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: Maarten Z who wrote (1051)	4/1/1999 7:07:00 PM
From: Trippi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 17770

The Serbs will never give up KOSOVO -- not going to happen -- we can bomb them into oblivion -- put ground troops in if we want -- we can kill 500,000 Serbs and lose at least 10,000 to 20,000 NATO (US) troops -- we can asassinate Milosevic and Miletinovic will carry on -- we can kill Miletinovic and someone else will continue the fight -- Clinton has picked the one issue that unites the Serbian people and draws them closer to Milosevic -- KOSOVO is the holiest soil in all of Serbia -- it is like telling the Isreali's we will bomb them unless they give up Jeruselem. There is no Prime Minister of Isreal that wouldn't say bring on the bombs -- and any Prime Minister of Isreal who agreed to let Jeruselem go would not remain Prime Minister. Why because of things that happened 2000 years ago in Jeruselem. Well things happened in KOSOVO in 1381 -- We are conducting this campaign with no context to the history or culture of the region. It does make you wonder if anyone in the State Department knows about Prince Lazar and the battle of the Blackbirds -- Serbs will never give KOSOVO up. Next Ground troops -- the terrain is impossible -- even the NAZI's couldn't defeat the SERBS once they pulled into the mountainous terrain -- we will be able to defeat them with a large number of ground troops -- but we will lose at least 10,000. Which is why no NATO country wants to resort to ground forces -- I doubt even Clinton will ever go that route. He doesn't want to see any folded flags being presented to American families and neither do I. This isn't Saddam, its not Iraq, and this isn't Saddam's Army. The Serbs know how to fight -- they know how to use the terrain. Any one who wants ground troops has been inhaling again. Then there is of course the permanent peace keeping force that will have to be put into place. Read up on the Dutch in Srebrenica for that nightmare.

To: Maarten Z who wrote (1051)	4/1/1999 7:32:00 PM
From: Patrick E.McDaniel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

WARTHOG WEATHER IS COMING SATURDAY. intellicast.com Pat

To: Maarten Z who wrote (1051)	4/1/1999 9:02:00 PM
From: nuke44	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 17770

>NATO/US doesn't have the guts< Why is it that every time the US is involved in some sort of conflict, someone always brings out the old chestnut that "US doesn't have the guts". What the hell's that supposed to mean anyway? The US isn't some mythical anthropomorphic figure, whose actions are based on emotions and who is obliged to respond to someone calling it "chicken". I've had this discussion at least a dozen times over the last thirty years. Usually this remark is made by someone who would enjoy seeing the US come in a poor second to any number of second rate, world power wannabes. It is inevitably followed later by a wailing from the same source that the US is a militaristic bully and a bloodthirsty imperialist power after our military sends a significant chunk of it's opponent's population home to the loving arms of their respective dieties. Not that we aren't above a little payback. While US response is not based on emotion, "guts", or the lack thereof, it is a mistake to believe that the strongest nation in the world will tuck it's tail between it's legs and run. Don't be so naive. Sometimes it takes a bit of time, but no blood debt goes unanswered, especially if it involves the blood of our soldiers. You mentioned the Iranian hostages, the massacre in Somalia, and the Marines in Lebanon. -The US was only too happy to supply thousands of tons of munitions to Iraq in it's 8 year war with Iran, something we probably would not have done were not a little political payback in order. -The Somalians paid doubly for their treachery in Mogadishu, both in military retaliation of a one on one nature and by us deserting the ungrateful bastards to their own devices, which were bloodier than anything we could have devised. -Within 72 hours of the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit there were at least six Hezbollah and Shi'ite stronghold villages in the mountains on the Syrian/Lebanese border that ceased to exist. I myself am only all too human and I must admit that I did derive visceral satisfaction from personally extracting some payback in two of the three events you mentioned. The worst possible thing Milosevic could have done was to parade those US POWs around and make threats about their fate. If they, or any subsequent NATO prisoners aren't treated accordingly as POWs, then payback's a bitch. To put another spin on this, I believe it's possible that this could be a win-win situation for the US. On one hand, NATO has a chance to cripple the fascists that have been waging a series of bloodthirsty ethnic wars for almost a decade, without anyone stopping them. On the other hand, no matter what happens, Clinton is going to take his lumps. Serbia could single handedly assure that there will not be a Democrat sitting in the White House come 2001. Not that I'm a Republican, I just believe that it's going to take someone other than a Democrat to start reversing Clinton's policies and repairing to damage he's done to our country. P.S. MZ, If I sounds like I take this personally, it's because I do.

To: Maarten Z who wrote (1051)	4/1/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: BORIS BADENUFF	Respond to of 17770

NORFOLK, Va. (April 1) - Defense Secretary William Cohen dismissed criticism today that the Clinton administration was unprepared for the escalation of Serbian violence in Kosovo. He promised that NATO would inflict considerable damage on the forces of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.....Cohen, who was accompanied by Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dismissed as ''completely fictitious'' reports that Clinton administration officials ignored warnings that air power alone wouldn't save the Kosovar Albanians or that Milosevic might step up his aggression. ''The president was right to act. We looked at this. We saw what the potential consequences would be if we took no action or if we took action,'' Cohen said. ''We believe we're doing the right thing.''<i/> We will kick their ass. eom