[ItalianBoy]

Other than reapeting 10 times that they know the Balkans well you havent said much, but thanks for the Info.

[Petko]

ItalianBoy, I must disagree, USA didn't do sh!t in WW2, Hitler was already defeated before they got involved
If anyone deserves the credit, it should be the Russians, they were the ones that pretty much won the war
Not to mention the Serbs played a major role in it too :D
As for USA, they bombed Japan, and thats about it, everything else that they supposedly won, was already won by the other Allied countries (France, England, Russia, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc.)

[Ivan]

We are not going to start this conversation again, are we?

Let's face it - Americans did not "win" the WWII by themselves, and I doubt Europe would have won the war had the Americans not gotten involved (at least the war wouldn't have been won as quickly as it was)

But again, it is worth pointing out that America did not directly get involved in WWII, until they were first attacked. So, in as much as it was the strength and inteliigence of Europe/America that defeated the Axis, it was the stupidity and greed of the the Axis (Hitler invading Russia, Japan bombing Pearl Harbor) that got them their defeat.

[Red Devil]

If we are going to start talking about WWII, than I am withdrawing from this discussion.

Red Devil

[ItalianBoy]

Petko come on! history is history you cant change or interpret it like you prefer! the USA helped us a lot! ENG was so down and USA gave a lot of suppurt in any way. Greece? come on! France? they were taken! the USA is the major resposible one.

[Petko]

I disagree, Russia was the main reason why we won, but all those countries including Greece and France played major roles
Do you not remember that in Greece or Turkey, the Greek and Serb forces with held the Germans and in that case, the Germans had to pull out many of their forces from Russia, not too mention the war in Yugoslavia was so well faught by the Serbs that the Germans had to delay their attack on Russia by months, which then forced them to attack in the winter which proved to be the biggest mistake

[ItalianBoy]

Russia was the final BOOM for hitler, he made the same mistake has Napolean, still the USA had a major role for sure.

[Petko]

Whatever :rolleyes:

You have your opinion, I have mine...

[Severus]

Originally posted by Petko
ItalianBoy, I must disagree, USA didn't do sh!t in WW2, Hitler was already defeated before they got involved
If anyone deserves the credit, it should be the Russians, they were the ones that pretty much won the war
Not to mention the Serbs played a major role in it too :D
As for USA, they bombed Japan, and thats about it, everything else that they supposedly won, was already won by the other Allied countries (France, England, Russia, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc.)

actually, if it wasn't for the US, the russians would've been forced to concentrate also on the japanese rather than solely focusing on the nazis. meaning ... they would've got crushed ! furthermore, the japanese were about to surrender when president truman launched the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki. they didn't just bomb japan they beat them thoroughly first.

[Super Croat]

I don't think it matter's much either way. There are advantages for joining NATO and disadvantages. For a country like Slovenia it could benefit for staying out of NATO and being known for it's neutrality. Joining could have econmic benefits as it would give more stability in terms for business and investment.

[OAnimal]

USA didn't win the WWII, neither did Russia, England or any other superpower. It was the coallition between USA, England, Russia, France and nevertheless, nations from ex Yugoslavia, that won it. Germany, Italy and Japan were so powerful, that it took all these great nations fighting together to defeat fascism.

And now we got Porca, living in the world's best country in all aspects, calling us idiots, gipsies and underdeveloped swines... :rolleyes: :sick:

BTW, I agree with part of Supercroat's post, Slovenija should declare itself neutral instead of licking the US asses.

[Severus]

ma i don't understand you people seriously ! its not about US kunt licking --- slovenia is a fairly new country with lots of upside that just so happen to be in a transition period. becoming part of NATO would just ease the transition because of the economic benefits they'd receive --- it has nothing to do with kissing butt ! furthermore, they don't have a sound financial foundation to build upon like the swiss do if they went the neutrality route. slovenia i reckon, despite the potential would benefit greatly by being part of NATO.

you lot are so anti-american that you would risk the economic prosperity of your country just so you're not affiliated with an organization which just so happens to be home of the US .. :confused:

[Petko]

Slovenia is doing alright on its own right now, and they can continue to do good on there own without having to joing NATO

[OAnimal]

It's not about being anti-US. The problem is, I don't really see any great economic benefit for Slovenia, if we join NATO. We would have to pay quite a lot of money for membership, plus we would have to change much of our current weaponry (which would cost another great amount of money) - OK, we would achieve the NATO protection, but we are safe enough without it. We have no real threat from our neighbours and I am not afraid of islamic terrorists - we do not make shit in their countries and they will not harm us - islamic terrorists are US problem and I do not want to be part of it.

[Majk]

Originally posted by Severus
becoming part of NATO would just ease the transition because of the economic benefits they'd receive --- it has nothing to do with kissing butt !
you lot are so anti-american that you would risk the economic prosperity of your country just so you're not affiliated with an organization which just so happens to be home of the US .. :confused:

There aren't any calculations, any researches, any solid facts which would prove that membership in NATO brings economic benefits. Benefits that would represent a considerable plus for NATO in our process of deciding. For example Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland have highly developed economies although none of these countries is a NATO member. Ireland even had one of the highest rates of foreign investments in the world, especially investments from the USA.
On the other hand, none of the countries that joined NATO during its last enlargement (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic) experienced a significant improvements in their economies. NATO doesn't bring any miraculous boost for economy which is exactly what some pro-NATO politicians promise us in their propaganda.

[ItalianBoy]

I agree with Sev. And OAnimal, are you deep into the SLO politics? cuz if you aint, how can you know what will NATO bring? IAlso, the Islamic attack the USa now, but they also try to attack every other country that lives freely ( and smatly). And also, SLO for now its not Swiss, so your economy aint as good as it coudl be. But, if you really cant stand the idea of joining then hey, dont.

[Fantastic]

Originally posted by Majk


There aren't any calculations, any researches, any solid facts which would prove that membership in NATO brings economic benefits.

No???!! What abaut Czeck Rep?! They have gain much of a profit or better to say foregein investments. They are know world wide as a "friend" of the west civilized world and that is because they have joined NATO!!! And another interesting thing. When they had have referendum, there were only 53% citizens for mebership, today they are more than 80%!! Isn`t that strange?! :rolleyes:



Benefits that would represent a considerable plus for NATO in our process of deciding. For example Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland have highly developed economies although none of these countries is a NATO member. Ireland even had one of the highest rates of foreign investments in the world, especially investments from the USA.

Yes, these countries ain`t memeber of NATo, but did you aked your self why?!

Lets begin with Austria; when NATo was created, they forbit AUS to join them, so the country could be neutral. Why?! Because that was a pšolitical dessision!

Swiss; that is country of Franch, German and Italian people, wich was always neutral, so why change it now if that hows benefits to all!

But both of them are thinkig to join the NATO. Why, if that is such a crime and doesn`t bring any good?!


