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.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (23103)	3/27/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: Pink Minion	Respond to of 24154

McCain said he backed the bombing "because of the ethnic cleansing and the threat of it spreading through the region." I really get burned when I hear that politically correct term. It's called Genocide and is no different than the "It will never happen again Holocaust" Some on topic links cis.ohio-state.edu netaction.org MH

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (23103)	3/27/1999 3:15:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

OT -- Klinton's Kosovo Katastophe. Invasion? I hope not. What else do you call it when one country bombs another? Don't get me wrong: that Milosevic is a Fascist killer is amply demonstrated by the record. I have no sympathy at all for him. He deserves to have every bomb dropped in Serbia delivered to his doorstep personally. But as long as he does his killing within the recognized borders of Serbia, I question whether any military intervention by outsiders, particularly the U.S., which is 10,000 miles away, is appropriate. Furthermore, it is clear from this, in a way I had not recognized before since I haven't paid much attention, that the nature and purposes of NATO have changed. It is no longer a strictly defensive alliance. This operation makes it clear that NATO has expanded both in geographic scope and purpose to become a collective security organization, a sort of League of Nations. I thought it was decided during the '20's that the U.S. was not going to be part of the League of Nations. As I understand it, any attack against, say, Czechoslovakia, automatically brings the United States in, and the U.S. has to commit forces as part of any agreed "peacekeeping" operation like the one going on now. In either case, our being drawn into NATO activities could provoke a response from the Russians, which pretty much can only respond with nuclear weapons, since they don't have much of a conventional army left (BTW, they're moving some bombers to Belarus), which puts the United States in the position of having to respond . . . Well, you get the picture. Instead of being a bastion of peace, NATO has become a transmission belt of war -- which means the U.S. probably needs to reassess its commitment to NATO, at least in order to put in some circuit breakers so the U.S. is not forced automatically to commit ground troops or, worse, launch nuclear weapons, in order to preserve its credibility in the face of some war between, say, Greece and Albania. Don't laugh. If the KLA, whose interests the Klinton Kosovo Katastophe is serving, gets its way, Kosovo will be reunited with Albania and Macedonia to become "Greater" Albania, to go up against Milosevic's "Greater" Serbia, backed by Greece. Anytime you see the word "Greater" in the name of a country, you know there's trouble brewing, trouble you want to stay out of, if possible. I certainly don't have all the answers, either. But I am reminded of the words from an old '60's song, "Brother, brother, brother, we don't need to escalate." War is not the answer to this problem. Sorry about the long OT diatribe, and thanks for letting me get it off my chest.