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: The Philosopher who wrote (9016)	5/18/1999 6:53:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

we have a world body for determining precisely those issues. In this case we have run afoul of a UN provision that we have wielded in support of our own objectives a number of times: the Security Council veto provision. Milosevic can do what he wants without fear of UN intervention because he has Uncle Ivan to veto any move against him, just as (pardon the digression) the Israelis can do what they want without fear of UN intervention because they have Uncle Sam to run interference for them. Just as the Arab states went around the UN with direct military action, NATO is evading Ivan's veto by taking military action outside the UN structure. Perhaps a topic for discussion here: should we support removal of the veto power, and accept the limitations it places on our own operation? Or should we simply take it for granted that aggrieved parties blocked by the veto will - whether they should or not - act on their own?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (9016)	5/19/1999 5:57:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 17770

Christopher, First let me remind you that UN General Secretary Kofi Annan has agreed with NATO's initiative in the Balkans: he stressed the point that Human Rights are of a higher order than nations's sovereignty when the latter is nothing more than a blank cheque to brutalize ethnic, religious, or whatever minorities. You are talking of NATO as of some gang of outlaw countries and you hint that China, the US, Russia, India, Brazil, Iran, you name it, are all interchangeable countries when it comes to ethical values or democratic standards. That's a gross error. A good bench mark to accurately pinpoint NATO on a scale of values is to picture the anti-NATO crowd: extreme right parties in Western Europe, jingoistic leaders in Russia, and... Ariel Sharon in Israel! Wanna get lumped together with this mob??! No thanks. Arabophobic Sharon and jingo Chinese leaders want NATO to stop the bombing campaign and to withdraw from sovereign Serbia... Fine! But what are their motives, after all? Obviously, China and jingo leaders from Israel to Russia to France don't give a shit about Muslim Albanians, so what's their agenda? Are they sincerely committed to work out a fair and peaceful settlement for the Balkan people? Or are they just playing chess with the US on some other issues? Actually, a great country such as China might even be pursuing some mischievous objective: the geopolitical ruin of Europe! By stubbornly obstructing a UN/NATO compromise solution, China is knowingly stirring up the Balkans. Furthermore, China has likely anticipated the strategic mismatch between the US and the other European NATO members regarding the ground war. This Europe/US divide will help China in killing two birds with one stone: isolating the US as a boorish world sheriff and tarnishing the public image of Western Europe as a club of impotent, white, Christian technocrats who no longer have the willpower to fix their own backyard... Gustave.