You are wondering why Irland, and north countries (SWE,...)had one of the highest rates of foreign investments in the world, especially investments from the USA despite that they ain`t mebers of NATO. That is because they allready on of the "godd" countries in the eyes of the west world, so the ydon`t need another "brandmark", what NATO certanly is!

But still even if all of that countries ain`t mebers, they support NATO and are collaboreting with that organization and even sent there soldiers to crise places all over the world.


NATO doesn't bring any miraculous boost for economy which is exactly what some pro-NATO politicians promise us in their propaganda.

No, it doesn`t but it just give you the opportunity for do something good for your economics! Without that, we`ll be just another post-comunist country who is agains "civilized" world! NATO is today not only the millitary organization but also lets say "economic opportunity". It is a "brandmark" which is saying, that is a good and SAVE country, so you can do business with. Isn`t that what you want Slovenia would be?!

BTW you can depite joining NATO have your oppinion of NATO policy or let say American policy and still taking benefits that these organization brings you! Don`t think with your "soul" but your brains!

[Severus]

Originally posted by Majk


There aren't any calculations, any researches, any solid facts which would prove that membership in NATO brings economic benefits. Benefits that would represent a considerable plus for NATO in our process of deciding. For example Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland have highly developed economies although none of these countries is a NATO member. Ireland even had one of the highest rates of foreign investments in the world, especially investments from the USA.
On the other hand, none of the countries that joined NATO during its last enlargement (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic) experienced a significant improvements in their economies. NATO doesn't bring any miraculous boost for economy which is exactly what some pro-NATO politicians promise us in their propaganda.

look, i'm just saying slovenians should observe the prospect of becoming a member of NATO rationally free of bias rather than looking at it as making a deal with the US. if you feel you'll be giving up too much of your national identity and wish to develop alone then go for it. either way we wont be affected by your decision.

[Majk]

Originally posted by Fantastic

No???!! What abaut Czeck Rep?! They have gain much of a profit or better to say foregein investments. They are know world wide as a "friend" of the west civilized world and that is because they have joined NATO!!!
Come on, and if Czechs didn't join NATO they'd be considered the enemy of the western civilised world and treated like outcasts? The mighty rage of the civilised west would come upon them? I don't think so.
Look at Hungary for example. Even before they were members of NATO and even before they were even close to becoming members of EU they had extensive foreign investments in their economy. Their success was practically built on foreign investments when they weren't even close to NATO. Major companies were inesting billions of $, huge factories which employed thousands of people were built, mainly because of the cheap labour.

Originally posted by Fantastic

Lets begin with Austria; when NATo was created, they forbit AUS to join them, so the country could be neutral. Why?! Because that was a pšolitical dessision!
But 50 years have passed and they still haven't applied for a membership.

Originally posted by Fantastic
You are wondering why Irland, and north countries (SWE,...)had one of the highest rates of foreign investments in the world, especially investments from the USA despite that they ain`t mebers of NATO. That is because they allready on of the "godd" countries in the eyes of the west world, so the ydon`t need another "brandmark", what NATO certanly is!!
And you think we'll become one of the "good" countries as you put it if we join NATO? I can name you 100 better ways how to represent yourself as a "good", democratic, developed, safe and trustworthy country.

Originally posted by Fantastic
But still even if all of that countries ain`t mebers, they support NATO and are collaboreting with that organization and even sent there soldiers to crise places all over the world.
Maybe in peacekeeping operations which are coordinated through programs like Partnership for peace. Slovenia has its soldiers in Bosnia too but these are peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Non-NATO countries don't send soldiers to operations like Afghanistan or Iraq.

Originally posted by Fantastic
No, it doesn`t but it just give you the opportunity for do something good for your economics! Without that, we`ll be just another post-comunist country who is agains "civilized" world! NATO is today not only the millitary organization but also lets say "economic opportunity". It is a "brandmark" which is saying, that is a good and SAVE country, so you can do business with. Isn`t that what you want Slovenia would be?!.
Our economy can do perfectly OK without NATO. And let's say that we are members of NATO and we're in conflict with USA over some economic issue like we were over pharmaceutical industry. We stand in the way of their interests because our companies are present in Russia and have a nice piece of Russian market. You think the USA wouldn't do everything to get our companies out of the market they want for themselves? You think they'd care if we were members of NATO? You think they'd say "ok, you're a good, civilised country now so we'll let you have a piece of Russin market."
And what kind of other economic benefits are there? What kind of oppurtunities? When it comes to business every NATO country wants their own companies to get the business. You think that USA or UK will conduct businnes with Slovenian companies if they can conduct the same business with a company from their own country?

Originally posted by Fantastic
It is a "brandmark" which is saying, that is a good and SAVE country, so you can do business with. Isn`t that what you want Slovenia would be?
In 2004 will be equal members of the European Union. In 2006 we'll also be members of European monetary union. That says enough and that sends a clear message that we're a safe, democratic and highly developed country and that it's safe to conduct business with Slovenian companies.

Originally posted by Fantastic
BTW you can depite joining NATO have your oppinion of NATO policy or let say American policy and still taking benefits that these organization brings you! Don`t think with your "soul" but your brains!
Let me say it again. Once you join NATO you make a clear statement to the world what you stand for and what kind of values you support. Do you want to support the USA at what they do and agree with things they've already done? I don't.
And again, let's say we're a NATO member. You think our ass-licking politicians would dare to oppose any decision that USA made? Hell no, they'd agree to sell their souls to the devil if USA told them to.

[Red Devil]

Originally posted by OAnimal
We would have to pay quite a lot of money for membership, plus we would have to change much of our current weaponry (which would cost another great amount of money) - OK, we would achieve the NATO protection, but we are safe enough without it. We have no real threat from our neighbours and I am not afraid of islamic terrorists - we do not make shit in their countries and they will not harm us - islamic terrorists are US problem and I do not want to be part of it.

Slovenia is already changing its weaponry!
Slovenia is already in process of professionalizing its army!
NATO membership is not that big of a cost, really!

This processes will continue whether Slovenia joins NATO or not.

