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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBL who wrote (44341)	4/28/1999 9:12:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Ah, but can they multiply at the same rate!

To: JBL who wrote (44341)	4/28/1999 9:16:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I have been silly long enough. Now, to business! Something I posted on the Kosovo thread: a. The point remains that NATO derives its mandate from the signatory nations, and therefore they are in a position to broaden it if they so choose. b. The Serbs were massing troops for a spring offensive. It is unlikely that we have done more than provide some cover for the cleansing campaign, and perhaps given them a freer hand because the "shoe already dropped". Having said that, I believe that the primary mission was botched, by not concentrating on the offensive in the first place. c. The Turkish treatment of the Kurds is reprehensible. However, we have diplomatic options to put pressure on the Turks that are unavailable in the case of Serbia. In any event, the fact that we have not acted in one instance does not mean we cannot act in another, depending upon impending disaster and chances of success. d. I am not concerned with convinced fanatics, but potential recruits, who may be moved by the fact that we cared to risk American lives trying to defend Muslims. e. Actually, you missed the point. We want to discourage similar behavior in the future, and therefore have to show that we will act within he limits of prudence in order to avoid miscalculation or give the diplomatic advantage to aggressors. f. The idea, at least, was to preempt the KLA. g. Given the Macedonian fear of its own Albanian minority, the proximity and ambition of Albania, the smoldering tensions in Bosnia, the resurgence of pan- Slavism in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, and other numerous factors, the speculation was not wild...

To: JBL who wrote (44341)	4/28/1999 9:17:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<However mosquitoes are not the cause of malaria either, bacteria is but if you eliminate mosquitoes you eliminate malaria,no?...................Maybe this is too simple.>> yep, too simple. I doubt whether pezz understood his own analogy. It implies the elimination of bad people as the solution. Of course we have to define bad people. pezz considers human beings to be a blight on the planet and is huge on population control by eliminating the "unwanted." Of course he considers himself to cool to ever be considered one of the unwanted.

To: JBL who wrote (44341)	4/28/1999 9:18:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

A follow up post from the same thread: 1. The United Nations had the opportunity to condemn the action, but did not take it. Therefore, it has implicitly sanctioned the action. 2. I will not repeat... 3. If the situation were as I said, we picked the right side. 4. Italy was an ally during World War One, and that did not prevent us from invading in altered circumstances. 5. I agree with point five. For the other set: 1. As I've said, they were massing for such an action anyway, and after Bosnia we had reason to expect a humanitarian catastrophe. 2. I agree that we botched things with the Russians. 3. I tried, in my points, to outline the reasons for NATO to intervene, and therefore why this was not a "blank check" on intervention. I will refer you back to that post. 4. The cost is fairly modest, as these things go, and it all depends on whether or not it is a justified intervention. If so, the cost is no great matter.

To: JBL who wrote (44341)	4/28/1999 9:18:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Bad people are usually a tad bit smarter and active than bacteria.>> Maybe a "tad bit" but that's all."If we outlaw guns only criminals will have guns" should be amended to read If we outlaw guns only some criminals will have guns. It would be an improvement, no? pez

To: JBL who wrote (44341)	4/28/1999 9:21:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

A final post from this sequence (Michelle, I still wonder if you liked the Van Gogh?): Now, you have brought up the gravest difficulty, which is how many casualties should we be prepared to sustain or, for that matter, inflict. Since we lost less than 60,000 during nearly a decade of fighting in Vietnam, I am however not too worried that we will have a high mortality rate, nor, by extension, a high casualty rate. As for inflicted harm, I should say that heavy damage to men under arms, say a casualty rate of 50% and a fatality rate of 25-33%, and light collateral damage may be acceptable, although I would prefer to avoid it. As I have said before, I think we should back off from Rambouillet, get the Russians heavily involved, call a cease- fire, and try, try again...