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: Meredith Cullen who wrote (5175)	4/23/1999 1:11:00 PM
From: George Papadopoulos	Respond to of 17770

Another view from an American professor living in Novi Sad NOVI SAD, Apr. 18 - The informed world is astounded. The crazy Serbs have turned out enmasse, to stand in the dark on their bridges, disregarding the air raid sirens, to sing and dance, to shout cries of rebellion at NATO, the most incredible superpower ever to exist. Are they insane? Are they just victims of a propaganda war? What is, indeed, wrong with these people? As a Texan, as someone who lives among the people of Novi Sad, I can claim with confidence: there is nothing wrong with them. Imagine for a moment that, for whatever reason, a massive air armada was threatening YOUR bridges. Stop and think. If someone were to demolish London's Tower Bridge, how would your lives be affected? How would the people of New York feel if some horrid force destroyed not only the Tri-Burrows Bridge, but also the Brooklyn Bridge? How would your lives be changed then? Or the Golden Gate Bridge. How would you feel if a MIG suddenly appeared and shot out the center section? As a Texan who grew up in a family of hunters, I must admit: my first thought would be to take the .243 Remington my daddy gave me as my first hunting rifle and go stand on that bridge. To shoot at whatever terrible flying machine that might approach it. Or the .270 Winchester my brother and I both used to hunt deer in our childhood. By God, even my daddy's old 16-gauge shotgun. I would defend those bridges with my whole heart, lay down my life if necessary. Take a map. Look for yourself. Where would you have to go to reach your destinations if those bridges were suddenly gone? How would you get to work, return home, or go shopping? Then understand. These people are fighting for their bridges, because their bridges are their lives. Is the Brooklyn Bridge a "military target"? A similar bridge in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia, was proclaimed so. It is now a crumpled mass in the swirling Danube. Is travelling to see loved ones in Mill Valley a military operation? How many times have you seen tanks on the bridges of your town? Ever? The very same is true here. In thirteen years here, I've never seen even a military jeep on those bridges. Never. It is not that the people of Yugoslavia don't have guns. They do. They are hunters and sportsmen very much like many of the people of my native Texas. But they leave their guns at home. They sing and dance, they celebrate their bridges, fighting against brute force with their love for life and for their bridges. Are these the "Serb butchers" as proclaimed by NATO and the mass media? I hardly think so. As an American, it just makes me stop and wonder. Where would WE be without our bridges? The next time you drive over a bridge, think of it laying crushed by a Tomahawk missile. How will that make YOU feel? The very fact that NATO is blowing up Yugoslavia's bridges is symbolic in a way. Each time a bridge goes down, a tie with the West is broken. A childhood memory is obliterated. Loved ones are separated. And anger grows towards the ones who have done it. By blowing up the bridges, NATO countries are cutting all ties between themselves and the ordinary citizens of Yugoslavia. How will those ties be reestablished in the future? And who will rebuild the bridges? How long will it take? Every bridge and each victim in this nonsensical war widen the gap and extend the time it will take for the wounds to heal, for the bridges to be rebuilt. Randall A. Major, Novi Sad, Yugoslavia

To: Meredith Cullen who wrote (5175)	4/23/1999 1:12:00 PM
From: George Papadopoulos	Respond to of 17770