Red Devil

[Walter BC]

I've read some good posts here, some pros and contras, and after that still I belive we aren't any closer to solution. Well it's only talk that we do here, and it's good to see what people think about it, also people from abroad.
Firstly I must deeply disagree with OAnimal saying that terorism is US only problem. It is their problem first yes, but others shouldnt stand aside. Now it's them, next who knows, with those foundamentalists you never know. We really shoul all help in a fight against terrorism, couse it would do us all good. Now don't think that I'm against muslims in general, 'couse I'm not!
And yes I also agree that presently we are a country with no potential enemies, but we saw it in history how things change quickly. If everythink will go on nice and all, then fine, but you must be prepared. Now you can do that on your own, or in alliance where you know who and what you can turn on! You say how much all will cost, yes it will, of course, but if we were to provide a solid defence on our own it would cost even more, plus that we would never be able to put up a defence strong enough to resist any seroius threat from anyone. Now do you suggest we should dismiss all our defence forces? Where would that lead to?
And you also talk about economy. Well I'm no expert on that so I can't say what would be better. You have countries that stand strong and are not NATO members yes, but I belive there are more oportunities within alliance for us that there would be.
But if you have politicians that are uncapable and corupt, nothing will do, if you are a member or not!
If you ask me I am for NATO, I'm not all that excited about it, but I honestly belive it's our only way to ensure ourselves a rather quiet and peacefull future, I'm not saying it isn't possible acheeving it outside NATO but it's easier doing it so within.

[OAnimal]

Originally posted by Walter BC

Firstly I must deeply disagree with OAnimal saying that terorism is US only problem. It is their problem first yes, but others shouldnt stand aside. Now it's them, next who knows, with those foundamentalists you never know.

Sorry, but you do know. Fundamentalists aren't just some psychos, they fight for their interests, who are endangered by politics of USA, England (IRA), Spain(ETA), Russia... Are we one of those countries? Hell no. Will we became one of them? If we join NATO, then yes, if we don't then I guess no. Did you ask yourself, why we haven't suffered any terrorist attack in all our history?


And yes I also agree that presently we are a country with no potential enemies, but we saw it in history how things change quickly.

Please, it's 21st century we are talking about, not middle ages.


If everythink will go on nice and all, then fine, but you must be prepared. Now you can do that on your own, or in alliance where you know who and what you can turn on! You say how much all will cost, yes it will, of course, but if we were to provide a solid defence on our own it would cost even more, plus that we would never be able to put up a defence strong enough to resist any seroius threat from anyone. Now do you suggest we should dismiss all our defence forces? Where would that lead to?

Well, Iceland and Costa Rica are doing just fine without army, spending more money on economy, health, social security, and other important things.


And you also talk about economy. Well I'm no expert on that so I can't say what would be better. You have countries that stand strong and are not NATO members yes, but I belive there are more oportunities within alliance for us that there would be.
But if you have politicians that are uncapable and corupt, nothing will do, if you are a member or not!

I agree on this. Our politicians are such snakes, that they would do anything what USA says, even if this is not in our interest and this is also one of big concerns with joining the NATO. I heard that we already changed some law, because NATO said it doesn't apply to its standards.

If you ask me I am for NATO, I'm not all that excited about it, but I honestly belive it's our only way to ensure ourselves a rather quiet and peacefull future, I'm not saying it isn't possible acheeving it outside NATO but it's easier doing it so within.
I am against joining NATO, but of course, you have the right to think otherwise. I just hope we get a referendum to vote for or against the NATO - I hope that our politicians won't think that they are smarter than the whole nation.

[Walter BC]

Please, it's 21st century we are talking about, not middle ages.

Yes, but back then in the middle age they must have said: Please it's the 11th century we are talking about, not antique, and they went and slaughtered their opponents!

And by sipmly joining NATO, we won't be endangering those foundamentalistic "friends" of yours!;)

[OAnimal]

Originally posted by Walter BC
And by sipmly joining NATO, we won't be endangering those foundamentalistic "friends" of yours!;)

I am sure, that against my fundamentalistic "friends" we are safer now, then we would be if we join NATO and become another possible target of terrorist attacks.

[Fantastic]

Originally posted by Majk

Look at Hungary for example. Even before they were members of NATO and even before they were even close to becoming members of EU they had extensive foreign investments in their economy. Their success was practically built on foreign investments when they weren't even close to NATO. Major companies were inesting billions of $, huge factories which employed thousands of people were built, mainly because of the cheap labour.

They have invested because they know how soon Hungary will become a member of NATO. Why do you think Croatia doesn`t have so much of investments??!! They also have cheep labour, but they are not a SAVE country! Just asked all of biggest investors in east counties why have they put their money in Hungerian or Czecks factories. The answer would be, THEY ARE MEMBERS OF NATO! (BTW month ago, there was a broadcast on TVSLO1 about new memebers of NATO and you could hear all of that!)

[OAnimal]

I am sure that EU is much bigger guarantee for foreign investments than NATO. And as Majk said, we are going to be in EU by 2004...

[Fantastic]

Yes, but would cost us if we join NATO too?!

[OAnimal]

I guess it would.

[Porca Troia]

more intelligently, you would save money on defense. rather than buying kalashnikovs, migs and land mines (god knows you have enough), you would have NATO go on a spending spree.

[Majk]

Originally posted by Porca Troia
more intelligently, you would save money on defense. rather than buying kalashnikovs, migs and land mines (god knows you have enough), you would have NATO go on a spending spree.

What land mines are you talking about? Where do you think we live? Do you even have the slightest idea where Slovenia is? There was never a problem of land mines here, the war lasted for 10 days and that was in 1991. So stop serving us your stupid opinions about Slovenia and NATO if you don't even know which country you're talking about and where to find that country on a map. I mean that's too much, like there's some post war zone here.

[Majk]

Originally posted by Fantastic
They have invested because they know how soon Hungary will become a member of NATO.
Hungary has joined NATO in December of 1997. Extensive foreign investments in Hungarian economy happened long before that. You think that in 1994 or 1995 everyone who invested in Hungarian economy new that they'll become NATO members in 1997?
Croatia doesn't have foreign investments? Their biggest banks are owned by foreigners, they sold 3/4 of their Telecom to Deutche Telekom 2 years ago, now they're selling their biggest insurance company and so on. They have a different problem. Soon everything that is worth something will be owned by foreigners.

And another thing. You don't think that membership in the European Union sends a clear message that we're a safe, democratic and developed country and that it's perfectly safe to conduct business with Slovenian companies? I think it does. The EU is not just some joke.

[Fantastic]

You are so damn blind!!! Do you think that they invest so much money despite that they din`t know if that country would become a meber of NATO soon?! How naive can you be?! Even some of investors confirm that!
And about Croatia; what kind of investments where there? They bought only the strongest firms otherwise all Croatian industrie still sucks and pray for money!

BTW if 95% of EU countries are mebers and all of the East countries wanted to be (even Russia is thinking about it) than it must be something good about it. I am wondering why are Swiss and Austria even considering opptions of joing the NATO if they are doing so good out of that organization?! :rolleyes:

[markyumyumyum]

Every decision that we make in life, either as an individual or as a nation, is a compromise. There will be tangible positive and negative effects, whether Slovenia ends up joining NATO or not.

It's interesting to consider the justification that people have for their various arguments. Some people value foreign investment, others fear the blandness of corporate globalism. Some people value national identity, others fear the dangers of isolationism.

