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: JBL who wrote (10222)	5/28/1999 7:07:00 AM
From: peter a. pedroli	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

from the london times: just one more lie by your(cic)-criminal in charge Clinton to order 90,000 troops to Kosovo BY MICHAEL EVANS, DEFENCE EDITOR PRESIDENT CLINTON is now ready to consider a full-scale land war against Serb forces in Kosovo, sending up to 90,000 combat troops from America, if no peace settlement emerges within the next three weeks. Although Nato is only officially planning for a peace implementation force of 50,000-60,000 troops, there is a growing feeling in Washington and London that the alliance must prepare itself for a much bigger operation, involving 150,000-160,000 troops. Mr Clinton's dramatic conversion, after weeks of apparent reluctance to send in ground troops, has emerged in the light of detailed briefings from General Wesley Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander, last week. A new sense of urgency has been injected into Nato's contingency planning because of a warning from the military that a decision will have to be made "by mid-June" if the alliance is to contemplate a ground offensive. The tight timetable is being dictated by the alliance's determination to start returning ethnic Albanian refugees to their homes in Kosovo before the winter. The huge number of troops required for such an operation will be a daunting challenge for Nato. However, alliance sources said that with Mr Clinton committed to defeating Mr Milosevic one way or another, the US would be expected to contribute more than half of the force. They estimated the US contribution could be about 90,000 troops who would be deployed from America, not from Germany. They might include the 12,500-man US 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which was deployed in the Gulf War in 1991. Britain and France would also be expected to play a major part. Yesterday, George Robertson, the Defence Secretary, took the first step by announcing an extra 12,000 troops and support personnel for the peace implementation force, called Kfor. This will bring the total British military strength committed to the Kosovo crisis in Albania, Macedonia, Italy and the Adriatic to more than 19,000. Although Mr Robertson insisted that it was not an invasion force, Tony Blair indicated in the Commons that the troops could be used for a combat role. The alliance sources said that the size of an invasion force would depend on the amount of damage achieved by the airstrikes against the Serb troops in Kosovo over the next few weeks. Last week, it was estimated that the Serb strength in the province remained at about 40,000 in spite of two months of bombing. However, Nato still hopes that the intensified bombing campaign combined with Russian diplomatic efforts will persuade President Milosevic to agree to the alliance's five conditions for stopping the airstrikes. It is also recognised that if Nato were seen to be preparing for a land offensive, while backing Moscow's peace diplomacy, it could seriously undermine the already strained relations between Russia and the alliance. Another key factor is that the alliance itself has to be held together, and any formal request made to the 19 member states for authority to plan for a ground war could damage the unity that has been maintained so far. Germany indicated yesterday that it would not veto a move towards a ground war, although its troops would not take part. One resolve shared by the whole of Nato is that Mr Milosevic must not win, and the alliance sources said that if the air campaign and diplomatic efforts failed to get the Yugoslav leader to back down within the next three weeks, there would be no alternative but to prepare a ground offensive. The alliance sources admitted that the operation would be difficult, "but not impossible", and that a number of ways into the province were being studied.

To: JBL who wrote (10222)	5/28/1999 10:41:00 AM
From: George Papadopoulos	Respond to of 17770

> The Deadly Semantics of NATO bombings That was a great article, thank you

To: JBL who wrote (10222)	5/28/1999 11:04:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17770

Great... so we know what they're teaching semantics up at Boston U. It doesn't take a academic education for people to realize that war is the most ugly undertaking that mankind can perpetrate. People die. Some of those people die as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, while other die as a result of deliberate murder personally delivered by rifle and bayonet. One's humanity should be offended by thinking that just because we put a young man or woman in a military uniform that their lives become any less valuable than the civilians living in the nation they serve. I don't know of ONE military person I have ever met who love the destruction and death caused by war. They realize that it is THEY, not the civilians, who suffer inordinately from the misplace policies of their politicians. They are hunted and deliberately targeted while civilians just unfortunately get in the way. Such is the nature of war. Such is the nature of criminal enforcement in our own daily lives. Suspects and police officers die as a result of their lifestyles. These are the days that we long for a omniprescent and fair referee to help sort out our inane human conflicts. But lacking one, we have to do the best we can using the tools that seem effective. Diplomacy has obviously not worked in Yugoslavia. We've only been at it for 8+ years there and the situation has only gotten worse. Regards, Ron

