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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scotty who wrote (30520)	3/23/1999 1:18:00 PM
From: John Hunt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116786

Russia gives stern warning against NATO strikes << In a comment that could indicate Moscow's comittment to the arms embargo against Belgrade may be wavering, Primakov said: ''We have not broken the sanctions yet. We are observing the sanctions against arms deliveries for now.'' >> abcnews.go.com Looks like they will start by shipping in arms.

To: scotty who wrote (30520)	3/23/1999 1:19:00 PM
From: Alex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116786

NATO plans two waves of attacks By RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR LONDON, TUESDAY NATO planners are preparing a massive initial attack on Serbia, with as many as 200 cruise missiles fired from United States warships. They will be aimed mainly at radar and anti-aircraft missile sites, photographed during the past few months by aircraft and spy satellites. That will be phase one, which NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana has the authority to activate within a few hours. Mr Solana also has the authority to move from phase one to phase two without formally consulting NATO members. The second phase would include air strikes by about 400 aircraft committed by 14 NATO countries. They would attack a wider range of targets, including Yugoslav artillery, barracks, arms depots and air bases. As in the case of Iraq, the bombing would not be sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. But NATO commanders are aware of one key difference - the ability of the Yugoslav armed forces to hit back, not with fighter aircraft, which are likely to be kept hidden, but by missiles and anti-aircraft guns. ''It is a formidable force,'' Mr Paul Beaver of Jane's defence publications said yesterday. He said Yugoslavia would probably meet the cruise missiles with a ''wall of lead''. There are questions about the legality of a bombing campaign, even with the new emphasis on humanitarian objectives. ''NATO is technically a defensive organisation for the defence of its members,'' said Professor Paul Rogers, of Bradford University's school of peace studies. He said the West faced ''a hell of a dilemma'', and that perhaps the best solution would be to make Kosovo a UN protectorate. Questions remain about what a bombing campaign would achieve.Military chiefs from NATO's European members, and some in the Pentagon. have persistently argued that the objective - to protect the majority ethnic Albanian population in Kosovo - would need ground troops. They have also insisted that the role of a ground force must be to enforce a peace agreement, not impose one, and that the US should participate - a demand Washington has been loath to accept. GUARDIAN theage.com.au