An interesting parallel is the case of Michael Bloomberg, New York's new mayor after Rudy Giulianni. I think it may be interesting for Slovenians to watch and see what happens to Bloomberg. Why? It takes a bit of explaining, but maybe you will enjoy it.

Standard American political campaigns are financed by private corporations and special-interest groups, who donate money to specific candidates and specific parties under the implication that if the candidate is elected, he will keep their interests in mind and will listen to their arguments.

This is bad, don't you agree? For example, I doubt that our current President Bush has any real ideas or convictions of his own. He lacks any philosophies about governing our nation... instead he is just an instrument of various groups that helped him to get elected, such as the defense and oil industries. Instead of acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole, he acts in the interest of those who helped finance his election.

Michael Bloomberg is a different story. He is probably the first major elected US political figure to finance his entire campaign. He owes NOTHING to ANYBODY. So he can just pursue his own ideas and philosophies about governing the city of New York.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH SLOVENIA?!

Michael Bloomberg is like Slovenia if it decides not to join NATO. He is allowed to remain completely independent of the obligation to succumb to any outside pressure if he doesn't feel like it. BUT, NO ONE OWES BLOOMBERG ANY FAVORS EITHER. No one is obligated to assist Bloomberg in any way, because they can't trust that he will help them in the future.

I think it will be interesting for Slovenians to watch Bloomberg, to see if he can meet his personal goals, and to see if he is successful in dealing with politicians and businessmen and getting them to support him. Maybe he can be a precedent to show what is better: indepedence, or the mutual indebtedness that arises from alliance.

Slovenia, in the meantime, has more important things to worry about, like KICKING THE SHIT OUT OF SPAIN ON SUNDAY! GO SLOVENIJA!

Regards

Mark

[ItalianBoy]

Sorry, but you do know. Fundamentalists aren't just some psychos, they fight for their interests, who are endangered by politics of USA, England (IRA), Spain(ETA), Russia... Are we one of those countries? Hell no. Will we became one of them? If we join NATO, then yes, if we don't then I guess no. Did you ask yourself, why we haven't suffered any terrorist attack in all our history?

Are you sure that people who explode themself into air just for religion are not psychos? I mean come on! What did Bin Laden gain? money? power? I dont think so! He gained one thing for sure! Hate and that the West so called really watched out for Any arabians or mid east people!
Also, your history? Come on! Slo aint that big a thret yet! and also, the terorist dont go for NATO only countries but they go for the way of living of the USA! they are attacking the USA for embargos etc, but look at Italy or spain! They havent doeny anything of this stuff but we live the way they hate! FREELY!
And not so oppressed and bigot!

[OAnimal]

Originally posted by ItalianBoy

Are you sure that people who explode themself into air just for religion are not psychos? I mean come on!

No, they are not. I believe, psychos are people, who are mentally ill and they do things without special reason. These people we are talking about, have a precise goal to achieve, that is to tell the world that injustice is happening to their nation and countries. They choose an insane way to do this, I agree, but still they do not get into my definitions of psychos.

Also, your history? Come on! Slo aint that big a thret yet! and also, the terorist dont go for NATO only countries but they go for the way of living of the USA! they are attacking the USA for embargos etc, but look at Italy or spain! They havent doeny anything of this stuff but we live the way they hate! FREELY!


No, they do not hate the way we live (this must be a tipical US propaganda, isn't it?). They hate if someone treats them like animals or worse (look at Izrael - Palestine relationship) and severely interferes with their interests.

[ItalianBoy]

And this muslims do things with special reason? to kill us!? pls! Also, psychos do things that for us dont have a reason but for them it does, so this people could be categorize into them no problem.
And no its not US propaganda, its what Bin Laden said! Muslim cant stand the way we live, not only USA but EUR etc. Its the total opposite of what the Koran says.
And they put themself living like animals! No one treats them like that, they just do it!

[OAnimal]

I see. Then why don't we just nuke and kill all of them, so that we can live in peace? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[OAnimal]

Are you trying to tell me, you know what Koran says? Kill all of them who do not live by Koran?? Get real, dude. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[OAnimal]

I see. Then why don't we just nuke them and kill all of them, so that we can live in peace? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Are you trying to tell me, you know what Koran says? Kill all of them who do not live by Koran?? Get real, dude. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Porca Troia]

instead of reading between the lines and get so goddamn defensive about your insignificant country, why don't you give us a valid or at least sound reason as to why slovenia would suffer from joining NATO. and while NATO won't necessarily protect you from terrorism, note that countries like turkey, which have muslims have not been targeted by terrorists either for being affiliated with NATO. you are looking at the short term gains from joining NATO. what we are seeing today with terrorism is a prelude to the next big war, crusade, jihad, whatever you want to call it. many countries are not going to be immune from this since muslims and christians encompass most continents. your country is going to be the welcome mat for muslims to europe. therefore, either you join and help, or bend over and take a syrian salame up your buttcheeks.

[ItalianBoy]

No I ddo not think that we should kill them all, even though thats what THEY are trying to do. But, I cant say that I never thought about it, at least I am honest. Still, the solution for me is not the one that is mostly liked, this people are too extreme and we have to answer as such.

[OAnimal]

If Slovenija would join NATO it would have to pay an annual (I think) fee for membership and it would have to increase the amount of money that is spent for financing the army. My point is, that we could (and should) use that money for other purposes.

I don't think there will be any big war in the future. You should stop watching science fiction movies. ;)

[Fantastic]

Expenses will be much higher if we wont join the NATO!!!! Did you know that Sweden gives 4% of BDP to the millitary budget?!

[Porca Troia]

what does science fiction have to do with anything. if you are clueless as to what will occur in a few years and the determination of the islamic fundamentalists to destroy western civilization.

[Fantastic]

Yea, and E.T. will attack us soon :rolleyes: With such statesments you`ll never convince them (us) to join the NATO!

[Walter BC]

Porca, back in the 50's and 60's, you were also very convinced that the Russians are coming to get you, you were building shelters all around, locking up everyone that was supposedly comunist, so I guess I could say you had your little "jihad"!
And here we go again! But don't get me wrong, I also belive those terrorists should be whiped out somehow, but you just can't equal terrorists with islam and islamic people in general. And US is doing just that, and that is why most of the muslim world is not all that happy with it.
This is one of the aspects that worries me in case of joining NATO, that we'd have to adopt this US politics, wich is in my oppinion wrong, just to please the great and the mighty America in it's purpose to rule the world!

[Red Devil]

Well, I see 9 votes for joining NATO and 7 votes against, but I only see one solid reason against NATO stated here and that is what you just said, Walter. So, what are the other reasons for not joining NATO?

Red Devil

[OAnimal]

Read my last post again.

[DognerDJ]

There is no defence against terorism. You Americans have the best war-planes , weapons , .... and Afganistan hit you in the middle of your heart ! So , why do we need NATO ?