To: JBL who wrote (10222)	5/28/1999 2:17:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

I thought it would be worthwhile to give an idea of who Zinn is, just to put things in context, though: Mighty Zinn History's bunk: Howard Zinn takes a "bottom-up" view of history. Howard Zinn brings his passion for history to Sonoma County By Zack Stenz A proposed exhibit of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum provokes a firestorm of criticism. The renaming of the Custer Memorial Battle-field becomes a political hot potato. The adoption of new national history standards in the nation's high schools is bashed from the podium by presidential candidates. Who says Americans don't care about history? Not Howard Zinn. This professor, activist, and author has dedicated his life to the notion that the knowledge of history is important to people's everyday lives, and can be a powerful force for social change. Zinn is a champion of the notion that historical change occurs more through mass movements of ordinary people than through the wisdom and insight of so-called Great Men. His best-known book, A People's History of the United States, was one of the first major looks at American history from such a perspective, and has sold a phenomenal 400,000 copies. Zinn is coming to Sonoma County on Monday, April 22, to speak on the Cold War and its legacy for the 21st century, at Sonoma State University and Santa Rosa Junior College. But despite his popularity, Zinn's brand of "bottom-up" history has been reviled by political conservatives, and he confesses that he isn't surprised by the level of passion in recent controversies like the one surrounding the Smithsonian's portrayal of the dark role the Enola Gay played in the bombing of Hiroshima. "Whenever you introduce a new view of historical events, the guardians of the old order will spring to the attack," Zinn says. "And a lot of people feel threatened by the idea that our side also committed atrocities in the Second World War. I'm actually encouraged by the controversy, though. It wouldn't exist if changes were not taking place in the way history is being taught." If anything, Zinn sees the recent attacks by the right on the "New History" taught by himself and others as a perverse vindication of his own belief in history's importance. "If history weren't so important, people wouldn't get so upset by it," he says. George Orwell said, 'Whoever controls the past controls the future,' by which he meant that history is incredibly important in shaping the world view of the next generation of people." Zinn hasn't been content to merely write about historical change, but has often been active in movements for civil rights and academic freedom, working against the Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars. "I've tried to join my writing with social issues," he says. "It was really my experiences in the South, teaching at Spelman College and getting involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Com-mittee, that spurred me to write A People's History. I could see history being made before my eyes by ordinary people who are never written about in the history books." It's Zinn's fierce compassion for and belief in the power of ordinary people that has characterized his work, turning A People's History into a celebration of heroism rather than merely the litany of government atrocities conservatives often accuse it of being. "One of the right-wing groups, [Reed Irvine's] Accuracy in Media, characterized A People's History as a 'Hate America' book," Zinn says. "But the supposition there is that America consists of the people on top. And while it's true that I take a very critical view of the United States government in history, I take a very positive view toward the mass movements of people in America who have fought to make the country a better place. "And that's where the left hasn't balanced its act very well, either," he adds. "They've done a very good job of illuminating the various bad policies of the American government, but they haven't shown what people have done to resist these policies, often successfully. And that's a critical thing to do, to show people in the present day that they can fight back and win." Zinn admits that the current American landscape of temporary workers, multinational corporations, and citizens' increasing isolation from one another hinders the formation of his cherished mass movements. "Building a movement is difficult, given the fragmentation and isolation of people today and just the very diverse nature of the United States," says Zinn. "But when people's outrage is felt strongly enough, a new social movement will be born." So despite a conservative political climate that has left many longtime progressive activists depressed and demoralized, Zinn's reading of history keeps him optimistic about America's future. "I am hopeful," he says. "But hope rests on doing something. If you're not doing anything to change things, you have no right to be hopeful."