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: James R. Barrett who wrote (3300)	4/10/1999 6:50:00 PM
From: Stormweaver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

I agree. Also there are some rumours that the Joint Chiefs of staff did not think the mission objectives could be achieved with an air campaign alone. NATO is too chicken to get on the ground. If the atrocities are occuring then this truly makes NATO "determinatin" a hollow one at best.

To: James R. Barrett who wrote (3300)	4/10/1999 7:15:00 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17770

Boy are you good for a Guffaw! YEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAW! You have completely underestimated the military might of NATO. NATO is picking apart SM's support lines. They will not risk assets simply because some blood thirsty civilian cries chicken. NATO is playing a very smart card. Why takeout the tanks and risk our boys lives when the fuel depots are all sitting ducks? The tanks will shortly run out of fuel (don't get nearly the same mileage as your Accura)and will be abandoned. Makes absolute sense to me. As for for General Clark? in my book he should be promoted! Salute!