[Red Devil]

Originally posted by OAnimal
If Slovenija would join NATO it would have to pay an annual (I think) fee for membership and it would have to increase the amount of money that is spent for financing the army. My point is, that we could (and should) use that money for other purposes.

Well, of course! And that other reasons are - for a defense of its own! And the cost would then be "annual NATO fee multiplied by 2 or 3".

Originally posted by OAnimal
I don't think there will be any big war in the future. You should stop watching science fiction movies. ;)

Of course not in the near future, but you are usually not a NATO member for a year or two, are you? Who nows what will happen in 15 or 20 years? Perhaps NATO will not exist then any more. But perhaps it will protect us from some new enemy!

Red Devil

[Majk]

Originally posted by Porca Troia
if you are clueless as to what will occur in a few years and the determination of the islamic fundamentalists to destroy western civilization.
This is typical propaganda of Bush's administration and naive people like you buy that. You can hear that crap about islamic fundamentalists trying to destroy western civilisation and western way of life on every corner. And with what purpuse they're trying to achieve that? Georgie will tell you that simply because they can't stand freedom and values of the civilised world.
Terrorist organisations have very specific goals which are sacred to the members of these organisations. The Palestinians want free Palestina, Chechniens want Chechnia, IRA wants to banish the Brits from Northern Ireland, the Kurds want Kurdistan etc.
There's no terrorist organisation which fights against the values of the western world.

[DognerDJ]

Originally posted by Majk

This is typical propaganda of Bush's administration and naive people like you buy that. You can hear that crap about islamic fundamentalists trying to destroy western civilisation and western way of life on every corner. And with what purpuse they're trying to achieve that? Georgie will tell you that simply because they can't stand freedom and values of the civilised world.
Terrorist organisations have very specific goals which are sacred to the members of these organisations. The Palestinians want free Palestina, Chechniens want Chechnia, IRA wants to banish the Brits from Northern Ireland, the Kurds want Kurdistan etc.
There's no terrorist organisation which fights against the values of the western world.

:thumbsup:

[Porca Troia]

i wish i could agree with you; however, the terrorists firmly believe that the western world is the root of all their evils (occupied palestine, etc...)

[Red Devil]

So, what is the conclusion?

Red Devil

[Red Devil]

Let's hear mochvirnik now...

[mochvirnik]

Originally posted by Porca Troia
more intelligently, you would save money on defense. rather than buying kalashnikovs, migs and land mines (god knows you have enough), you would have NATO go on a spending spree.

From your posts a man gets a feelin like Slovenia is some undeveloped Balkan country filled with landmines and where war rages every couple of years. But the truth is that if you drive through landscape of Slovenia it looks just like Austria or any other EU country...

[mochvirnik]

OK, I'm firmly against NATO. Why I so goddamn hate yanks that I cant bare to live with it...

[zeleni jurèek]

*there is no war to come against islam or any kind of religion

Then NATO begins to be useless. It serves only to feed American army industry and expanding markets of Europe as a diplomatic pressure to optain American "hegemie". A entity that binds the West together, so they dont divide on EU and North America.

*there will be a terrible war, a jihad, people will be killed, a Bosnia on a world scale!

Slovenia gains no protection, Nato doesnt protect it, Balkans are near, on Slovenian grounds can only be battles, and our tiny country is the final line to defend Europe from Asia thru Turkey, or any other course. After the war only the neutral countries can be sure they will have their borders back, winners and losers can allways cheat.


NATO is not a good option for Slovenia, nation wont backed it up, such a small country will turn down USA, after they rejected her before.
I would say that even joining EU can be hazardous to Slovenia. We must reconsider how we lost our land so often, now there is another chance to do the same. Globalization allways benfits to the big. Ireland wants us in EU, so they would gain more power, as NATO wants us to gain more profesional troops. It just as simple as that.
Who wants to go to war? Who needs war, especially the religious ones. Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia are tired of them, we mustn't want them, other world must learn its lesson, they still didn't learned theirs from Crusades.
Slovenia is pretty much slovenian, even the banks mostly, so we have a healthy basis, we just need some balls and motivation to try on our own.

Who's with me on this?

[Petko]

I agree, Slovenia should stay a neutral country like Switzerland or something

[zeleni jurèek]

..

[Porca Troia]

neutrality is based much on geography and alliance.
switzerland benefits by being located in the middle of europe and possessing the world's reserve in gold and dollars.
your minefield is the gateway to europe for terrorist organizations.

[zeleni jurèek]

What can i say otherwise?

If they attack, they wont attack neutral countries, rather the opposite. Slovenia has the most of its support from Spain, couse they are safe then, if we and Croatia get in. Spain has still painful histori of reconquista - when the throw islam out of their land.

We are still the one that are calling the shots in Europe, but we must be adult about it. Battles in Europe are always won by maps in diplomatic bullshit, never by force. There is just too many people in this part of the world to just bomb or by terrorists atack the continent. Only way for anyone attack Europe is like Turks did. To destroy everything and leave, taking always some people with you to change their believe and try try again. Europe cannot be beaten, and evemn if it is attacked, Slovenia must't choose to be an alternative for another bombfield, as you just decribed us (even that we had only a 10day conflict). US is a great country is the present, but her army intervention is not a fight for a better world where human rights are important, it is just a way of fixing the economy, when you dont produce as much, and you need more consumption, so dont try to underestimate no country around the Adriatic Sea, or Alps.
Switzerland never become neutral becouse of the the gold in the Alps. They were neutral (now they are trying to be a part of European integration) for their history and position, that didn't left them much option for a different peaceful solution), as we didnt have peacefull solutions for to be left in peace with our borders and history. Swiss had Alps for a shield - now they have nothing to guard the from terrorists - if they choose to attack, and we dont need shields, we are in no conflicts. Bosnia conflict hasn't got any connections with the 11.sept, so we are safe, and we are safe when the whole Europe is not safe, doesnt feel safe...
At least that count for something, when we are talking in joining NATO...

[Porca Troia]

WHAT???? please let's be clear and concise. i have no idea what you wrote.

[yabadabado]

Originally posted by Porca Troia
label me as an unworldly yankee if it pleases you. although i am far from it, i will take that over the gypsy inbred you are.

i got a label for you...."MOTHERFVCKER". you maccaroni eating showerless soap boycotting five foot tall little prick.

[MAYIAY]

whats with all the slovenians on this site?

[zeleni jurèek]

i just don't have any interest in explaining something so strange and Euro-global to some, who doesn't even care....

[OAnimal]

Originally posted by MAYIAY
whats with all the slovenians on this site?

What about us?

[ItalianBoy]

Originally posted by yabadabado


i got a label for you...."MOTHERFVCKER". you maccaroni eating showerless soap boycotting five foot tall little prick.

