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: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (9071)	5/19/1999 7:17:00 AM
From: robnhood	Respond to of 17770

<<< Wanna get lumped together with this mob??! No thanks.>>>> Lumped by who----war mongers like you? Lumping is something that fits in quite well with the type who likes to commit violence....

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (9071)	5/19/1999 11:54:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Ah, you see enemies everywhere! Kofi Annan is not the U.N., he is a bureaucrat in charge of the U.N. He is hardly the man one would look to to redefine international law. You are right--Nato IS a gang of outlaw countries. They are acting contrary to international law. Just because Robin Hood claimed to be a good guy didn't mean he wasn't an outlaw. Just because we have the physical ability to beat somebody to a pulp doesn't mean we have the legal right to do so. We in this country have a tendency to idolize the lawless "crusader" who takes the law into his or her own hands and commits all sorts of crimes in the name of the greater good. We cheer when they win, carefully ignoring all the laws they broke in the process. It's great in the movies. It's not great in the real world. I would say the motives of Russia and China are pretty clear. If the concept that one nation, or alliance, with military dominance can invade another nation which is doing things the first nation doesn't approve of, Russia and China (and many other countries) have a well founded fear that the U.S. mayu turn on them next. Will the U.S. use the same argument to bomb Moscow because of its situation in Chechnya, Peking because of Tibet, etc. One consequence of this war -- sorry, military action; only Congress can declare war, so this isn't one -- is to have shown the nations of the world with crystal clarity that the U.S. is prepared to export its vision of government by force to all the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not. That works for a while, but as Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Third Reich, and all the others found out, world conquest is a very hard thing to accomplish, and usually winds up destroying or severely diminishing the power that tries it. We should have listened to George Washington. Father knew best.

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (9071)	5/19/1999 12:30:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

First let me remind you that UN General Secretary Kofi Annan has agreed with NATO's initiative in the Balkans: According to Slate's report on today's news the New York Times disagrees with you. "In other Kosovo news, the NYT reports that Serbia's army is hardening its border positions in preparation for a possible NATO ground attack. Speaking at the United Nations, Kofi Annan used veiled language to 1) criticize the United States for conducting an attack without Security Council approval and 2) criticize Russia and China for their insufficient response to ethnic violence in Kosovo." slate.com

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (9071)	5/19/1999 8:32:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

Actual words of Kofi Annan: un.org SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have always stressed the primacy of rule of law and the need to have respect for the rule of law and at the time of the crisis I did indicate that the Security Council has a central role when it comes to questions of peace and security around the world and that they must be involved in any decision to use force. Yes, I did stress at the time also that there could be there are times when there could be legitimate reasons to use force in search of peace and we have several good examples: the Gulf war that led to withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. And so my answer to your question is quite categoric. The Security Council has a primary responsibility and as we search for peace, I am encouraged that the problem may end up in the Security Council. The issue will be brought back to the Security Council and I think that development would be very important in terms of reaffirming the central rule of the Council and acceptance of rule of law and established precedents and procedures. Note: [The Security Council] must be involved in any decision to use force. That doesn't sound to me like support for unilateral bombing without consultation with or approval of the Security Council. Can you quote words of his to me where he DID approve of Nato proceeding without Security Council consultation?