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: Kelton who wrote (90)	3/25/1999 12:10:00 AM
From: jbn3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Kelton, There is much truth in what you say, but I think you oversimplify. NATO developed as an instrument to oppose the "Communist Threat", though the opening of archives since the demise of the USSR has revealed that the "Communist Threat" was always greater in our minds than in actuality. Vested interests in the West made sure that it loomed larger than life in order to ensure continued investments in military and defense spending. However, since the dissolution of the USSR and the assimilation by NATO of several previous opponents, where is the threat to which NATO owes its continued existence? How can NATO governments and military continue to demand budget funding for a threat which no longer exists? A cynic might argue that the military interests of the NATO countries are looking for a cause in order to preserve their existence and influence. And I do believe that is part of the story. But not all. NATO, whatever its shortcomings, has developed into a relatively efficient, multi-partisan, military machine. If that machine can be used to accomplish good, to maintain stability, and to curtail the ambitions of minor despots and tyrants, then it may indeed have a future as the nucleus of a global military arm. There are a lot of problems on that road, however, not least of which is the "us against them" syndrome. Somehow, we sapient humans always need to have a "them": if we were all united, then who would serve as 'them'? But back to "Why Kosovo". I think that NATO had reached a crisis point: it had issued so many warnings, that if no action were taken, its total credibility as a political and military organization would cease to exist totally. And Kosovo is in NATO's back yard, sitting amidst NATO member countries. Many European countries have been suffering from the effects of Serbia's civil wars and atrocities for some time, trying to care for huge refugee streams while at the same time dealing with high unemployment. I can see reasons for the European NATO countries to intervene. Without the US military it would be difficult, if not impossible, to do so effectively; and we need to stand by our allies. In the interest of preserving NATO as a viable political instrument, in the interest of trying to establish some stability in the Balkans, and in the interest of humanity, I think that we should participate. But at the same time, I believe that the action encompasses unbelievable risks, both for the U.S. and the world. Just my $0.02 jbn3