We dont care about what you are man!:rolleyes:

[MAYIAY]

i've got nothing against it, i was just curious, because slovenia isn't that big and its a relatively new country

[zeleni jurèek]

We came early and never left the site. It's that easy...

is that a problem? Have you any question about us, that you are so interested?

[monte]

"And now we got Porca, living in the world's best country in all aspects, calling us idiots, gipsies and underdeveloped swines... "


...exactly my thoughts after reading this thread OAnimal, but let them believe whatever they want.

To join or not to join, that's the question :D I think it could benefit Slovenia either way, staying neutral sounds better to me though, you will have a special status and will always stay out of trouble.

When you join, you will have to do what the bigger countries (read: US) want to. See what happened to Germany, they disagreed to bomb Iraq and now the US accuses them of 'troubling US-German relations' :rolleyes: what do they think they are? I thought freedom of opinion was a right in the civilized world. Joining does have the advantage that your army will be modernized, but is that really important for Slovenia? Personally I don't think so. Either way I can understand the final decision.

[zeleni jurèek]

exactly so, when someone tries to relativise the problem, one usually finds no argument to strongly approve...

Nato is mostly unneccesary for Slovenia, and that could be said also for Estonia, Poland, and on, and on....

one of our MPs (member of parliament) just left the discussion on the topic of prons of joining NATO as a stupid unrealistic debate. That MP is mostly stupid and slow in general, but momentarily he is still right! And that scares me (no one else in that room, where the meeting took place didn't even cared about that statement, they just continued blablabla...).

[hello]

All this idiotic NATO talk has re-affirmed my belief that the US should get out of NATO. America shouldn't have to bother with this stuff let the Euro's defend themselves let them take care of their area. America should pull all its troops out of the area including the peacekeepers and let the Euro's take care of it. They more than strong enough. America should just go back to its Isolationist roots and just not even bother with the worlds problems.

[neki]

Hello, nice to see that there some people not as ignorant and narrowminded as most of americans on this forum

:thumbsup:

[monte]

Originally posted by hello
All this idiotic NATO talk has re-affirmed my belief that the US should get out of NATO. America shouldn't have to bother with this stuff let the Euro's defend themselves let them take care of their area. America should pull all its troops out of the area including the peacekeepers and let the Euro's take care of it. They more than strong enough. America should just go back to its Isolationist roots and just not even bother with the worlds problems.

ehm no hello, you know, you can't simply back out if you are responsible for the current situation. Kosovo e.g.

Sorry, nice try to make the Americans look like angels, but you gotta face the consequences of your own acts and it's nothing we should be grateful for. Although yeap I agree the Euro troops could do a good job as well.


:cool:

cao

[hello]

Originally posted by monte


ehm no hello, you know, you can't simply back out if you are responsible for the current situation. Kosovo e.g.

Sorry, nice try to make the Americans look like angels, but you gotta face the consequences of your own acts and it's nothing we should be grateful for. Although yeap I agree the Euro troops could do a good job as well.


:cool:

cao


America was just doing the dirty work the Euro's were asking us to do. Bosnia, Euro leaders consistently bothered us to do something their and nobody did until America did.

I'll give you Kosovo though. We were really the only ones who wanted to do anything.

[zeleni jurèek]

wasnt to preserve human rights, but to fix, what the have missed before, when they didn't support the Croatia or Slovenia, when they tried to separate from Yugoslavia (what started the masacre). In trying to obtain SFRJ status quo, the abtained milosevic authority, the later tried to demolish, and still quite cannot (Hague trials...).

[monte]

zeleni, sometimes I have trouble understanding what you are trying to say ;)

[yabadabado]

Originally posted by hello



America was just doing the dirty work the Euro's were asking us to do. Bosnia, Euro leaders consistently bothered us to do something their and nobody did until America did.

I'll give you Kosovo though. We were really the only ones who wanted to do anything.

good, cuase it was albright that issued the ultimatum that led to the current situation in kosovo.

[ItalianBoy]

So you are saying that the USA is the cause of Kosovo? Who grows this guys?

[Ivan]

italianboy - didn't mama teach you to stay quiet when grown-ups talk?

I think what the last few posts are getting at is that America took a pretty shaky situation in Kosovo and made it a thousand times worse.

[hello]

Originally posted by Ivan
italianboy - didn't mama teach you to stay quiet when grown-ups talk?

I think what the last few posts are getting at is that America took a pretty shaky situation in Kosovo and made it a thousand times worse.


Although America was the only one to really support the action. But you can't tell me that Milosevic would've left kosovo alone, and not make it into Bosnia 2. I don't think one can trust Milosevic to that extent.

[Ivan]

It was the shiptari that wouldn't leave the Serbs alone. Milosevic just used the situation to his advantage. Besides, he was cornered and America knew it - that's why they pulled out all stops to make sure that the bombing happened... the Racak "massacre", Rambouillet talks, and of course the infamous "Annex B". The Serbs could swallow the loss of Krajina and Bosnia.... but everyone knew that if Milosevic was just to give up Kosovo without a fight, it'd be all over for him.

The whole conflict was mapped out before it even blew up, so it was pretty easy to figure out where it was going. Same thing now with Iraq... first, it was "we must bomb Iraq because they are not letting in the inspectors"... then Iraq said OK, we'll let in the inspectors. Then Bush says, no the inspectors can't go in until we adopt a new, stronger resolution in the UN - to which they hope Hussein won't agree. And even if he agrees, they'll make sure he rejects it eventually by adding last minute "annex's". By January, there will be war in Iraq.

[ItalianBoy]

Ivan, didnt your mom flush you down the toilet when she saw you?

You know, when your mom saw your face and ass, she thought she had twins!

Ivan thats my point, when grown up talk, shut up.

[yabadabado]

Originally posted by hello



Although America was the only one to really support the action. But you can't tell me that Milosevic would've left kosovo alone, and not make it into Bosnia 2. I don't think one can trust Milosevic to that extent.

bosnia and kosovo are two different things, so don't bother trying to compare them. kosovo is a part of serbia which is a part of yugoslavia, so kosovo had no constitutional right to pursue independence. the ethnic albanians, by creating and mobilizing the kla into attacking serb police, military, government, and civilian targets, forced the serb government into responding. armed response is the only option to armed provocation. no nation is willing to sit by as part of its population takes up arms and tries to steal and kill its way into independence.

albanians are the most filthy garbage you could ever imagine knowing. they are a backward people who treat their women like $hit. the majority are nothing less than criminals and have been the primary mover of drugs into europe (of which much winds up in the US). on average, kosovo albanians have 8-10 childeren and rely on welfare for support. they refuse to speak serbian (serbian is the language of yugoslavia). at home, work, and any facility they control they fly the ALBANIAN flag. etc, etc, etc.

milosevic did the right thing in kosovo, that is until he turned his back on it...that's when he became a traitor.