Would You Sign This Agreement?? By Dr. Ronald L Hatchett, Director, Center for International Studies, The University of St. Thomas The primary justification for our military strikes against Yugoslavia is its refusal to sign the Kosovo peace agreement put forward by the U.S. and its allies at Rambouillet France. The President told us that the Albanians chose peace by signing the agreement even though "they did not get everything they wanted." The Serbs, he said, refused to negotiate, even though the agreement left Kosovo as part of Yugoslavia. However, as in several other instances over the past months, the President is telling us only part of the story. Most Americans assume that the deal we put together at Rambouillet was even handed, offering advantage to neither side, but including the core concerns of both Albanians and Serbs alike. But few of us have taken the time to look at the actual agreement the President is condemning the Serbs for not signing. I urge you to do so. The Agreement is available in its entirety on the Internet at www.transnational.org, or in a U.S. State Department summary at www.usia.gov. Take a look at it and you will see that the "peace plan" actually gives the Albanians precisely what they want: de facto independence now, with guaranteed de jure independence in three years. For the Serbs, signing the Rambouillet agreement would actually be signing away all Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo immediately. Under the agreement, "Kosovo will have a President, a Prime Minister and Government, an Assembly, its own Supreme Court, Constitutional Court and other Courts and Prosecutors." "Kosovo will have the authority to make laws not subject to revision by Serbia or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including levying taxes, instituting programs of economic, scientific, technological, regional, and social development, conducting foreign relations within its area of responsibility in the same manner as a Republic." "Yugoslav army forces will withdraw completely from Kosovo, except for a limited border guard force (active only within a 5 kilometers border zone)." "Serb security forces [police] will withdraw completely from Kosovo except for a limited number of border police (active only within a 5 kilometers border zone)." "The parties invite NATO to deploy a military force (KFOR) , which will be authorized to use necessary force to ensure compliance with the Accords." "The international community will play a role in ensuring that these provisions are carried out through a Civilian Implementation Mission (CIM) [appointed by NATO]." "The Chief of the CIM has the authority to issue binding directives to the Parties on all important matters he sees fit, including appointing and removing officials and curtailing institutions." "Three years after the implementation of the Accords, an international meeting will be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo on the basis of the will of the people." For the Kosovo Albanians, the Rambouillet agreement gives then total control over the province immediately. The only sacrifice required of them is to wait three years before the arrangements are made legally permanent. For the Serbs, the Rambouillet agreement means that immediately upon signing they lose all sovereignty over Kosovo. Total political control would be in the hands of the Albanians and the NATO Civilian Implementation Mission. Yugoslav laws would no longer apply in Kosovo. Neither would Yugoslavia be able to exercise police powers in Kosovo. After three years, these arrangements would be made permanent by the "will of the people" - not the people of the whole country of Yugoslavia of which Kosovo is supposedly a part, but only by the will of the people of Kosovo, who are mainly Albanians. The Yugoslavian delegation at Rambouillet agreed to give the Albanians autonomy in Kosovo - control over their day to day lives including religious, education, and health care systems, and local government operations. But they tried to negotiate changes to preserve the right of the Yugoslav federal government to determine economic and foreign policy , for Yugoslav national law to continue to apply in Kosovo, and for any international presence in Kosovo to be limited to observation and advice, not control. The Serbian negotiating efforts were summarily dismissed and the Serbs were told they had only two choices: sign the agreement as written, or face NATO bombing. What would you have done if you were on the Serb delegation?

To: Meredith Cullen who wrote (5175)	4/23/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: George Papadopoulos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

