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: George Papadopoulos who wrote (11518)	6/10/1999 11:12:00 PM
From: JBL	Respond to of 17770

THE FRUITS OF 'VICTORY' IN KOSOVO Chicago Tribune 6-10-99 Steve Chapman IT HAS NOT YET DAWNED ON AMERICANS THAT WE NOW OWN KOSOVO AND THAT WHAT HAPPENS THERE IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY June 10, 1999 'Victory," proclaims the usually anti-Clinton conservative magazine The Weekly Standard in its editorial celebrating the outcome of the president's war on Yugoslavia. After weeks of frustration and suspense, we are told, the story has an unequivocally happy ending. But Americans may want to contemplate what we have won. The prospect ahead brings to mind the contest that offered a first prize of a week in Philadelphia--and a second prize of two weeks in Philadelphia. By this time, it's easy to forget that this was an accidental war. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Slobodan Milosevic would come on his hands and knees begging for peace as soon as the first cruise missiles hit their targets--if not before. That turned out to be a horrendous miscalculation. If he had known that months of bombing would be required, even Bill Clinton might have decided this was one time the United States would be better off minding its own business. He and the public, however, were assured that once Milosevic had a taste of the lash, peace would settle over the Balkans like a gentle dew. Instead, the American people found themselves up to their necks in a war neither they nor Congress ever agreed to. And 11 weeks after the bombing began, punishing not only the Yugoslavian military but innocent civilians, it is still going on. What has the aerial onslaught achieved? It did induce the Serbs to agree to leave Kosovo--though only after they had terrorized and displaced nearly the entire population. As former Clinton national security aide Ivo Daalder points out, "There proved to be big costs that nobody really anticipated: 1.4 million people expelled, thousands murdered and raped, the expenditure of $10 billion plus, and the worsening of relations with China and Russia." According to the terms of the settlement, Milosevic will soon withdraw his forces from Kosovo and allow the return of its refugees. But most of the ethnic Albanians who will be permitted to go home courtesy of NATO were not forced to leave until after NATO attacked. If the alliance is going to take credit for their return, it ought to accept some blame for their departure. Repatriating them is only the first chapter in a volume that could prove longer and more tedious than "Remembrance of Things Past." When we liberated Kuwait, we had the privilege of turning the country back over to its rightful owners and bidding them adieu. Our reward for defeating Slobodan Milosevic, by contrast, is taking custody of his troublesome province--a job that promises to be considerably more dangerous and taxing than obliterating TV stations from an altitude of 15,000 feet. The ethnic Albanians currently regard us as their champion, but today's savior can be tomorrow's oppressor. They are already unhappy that instead of providing for Kosovo's independence, the peace deal upholds the sovereignty of Milosevic's criminal regime. If Clinton is serious about keeping the promises made to end this war, the same NATO that rescued Kosovo from the Serbs will be forcing Kosovars to stay in a country they despise. In addition, we are duty-bound to make sure the Albanians don't exact bloody vengeance against Kosovo's Serb minority, which many of them, understandably, plan to do at the first opportunity. The U.S. Army could find itself violently suppressing the very people it is now defending. We shouldn't assume that the Kosovo Liberation Army will cheerfully cooperate with our mission to turn its swords into plowshares. The NATO-led peacekeeping force is charged with the challenge of disarming the guerrillas, who have good reason to want to hang onto weapons they may someday need to fight their Serb persecutors. The KLA could quickly come to regard the peacekeepers as an enemy to be harassed and evicted by whatever means it has. Benjamin Frankel, editor of the journal Strategic Studies, recalls that this is exactly what happened to the British Army in Northern Ireland. It sent troops to Northern Ireland to protect Catholics from Protestant violence, but they eventually became the target of the Irish Republican Army, which demanded separation, not protection. Likewise, the British received a mandate from the League of Nations to create a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, only to encounter violent resistance from Jews as well as Arabs. It has not yet dawned on Americans that we now own Kosovo and that what happens there is our responsibility. During his term as secretary of state, John Quincy Adams said, "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benediction and her prayers. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." If you want to know why that was, just watch Kosovo.

To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (11518)	6/11/1999 4:32:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

George.... Ooh George! Chirac a war criminal?! Are you kiddin'? France has been Serbia's best crypto-ally during all this Kosovo mess --just remember the intelligence/spying affairs that involved two French field officers last year (Cdt Henri Bunel and Major Hervé Gourmelon). And why do you think the Northern part of Kosovo, bordering Serbia, has been handed over to France? Because in order to achieve a ''frictionless'' occupation in that sensitive region the French are the best shot. Regarding NATO's air strikes, I recommend you to go to French daily Libération's website. You might stumble on an (April/May?) interview of a French General who admitted that French aircrafts aboard the Foch (France's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier) were not ''fine-tuned'' as far as their bomb-guidance gear was concerned.... The consequence was that most French aircrafts were just buzzing round Serbia as in a lap of honour --without dropping a single bomb. Now, for safety measures, no airplane is allowed to land on its carrier with its full bomb-load, so the pilots had to jettison the bombs on their return flight --right in the Adriatic sea.... Just ask the pissed-off Italian fishermen. Anyway, that's the official, technical explanation provided by a military source but, personally, I suspect that such a technological fault served France's fondness for appeasement as well. Regards, Gustave.

To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (11518)	6/15/1999 2:59:00 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

<<"It can now be said, even if there was a period when we had to be a bit discreet: Not a single air strike -- and there were about 22,000 of them -- was carried out without France's approval ... >> I have a question about this. I am not sure whether somebody can help me. Did those 22,000 air strikes include the one attacking Chinese Embassy? If it was included, does that mean France approved it? And if it was not, does that mean CIA/Clinton has not get any approval from NATO before they sent that B-2 Bomber from the US directly? Thanks.