[monte]

just a figure,

In Kosovo, among the Albanian women in the age-category
15-30, 80% has 5 or more children!

In Western Europe, women usually START having children at age 30....

The Yugoslav government had to impose a maximum long time ago, like in China, where it's more or less forbidden to have more than 1 child. This problem is not new and one could see it coming. The Kosovo Albanians have not adapted to civilization that much, considering traditions.


PS
I read this figure in a magazine called Elsevier.

[KingTomislav]

Anyone been to KosovA Polje lately? I know our great general Agim Ceku has a "veekendicu" there. haha

And oh yeah-the language of the Independent State of KosovA is Albanian. Hope the 134 serbs that live there can improve their albanian or they won't understand their masters...hehee

P.S jedan je Agim Ceku!

[Bodiroga Je Bog]

Originally posted by KingTomislav
Anyone been to KosovA Polje lately? I know our great general Agim Ceku has a "veekendicu" there. haha


hahahahah ... smesan si puno jebote ... smesan si hahahahahahahahahaha

[KingTomislav]

Honestly bjb, are you on crack or something right now? Laughing like a fool and looking every bit the loser you are...

[Bodiroga Je Bog]

Originally posted by KingTomislav
Honestly bjb, are you on crack or something right now? Laughing like a fool and looking every bit the loser you are...

Honestly kt, are you on crack or something right now? Laughing like a fool and looking every bit the loser you are king tomislav ... u suck so much shit man

[Petko]

Zvono, you can say whatever makes you feel less insecure, the fact is no one listens or pays any attention to what you have said, are saying and about to say in the near future, just remember that for further notice :D

[KingTomislav]

Originally posted by Petko
Zvono, you can say whatever makes you feel less insecure, the fact is no one listens or pays any attention to what you have said, are saying and about to say in the near future, just remember that for further notice :D

No one cares? Then why are you addressing me? Why are Ivane, bjb, and monte quoting me? Face it, you can't handle the truth...that is...you guys are just my puppets. And are here strictly for my (and my fellow Cros) amusement.


NDH

[Petko]

That's a good one, but just because I'm responding doesn't mean I care, but you wouldn't realize that now would you :D

[Bodiroga Je Bog]

Originally posted by KingTomislav


No one cares? Then why are you addressing me? Why are Ivane, bjb, and monte quoting me? Face it, you can't handle the truth...that is...you guys are just my puppets. And are here strictly for my (and my fellow Cros) amusement.


NDH

u are gay

thats all i gotta say

[Ivan]

<center>
Zvonimir
http://216.40.241.68/contrib/edoom/iamwithstupid.gif</center>

[Red Devil]

Get off this thread with your racist shit! NOW!

Red Devil

[zeleni jurèek]

are there any superior races in this forum, and i didn't know them?

Please show up...:rolleyes:

[Ivan]

Slovenians wary of joining NATO
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

This is the third in an occasional series of reports from seven NATO aspirants in Central and Eastern Europe before the alliance's summit in Prague next month, where they are expected to receive membersip invitations.

LJUBLJANA, Slovenia — Just when it seemed they had convinced NATO that their 11-year-old state of 2 million deserves a membership invitation next month, the Slovenian authorities discovered that they have some more convincing to do, this time among their own people.
For several years, NATO officials have done little to hide their assessment that, when it comes to taking in new members, Slovenia is the easiest case. It is politically stable, and its economy is the envy of the former communist bloc.
But an unusually vocal outcry against joining the Western alliance has come as a slap in the face for the country's government, prompting NATO to make an addition to its list of accession requirements — public support for membership.
"We want to see public support of well over 50 percent," one senior NATO official said. "As a member, a country incurs serious common-defense responsibilities under Article 5, and the government should have the full backing of its people."
The alliance invoked Article 5, which says that an attack on one member is an attack on all, for the first time a day after the September 11 attacks last year.
Although the official said that he and his colleagues "have been pleased" by the Slovenian government's campaign to raise public support for membership, recent polls reveal that a slow and painful effort to boost support ratings, which fell to their lowest level — 39 percent — in early summer, has failed.
"We are cautious of a full-blown campaign and concerned about negative reactions," said Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, referring to charges that the government is wasting taxpayers' money.
Anton Bebler, president of the Atlantic Council of Slovenia, a group of intellectuals advocating NATO membership, said there is a perception among Slovenians that if the authorities need to wage a campaign on a certain policy issue, arguments based solely on its merits are not enough.
The government of Prime Minister Janez Drnovsek has published various materials, such as books and manuals with facts and frequently asked questions about NATO, and a newsletter, which it sent to 683,000 households. It is also operating a toll-free phone service where anyone can address inquiries and concerns, said Nada Serajnik Sraka, state undersecretary for public relations.
But Ali Zerdin, a reporter for Mladina (Youth), a weekly newsmagazine, said that most people think the newsletter is a "joke" and instead are seeking "clear answers from the government what exactly our responsibilities as a NATO member will be."
According to a survey by the University of Ljubljana's faculty of social sciences, used by the government and considered by many the most accurate polling data available, public support for membership has been lingering below 50 percent for the past two years.
It reached its highest level — 62 percent — in the spring of 1997, just before the first round of expansion at the alliance's Madrid summit, where Slovenia's bid failed. It fluctuated between 50 percent and 60 percent the next four years but dropped to 48 percent late last year, falling further to 39 percent this summer.
The latest results showed that things remained unchanged in September, even though all major political parties, except the National Party, support membership. More significantly, opposition to joining NATO also was at 39 percent. About 22 percent were undecided.
"As reasons for their support, the respondents state that NATO provides the best form of collective security, that they consider collective security cheaper and that membership would have positive economic implications for Slovenia," the team that conducted the survey said in an analysis accompanying the results.
"The reasons against entry given by the respondents are high expenses, disagreement with the participation of Slovenian soldiers in military operations abroad and the fact that the state is not under threat," it said.
The survey also found that of those participants who said they would take part in a referendum on NATO membership, 55 percent would vote for and 45 percent against it.
Unlike in any other aspirant country, a referendum seems all but certain in Slovenia, most probably in the period after the Prague invitation and before ratification of enlargement begins in the parliaments of NATO's 19 member states.
"Some want a referendum before Prague, but you can't decline a dinner invitation before you receive it," Mr. Rupel said.
Officials blame the skeptical public opinion on what it calls an "anti-campaign" in the press that, it says, has been undermining the government's effort for more than a year. The foreign minister was the only Cabinet member to respond to the negative press and, according to some officials, was reprimanded in private by his boss, Mr. Drnovsek.
Defense Minister Anton Grizold attributes the strong opposition to NATO membership to a practice reminiscent of the Yugoslav era, although Slovenia has been independent since 1991.
"Journalists were considered political workers in former Yugoslavia, and some still are," he said. "We are still discovering our statehood responsibilities."
Blaz Zgaga, a national security reporter for Vecer (Evening) daily, disagreed, but he acknowledged that "many journalists don't have college education."
He also dismissed the government's contention that the media are conducting a "systematic campaign or conspiracy." But he conceded that his editor "refused to publish an opinion piece I had written advocating NATO membership because she didn't want to go against public opinion."
In Slovenia, unlike in the United States, news reporters also write editorials and other opinion articles, which can be published on both the op-ed and news pages.
Some political observers credit the press with opening a debate that otherwise would never have been initiated.
"The government didn't feel that discussion was necessary, and it didn't listen to those against membership," said Vlado Miheljak, a professor of social sciences and columnist for the daily Delo. "The debate was more about democratic procedure, and it was forced by the media."
The military, which is the most trusted Slovenian institution and has an approval rating of more than 70 percent, has not been affected by the public debate, said Lt. Col. Dobran Bozic, commander of the army's 10th Motorized Battalion.
"We are preparing to work in an international environment," he said. "We have troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we'd like to send special forces to Afghanistan, but the politicians don't want to risk public opinion."
In nearly two dozen interviews, political and military leaders, civil servants, analysts and journalists said that the public outcry was in large part a result of disapproval of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
"People here have a weird way of connecting things," Mr. Bebler said. "There is a correlation in their minds between NATO and the United States. They think the Bush administration will force NATO to march in places like Iraq, so why be tricked into far-away wars by reckless unilateralists?"
Mr. Grizold and Janez Jansa, president of the Social Democratic Party, said that people do not understand U.S. policy because no one explains it to them.
"Every event linked to the United States and NATO is shown negatively in the media," Mr. Jansa said. "The Washington correspondent of the national TV reports as if from an enemy country."
Mr. Rupel expressed some frustration with a few of the administration's policies that are often at odds with those of Washington's European allies.
"I've met Bush, and he is a good and straightforward man," Mr. Rupel said. "Slovenia would love to stay in the group of American friends, but some statements from Washington are not helpful in making our policies popular."
Mr. Grizold, however, said that "as a true partner," Slovenia will support the United States. "Otherwise, how can we be a credible partner? We have to stick together and express solidarity."
He also said his country would fulfill NATO's requirement that 2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) be spent on defense by 2008, in spite of strong objections by some.
But Mr. Miheljak said that many people doubt the government's assertion that building a defense system outside NATO would be much more expensive and that they feel that "we can defend ourselves with less than 2 percent of GDP."
"We are economically stable, and we don't need NATO like some other candidates," he said, referring to Bulgaria and Romania, whose economies have not done as well. "We can survive without NATO."

