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: Machaon who wrote (9275)	5/20/1999 9:06:00 PM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Why do you concentrate "only" on the negative aspects of NATO's attempt to stop the Serb genocide of the Kosovo Albanians? It sounds like you have an ajenda.>> There is no positive aspects....thousand killed, million is in refugee camps, alliance is in diarray and cold winter approaches for destroyed country and no one has a clue how to end this fiasco

To: Machaon who wrote (9275)	5/20/1999 9:11:00 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 17770

Talking about the Kosovo leg of the trip, Vieira de Mello said: ''We'll be looking at immense suffering, I must say not comparable with what we've seen so far although victims are victims and deserve our full sympathy and support, and that is the tragedy we need to bring to an end.'' infoseek.go.com

To: Machaon who wrote (9275)	5/20/1999 9:14:00 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 17770

Nato considers halt to bombing By Toby Helm in Brussels and Christopher Lockwood, Diplomatic Editor NATO leaders are considering a fundamental switch of tactics whereby the bombing of Serbia could be halted before Slobodan Milosevic has met the alliance's five conditions for a ceasefire. The move, if agreed, would represent a significant climbdown from Nato's position that its demands must be met in full before the air campaign could end. Central to these are the withdrawal of all Serb forces from Kosovo and the intervention of a Nato-led peacekeeping force. As diplomatic efforts to find a solution intensified yesterday, Nato made it clear that it was seriously considering plans advanced by Massimo D'Alema, the Italian prime minister. These involved a cessation of bombing as soon as a United Nations Security Council resolution on a settlement had been merely drafted. The resolution, being prepared in Bonn by senior diplomats of the G8 countries, could be ready today. Under the Italian plan, bombing would stop before Milosevic had withdrawn any of his 40,000 troops and perhaps even before he had formally agreed to do so, and to allow in a Nato-led peacekeeping force. The bombing would halt before the UN resolution had been officially approved to get round the possibility of a Chinese veto. Following more shuttle diplomacy by Russia's Balkans envoy, Viktor Chernomyrdin, Belgrade stated yesterday that it was ready to accept a peace formula along the lines of the original G8 plan that now forms the basis for the UN resolution. After meeting Mr D'Alema at Nato headquarters in Brussels, Javier Solana, the Nato Secretary General, said the alliance would take his proposal "very seriously". It was "not in contradiction to the position we have taken in the alliance". The drafting of the resolution and the cessation of bombing could be carried out "practically simultaneously". Last night, Mr Solana flew to London to meet Tony Blair and for dinner with George Robertson, the Defence Secretary. The Italian plan was understood to be one of the main items for discussion. At yesterday's Nato briefing in Brussels, Jamie Shea, the alliance spokesman, hinted clearly that the D'Alema plan, or something like it, was under active consideration. Previously, Nato had rejected any such claims out of hand. Mr D'Alema, among the most dovish of the Nato leaders, said yesterday that if bombing was stopped and the Serbs failed to withdraw, Italy would support any military action the alliance wanted to take - including, the use of ground troops. However, he criticised Mr Blair's vocal support for ground troops, saying: "It is a totally useless exercise, a pointless exercise, which is useful only for our adversaries." Last night American sources in Nato were sceptical about the suggested tactical change. President Clinton said: "We will continue our military campaign until our conditions are met. I believe the campaign is working telegraph.co.uk

To: Machaon who wrote (9275)	5/20/1999 10:55:00 PM
From: JBL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

Robert, You obviously want to see the situation in Kosovo as a simple and clear-cut issue, where NATO was justified to start the bombing, and is justified to prolong it until Milosevic capitulates. The argumentation you have put forward has been shallow in several areas. It has been shallow because you do not want to modify the position you have held since the begining of this conflict. - You keep talking about "the genocide of the Albanians" when you know very well that the atrocities and ethnic cleansing done by Serb military and paramilitary forces in Kosovo do not constitute a genocide. If it were a genocide, there would indeed be no question whatsoever about the use of force by NATO in Kosovo, and that is why the terminology, in this case, is so important. - You call NATO's forces "freedom fighters" as if to convince yourself that their initial mission was to liberate the Kosovars rather than trying to enforce peace between the Serbs and the KLA. - You refuse to see the complexity of the situation on the ground, and in particular, the fact that the KLA itself was called a terrorist organization by the US a few months ago. - You mostly refuse to consider the moral ambiguity of NATO's position as it relates to the signing of a treaty under the threat of force, the fact that bombing are now making things worse for all parties involved, in particular civilians, and that time is of the essence in trying to help those victims. Regards.

To: Machaon who wrote (9275)	5/21/1999 12:04:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

It sounds like you have an ajenda. Yes, I have an agenda. It's simple. 1. The US should obey the law. You are simply dead wrong when you say this military action is legal. I have given citations to both the Nato Treaty and the UN Charter which show the action to be illegal. You have given nothing but your unsupported opinion. If you think the action is legal, tell us why. Otherwise, accept that you are plain wrong on that. Just repeating yourself over and over with no proof or evidence or citation is simply showing your ignorance and intellectual vacuity. Put up or shut up. 2. The US should not kill innocent people in the name of trying to save innocent people. There is NO doubt in ANY reasonable person's mind that we have made the situation many times worse by the bombing. A diplomatic solution was available, and would have happened if Albright hadn't wanted to play with her war toys and Clinton hadn't wanted to get the China spying scandal off the front pages of the papers. This is 50% a wag-the-dog war and 50% a "I wanna play with my toys before I have to go home" war. If Clinton and Albright had truly cared about the Kosovans they would used the UN to negotiate a treaty which all sides could have lived with and which would have saved hundreds of thousands of Kosovans from being homeless. That is my agenda. Very simple. Very straightforward. Very honest. Very honorable. And very much committed to solving a problem instead of showing what a big bully the US can be. I realize it doesn't fit with your agenda, which is simply KILL, KILL, KILL until there are no Yugoslavs left. Frankly, though, I prefer my agenda.