Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Machaon who wrote (11506)	6/10/1999 9:15:00 PM
From: JBL	Respond to of 17770

Ever thought about applying for an internship at the White House ?

To: Machaon who wrote (11506)	6/11/1999 6:04:00 AM
From: MNI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Also, Robert Barry, you are much too optimistic and too blue-eyed about the future KFOR mission inside Kosovo. Especially when you say, (goldsnow: << KLA and NATO will have first confrontation in winter >>) The KLA is not stupid. They realize that the only way for them to insure lasting protection for the Kosovo Albanians is to stay strong and coexist with NATO as allies. NATO is going to need a strong KLA before they can pull out of Kosovo. NATO needs the KLA and the KLA needs NATO. This relationship might change if democracy comes to Serbia after the Milosevics are executed. 1. You assume it is the KLA's highest interest to ensure "lasting protection" for the Kosovo Albanians. The least I want to say is "The KLA still has to prove that they have this interest at all." 2. Didn't you notice that all the political parties of Serbia are nationalist racists? E.g. Djincic's well appraised "Democratic party" claims a politics of "Castration" against the Kosovars. Maybe the most moderate of the racists was the Kosovan LDK that was not backed by NATO, not even during the Rambouillet time. We rather backed the KLA, violent radicals terrorist party. 3. I, too, don't agree with Goldsnow's supposition of first KLA-NATO clashes in winter. It really should be much earlier. Let me give a scenario route for most serious confrontations, that may last over years. It all starts with deploying German troops in Western Kosovo (the one KLA stronghold) of all possibilities. The Germans will fail to disarm the KLA, even to do any good about them. When it comes to meeting with foreign troops, the best the Germans can do is spending a beer and offering a joint barbecue. If there is any confrontation or conflict of interest between KLA and the Germans, our officers will bend their ways not to disturb the KLA fighters. Whimps, cowards, political Naives, addicts of feelings of Harmony. The KLA will be surprised about German friendliness. Then they will send those of their young men, who came from albanian/kosovan families in Germany a few weeks ago, to celebrate the barbecues together with the German troops. At the same time any paramilitary atrocity, any storage of arms in convenient places, any criminal act and any possible breach of NATO/KLA understanding (if there was any) will be done. In total naivity the German NATO troops will disbalance the assumed peace deal system inside Kosovo by not taking notice. After that nice experience the KLA will use the German Kosovo zone as a confirmed stronghold to operate over the whole region. Either the professional troops (Britain, US) or the Russians will notice. Fights will come, but from their now well affirmed position the KLA is invincible. Bombing against KLA cannot be done. As a militiy they are less vulnerable against bombings than the Serbs were (and even them could not really be defeated in militaric terms, we deleted their home resources instead.) And having our troops inside, we can't bomb anyway. NATO will have to give in to the KLA, allowing them control of the region. What should we do then? Pull out our troops and leave a field open for Serbs and KLA to fight each other, under the most cruel conditions ever? Or let our troops stay watching the disaster, more and more affirming by our presence the KLA tyranny in Kosovo? Sooner or later we will see German tanks, stolen by young KLA fighters, while the soldiers fetched new barbecue materials, attack American troops. The Germans will stand their with hanging arms, rhythmically pleaing to their NATO partners "It wasn't our fault." But it won't help either. As I said this is a conflict for years to come, and you should never underestimate its potential. NATO might become guilty of installing a tyranny inside Kosovo that lives in good mutual understanding with a mirror tyranny in Belgrade. After a while EU rebuilding money will flow to both sides to stabilize the system of rhethorical hatred with added marginal atrocities. MNI

To: Machaon who wrote (11506)	6/11/1999 7:07:00 AM
From: MNI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Robert Barry, politics should be governed by rationality. Because character is not a governing factor for politicians, and never will be, it is only possible to trust your neighbour when you: 1. know his vital interest, 2. can trust in the rationality of his politics, i.e. that he goes to war against you only over vital interests. This system came to be known in Germany as a Bismarck type balance. It worked quite well (when we only regard the time AFTER this criminal attack of the Germans against France in 1870), although it had the disadvantage there sometimes needed to be a scapegoat around. When Bismarcks followers gave up on this idea, trying to get a bigger share of the pie by claiming it in speeches laden with emotion and heavenly justification, they effectively disbalanced the system, makeing it more and more fragile, and in the end lay the ground for WW I. A rationalistic politics of interest is a base for lasting peace. This is one reason, why in history nations didn't go on war for parts of their neighbors' population. They shouldn't have done. It is called breaking international laws. The idea of current international laws is that states can be seen similar to autonomous persons, doing crimes against other states (but not against themselves), and being judged for their behaviour by a legal body, a global tribunal. A person who cuts off one of his own fingers or even arms will not be indicted by a legal court. The legal body of wars faught for humanity must be the UN, not NATO. NATO taking action without the UN can claim international law is on their side just as much as a lynching group of farmers in a wild west film. You may claim this is inhuman, cynical, formalistic in view of hundreds of thousands of refugees and atrocities being done. You would be right. But you shouldn't claim anymore that international justice was done by NATO. Also, to take a bad example from history, the Germans went to war against Poland in 1939 ON THE PRETENSE OF ATROCITIES DIRECTED AGAINST ETHNIC GERMANS IN POLAND. Ok, those atrocities were only pretended, but are you still sure it would be a good idea to anchor something similar in international law, makeing possible legalised tyranny of nations over other nations, once the propaganda has been used well enough? The difficulty of introducing a consistent scheme of international laws for international reaction on "internal affairs" of one country cannot and will never be overcome. "International justice" will stay in the political will of the UN. Or it could be dumped altogether (never hope so). MNI