[OAnimal]

Give us that f...ing referendum and let the people decide whether to join NATO or not. I don't want the parliament assholes (which often think they are smarter than the rest of 2 million Slovenes) taking that decision themselves.

[zeleni jurèek]

not a bad idea, parliament will easily support it (like they would support a poll about the position of voters for/against EU).

Still haven't decided yet: But one question is still popping out: Do we need peoples army, or a proffesional mercinaries (more or less)? That is vital for a good decision, don't you think:confused: ?

[tok87]

Agree for a referendum.

[yabadabado]

Originally posted by KingTomislav


And oh yeah-the language of the Independent State of KosovA is Albanian. Hope the 134 serbs that live there can improve their albanian or they won't understand their masters...hehee


just like croatians learned to speak SERBIAN, the language of their MASTERS.

[Black Hand]

I think this is one of the better topics lately since it covers so much ground.

Of all the new applicants for Nato, Slovenia is perhaps the most unique. They have had better economic success than most. They really don't have any problems with other European countries, except perhaps Croatia. They don't have many internal conflicts(like different ethnic groups getting along). They are one of the few new countries who could stand outside of NATO. Especially, after joining the EU.

I think sooner or later NATO will dissolve and transform into a more EU type of army.

Even with all the reasons why Slovenia doesn't really need NATO. I think they should, just to follow status quo and the example if they didn't join now, yet Croatia joined later. If the Croats got into NATO, you know they would think they have the green light to invade Slovenia.

Now in regards to some ridiculous previous comments. Such as this is Islam vs. freedom (or whatever). The US has created the single largest terrorist base in Europe (i.e. Kosovo). The US doesn't care about anything or anyone other than itself. Geez many fundamentalist Islamic military movements were begun by the US to stir things with the Russians.

The are only a few problems with being a junior partner of NATO and that is that you become cannon fodder. The US will stick you to police trouble areas that they do not want to enter. Remember Rule #1 of US warfare. We bomb the shit of em and then stick some sorry bastard there to keep an eye on things.

Secondly, unless you are Israel, you will get second hand shit military weaponry from the US. We need to get rid of this crap so we can afford the good stuff. So why not force the junior partners to buy this crap and thus ensure that no one can still pose a threat to us.

Also look at all the NATO support Turkey was getting. NATO didn't want to provide money for Turkey to prep for the future Iraq war.

In conclusion. Slovenia should join NATO since it won't affect them to severly. If they do join, they NATO will probably specialize some mountain or ski brigade out of them. So unless, NATO invades Switzerland, they should be ok. Although I guess Afghanistan is pretty mountainous, hopefully the US won't have to go back.

[Legijas]

I was happy as a little kid when NATO punished the Serbs for their genocide and mass crimes against humanity, sanctions weren't enough, BOMB THEM !!

I cried of joy, too bad they didn't use their entire arsenal, it would have been shweeeeet :) :D

[Ivan]

too bad we took it easy on croatia and only went for the area that belong to us, Krajina. Perhaps we should have marched straight to Zagreb?

[Legijas]

You did bomb Zagreb, dozens of times. Perhaps we shoud've gone to Belgrade?

And "krajina" never was and never will be serbian, serbs were a minority even within it's borders.

Maybe we should have re-opened the most popular motel for serbs, Jasenovac. They flocked there in their thousands :)

[monte]

You did bomb Zagreb, dozens of times. Perhaps we shoud've gone to Belgrade?
NDH went into Zemun which is a part of Belgrade's municipality so actually you already did this.


Maybe we should have re-opened the most popular motel for serbs, Jasenovac. They flocked there in their thousands :) [/QUOTE]

You deserve to get banned for this, it's the same as saying Auschwitz should be re-opened, jews 'flocked' there in their thousands. Pity that most people on this planet know Auschwitz but never heard of Jasenovac though, it was the worst camp of WW2 after the one I mentioned, Treblinka and Sobibor. [Wiesenthal Centre acknowledges this]


And "krajina" never was and never will be serbian, serbs were a minority even within it's borders.

Is that so? Check the official maps before ranting.

[monte]

Oh.... to make it clear, you are yellow, we are pink.. ;)

Don't bother to reply, I won't read it anyway.