What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

Since when do they have nuclear attack subs? What else could I mean?
Re: Obama and peace prize: yeah, sure! Niiiiiiice (Borat-style)! Except Wilson, I am not aware of another Democrat president starting a war!

The link you posted ( http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-international-...le-maritime.htm ) contains the following text: "Primul submarin chinez cu propulsie nucleara, pus in functiune in anii 1970, si-a incetat recent activitatea dupa 40 de ani de serviciu."
HTH
Radu

Thanks! I did NOT get further than China's disputes paragraph... Anyway, this mid-seventies sub - was it "original" from China? Or was it a story similar to the first Chinese carrier...

Since when do they have nuclear attack subs? What else could I mean?
Re: Obama and peace prize: yeah, sure! Niiiiiiice (Borat-style)! Except Wilson, I am not aware of another Democrat president starting a war!

You forgot what President Clinton did in 1999.
And President Roosevelt did not start a war, but forced the Japanese into it by giving them no options. Well, it was an option for the Japanese indeed, to withdraw completely from China in 1941, which they seem to don't like it.
And when I am thinking how neutral was America before December 1941, it makes me laughing.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 30, 2013 08:29 pm

YES, Florin, but neither Clinton nor Roosevelt started the dance! In 1999 there was simply a bombing campaign and in 1941 there were "negotiations" under way, regardless the consequences for the expanding Japanese; whatever conspiracy theories are about Pearl Harbour, it is clear who shot first!

Regarding: "...In 1999 there was simply a bombing campaign..."
This sounds like a bad joke, and I don't think I need to add anything.
If I am to add something, is that that the treaty signed in 1999 between the U.S. and Yugoslavia/Serbia agreed that Kosovo will not become independent. Kosovo became independent, and this undermined the credibility of the U.S.
It is almost like a reminder of the days of Hitler or Stalin. The latter said that a treaty does not worth even the paper used for it.

Now, about the Japanese: there were negotiations indeed, but in the typical style "My way or the highway".
Anyway, I clearly say that compared with their foes, during WWII the U.S. were the good guys. However, they would not win without the help of an ally as bad as their foes.
By the way, do you know that there was a branch of the German armed forces that was really happy when Hitler declared war on the U.S. ? They were the crews of the submarines, that were continuously harassed by the American destroyers, occasionally with direct fire, but they were under strict orders to don't respond to provocations.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 31, 2013 04:12 am

In 1999 Kosovo did not become "independent". In 1999, the governance of Ksosovo was tranferred from Yugoslavia to the UN. Kosovo declared itself independent as the "Republic of Kosovo" only in 2008.

The Western involvement in the Kosovo War consisted of NATO forces under a UN resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nation...Resolution_1199

For the overall involvement of NATO in Yugoslavia you can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

If you read all that you will see that Bill Clinton was actually reluctant to get involved in the Balkans and the decision to get NATO involved was taken by NATO itself. In fact, the main push for the NATO involvement in the Balkans came from Tony Blair in the UK. Tony Blair who has a long history of getting involved in a lot of conflicts (and some want to see him indicted, google it)
There is no "declaration of war" by Bill Clinton. If you know of such a declaration, please give more information.

Here are all the US declarations of war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_o...e_United_States
As you can see, Roosevelt issued six declarations of war. There are a few "Democrat presidents" on that list of war declarations.

Radu

NATO did not have a UNSC resolution authorizing it to bomb Serbia in 1999.

The UN and NATO were cooperating on this since the early nineties and NATO was in the Balkans from the beginning of "Operation. Deny Flight" in 1993. In 1999, NATO was still operating under the same "objective" that got them involved at first, i.e to prevent bloodshed and human rights abuses in former Yugoslavia.
Radu

Maybe my text was not clear, but I did not mention that Kosovo became independent in 1999.
Regarding "only in 2008" - even for politics and politicians, a treaty forfeited after 9 years do not inspire trust for third parties.
A very quick memory refreshment: It was before the economic meltdown. The oil boom was still going on. A new source of petroleum was discovered in Albania. The Albanian leadership, including the Albanian president, requested and obtained the American political backup for the independence of Kosovo, in exchange for the access of the American oil companies to that petroleum.

Doesn't matter since when they were cooperating, NATO did not have a UNSC resolution authorizing it to bomb Serbia. It's one of the cases that strengthened the so-called "responsibility to protect" (R2P) norm in international relations.

I presume that the "treaty forfeited" mentioned here is what you called earlier "the treaty signed in 1999 between the U.S. and Yugoslavia/Serbia agreed that Kosovo will not become independent".

Can you please give more details of when and where this treaty was signed? Who were the signatories?

Radu

I presume that the "treaty forfeited" mentioned here is what you called earlier "the treaty signed in 1999 between the U.S. and Yugoslavia/Serbia agreed that Kosovo will not become independent".

Can you please give more details of when and where this treaty was signed? Who were the signatories?

Radu

I hope you remember that while the NATO bombed everything that moved in Yugoslavia, again and again, Clinton did not want to send U.S. soldiers on the ground. Eventually the Serbs agreed to withdraw from Kosovo, but the agreement was conditioned on the fact that Kosovo will not become independent.
If you really do not remember this, you'll have to wait until I'll have time to search into this. The American slaves don't have too much time, from Monday to Friday.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 01, 2013 05:07 am

I presume that the "treaty forfeited" mentioned here is what you called earlier "the treaty signed in 1999 between the U.S. and Yugoslavia/Serbia agreed that Kosovo will not become independent".

Can you please give more details of when and where this treaty was signed? Who were the signatories?

Radu

I hope you remember that while the NATO bombed everything that moved in Yugoslavia, again and again, Clinton did not want to send U.S. soldiers on the ground. Eventually the Serbs agreed to withdraw from Kosovo, but the agreement was conditioned on the fact that Kosovo will not become independent.
If you really do not remember this, you'll have to wait until I'll have time to search into this. The American slaves don't have too much time, from Monday to Friday.

Sadly, I do not remember a treaty signed by US and Serbia in 1999 that agreed "no independence for Kosovo". In fact I cannot recall a single case in which Serbia agreed anything about Kosovo.

The US was never on its own in the Balkans. US personnel were there as part of NATO.

In as far as I recall the only US "solo" involvement in the Balkans was hosting the Dayton Agreement in 1995, but the US was just one of the many signatories (alongside Russia, France, UK). But the Dayton Agreement did not "stop" the creation of Kosovo - if anything it hastened it.

Radu

About the Comrat's "referendum" and implications on Moldova's future:

http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/comratul-a-d...publica-moldova