The Guardian The age of reason A war of words By Julie Burchill Saturday April 10, 1999 Forty reasons why the Serbs are not the new Nazis and the Kosovars are not the new Jews: 1.Because the Nazis did not put Jews on the train to Israel, as the Serbs are now putting ethnic Albanian Kosovars on the train to Albania. 2.Because we're the ones fighting alongside the Luftwaffe and the Serbs are the ones whom the Luftwaffe is bombing. 3.Because the Serbs tend to be really good- looking, especially the women. 4.Because pop stars don't, and never will, dress up as Serbs. 5.Because Serbs don't feature in pornography. 6.Because Dirk Bogarde never played a Serb. 7.Because my father taught me never to kiss a Nazi, whereas I've certainly snogged a few Serbs in my time. 8.Because Robin Cook says they are. 9.Because Clinton is a liar. 10.Because Milosevic doesn't have a moustache. 11.Because the Kosovan Liberation Army is a terrorist organisation that has been killing innocent Serbs for years, whereas the Jews were model citizens. 12.Because, if the Serbs were really Nazis, the Times, Daily Mail and their like would be right behind them, judging from their track record during the Thirties. 13.Because it wasn't the Serbs who fought with the Nazis in Yugoslavia during the second world war - it was the Croats and the Muslims. (Nazi Muslims! What an absolutely mind- blowingly terrifying concept!) 14.Because, if they were Nazis, the US wouldn't be fighting them but funding them, like all those old pigs it props up in Latin America. 15.Tony Benn doesn't back no Nazis! Come outside and say that! 16.Because anyone who knows anything about European history before 1945 backs the Serbs. 17.Because Volkswagen recently broadcast a commercial on German television that compared the thrill of driving its latest model to being a Nazi invading Czechoslovakia. Serbia has never, does not and never will make car commercials about the thrill of going into Kosovo. (Just a guess!) 18.Because, if you make a film saying that it was a real hoot being in a Nazi concentration camp, you get lots of Oscars, whereas if you decided to make a film saying that it was a real hoot being in an Albanian refugee camp, Tony Blair would have you shot under some arcane wartime law which Cherie has just discovered on the statute books. 19.Because those ultra-Lefties who want the Serbs bombed are always the ones who are on the side that's against the Jews. 20.Because the Serbs have a bittersweet sense of humour, whereas the Nazis, being Germans, were utterly humourless. After all, can you really imagine the Krauts during the time of the Allied bombardment going around with a bullseye and the word "TARGET" painted on their faces? 21."I had an uncle who played/For Red Star Belgrade" Billy Bragg. Billy Bragg would never have boasted about having a footballing Nazi for an uncle! Come outside and say that! (Again!) 22.Because Tariq Ali, Louis de Bernières, Alan Clark and I haven't been interned yet. (Give it time, though.) 23.Because the Serbs were the only people in Yugoslavia who never persecuted the Jews. 24."Bill and Tony sitting up a tree/K.I.S.S.I.N.G!" Because Blair can't be trusted when he gazes into Billy Bob's big blue eyes and the hormones kick in. 25.Because, if Milosevic was a Nazi, Baroness Thatcher would be having tea with him in Surrey. 26.Because no one ever went on holiday to Nazi Germany (except for Unity Mitford.) 27.Because the IRA won't send an honour guard to Milosevic's funeral. 28.Because the Jews didn't indulge in personal vendettas as they went into the countries that welcomed them as refugees, let alone get to the point of shooting each other at point blank range, as two Kosovar men did in Calais last week while they were waiting to be put on the boat to Britain. 29.Because the Jews didn't growl at women on the streets of their host countries, as Albanian men seem wont to. 30.Because the Serbs have a really cool salute and the Nazis had a silly one. 31.Because, unlike Nazis - "And Goebbels has no balls at all" -'Milosevic" does not rhyme with anything rude. 32.Because the British tabloids are the first people since the Nazis to use the word "Slav" as a term of abuse. 33.Because the KLA is funded by drug-trafficking, while the nearest the German Jews ever got to drugs was chicken soup. 34.Because the German Jews didn't want to annex part of Germany and call it Israel-On- The-Rhine. 35.Because last year the British Immigration Office decreed that the Kosovars were not a distinct racial group. (And it's been a damned long time since anyone said that about the Jews.) 36.Because clean-limbed, dirty-minded little WASP girls don't grow up dreaming of marrying a big, handsome, sexy, intellectual Kosovar. 37.Because Germany has agreed to take 40,000 Kosovar Albanian refugees - that's "take", not "kill". 38.Because the Greeks sympathise with the Serbs - and the Greeks always back the right side. 39.Because Israel sympathises with the Kosovars, and Israel always backs the wrong side. (Lovely shot of that Israeli jet flying cheek-to-cheek with the Luftwaffe, lads!) 40.Because Nazis don't win wars - and Serbs don't lose them.

To: Meredith Cullen who wrote (5175)	4/23/1999 1:26:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 17770

OT >>Hand guns only have one purpose - to kill human beings. << Meredith, Not true. But for the sake of argument I would say that there certainly would be instances where killing a human being is a legitimate use of a handgun. It's called self-defense. The only way "gun control" can be a real solution to criminal violence is to ban all guns, and then do a systematic search and seizure of every individual and remove every gun in the United States. Shut down every gun manufacturer. Disallow any importation of guns. Surely you see the futility of this. "Banning" hand guns will just simply concentrate the guns in the hands of criminals, their tools of trade, so to speak. Now, I will say that I am in favor of strict licensing and training, testing (and retesting) requirements for handgun users, and also owner liability if their gun should be used in the commission of a crime or even an accidental shooting. We should do everything we can to keep guns out of irresponsible individuals, but I draw the line at forcing Americans to be defenseless victims of gun wielding criminals. bp