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 (9383)	5/21/1999 4:57:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

In response to section (A): I prefer to look to Reginald Deming who was dragged from his truck and assaulted with bricks by an angry mob. I would have "double-tapped" each of those assailants and not spent a moment of my life in regret. That was a life-threatening situation where no one knew if they were going to kill him or not. In response to (B): Minimum force depends upon the amount of danger you place yourself in. If a person is armed with a knife and threatening others within arms length, if you have a pistol you would have to shoot to wound or disarm, not kill. However, if that person was holding a knife to someone's throat, then surely deadly force is justified, if you can find an opening where you can take the shot without endangering the hostage. There is a difference. In regards to being sued by family, that's the risk you take and you can request a jury trial. No jury would convict you (at least a honest jury). Instead they'd probably want to shake your hand and thank you for a job well done, because they know the only difference between them and that intended victim was merely a matter of time and location. Milosevic has an international court in which his gov't has filed suit against NATO. He does have legal recourse but now he has to win over a jury and judge as to the merit of the claim. (C): You are separating Milosevic from the Serbian people. That is similar to saying we were wrong for bombing German cities during WWII and killing "innocent" civilians. These civilians were the willing or indifferent enablers of the policies that Hitler and Milosevic undertook. Had it not been for the Serbian people "buying in" to the BS argument of "greater Serbia" or believing that Serbia had a right to dominate all of the other ethnicities of former Yugoslavia, we may have been able to avoid this level of violence in the first place. But the Serbs accepted violence as a justifiable way of dealing with the ethnic differences in former Yugoslavia. They EMPOWERED Milo, and thus as such are not "innocent". (d): That declared enforcement capability was frustrated by the strategic politics being played by Bejing and Moscow. They threatened to veto any attempt to intervene in Kosovo before the situation got out of hand. They did not restrain Milosevic to the extent that they could have. They were guilty of permitting this violence to explode into ethnic cleansing and NATO action. An alternative argument is that NATO had every right to take action to pre-empt what was on track to be an aggressive and destabilizing Serbian nation bent on dominating and possibly aggressing against its neighbors. We can say this because few nationalist movements are able to contain themselves solely within their own borders, but require security by intimidating and controlling their neighbors. Who to say where Milo and Serbia would have been had no one taken any action to quell his ambitions. Waging war on their ancient enemies the Albanians and Turks?? We'll never know, and I for one am glad we won't get to find out. Regards, Ron