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 (10266)	5/28/1999 12:54:00 PM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 17770

No human conflict is either white or black.... In the 1940s, the US were still a segregated country: black soldiers and white soldiers didn't cross the Atlantic cheek by jowl in the same cabins! And the outrages perpetrated by the KKK in those years (ie from the 1920s on) would have likely appealed to the Nazis. Yet, is it a good enough reason to condemn the US intervention on May 8th, 1945? Should the US have waited for their desegregation in the 1960s before smashing the 3rd Reich instead?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (10266)	5/28/1999 1:01:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17770

In WWI and WWII, we did not attack until we were attacked. Could you tell me who attacked the US before our entrance into WWI?? The way I remember that history lesson was that Germany's decision to launch unrestricted submarine warfare was the root cause. But who could blame them? We were, after all, selling armaments to their enemies. As for WWII... maybe we shouldn't have implemented the total embargo against Japan on oil and scrap iron over their military campaign in China and Burma. Did we back them into a proverbial corner there as well and force them to attack us at Pearl Harbor?? We did a lot of things to antagonize and oppose Tokyo's militarists (and rightly so). You can twist history any way you want to make your case, Christopher. But the central message has to remain the same... freedom versus oppression. Human opportunity versus economic and mental repression. We have stood for the former(in most cases..:0) while others have sought the latter in order to exploit a people to achieve some unbridled personal ambition. Milosevic's ambition has been to make Serbia the dominant power in the Balkans and be the father of some rebirthed Serbian nationalism. Ours has been to return the area to peace and rebuild their economies so both sides can make some money and improve their lot in life. Instead, he will go down in the history books as the man who led Serbia to ruin and economic stagnation. My logic isn't faulty 'o lawyerly one. I have a pretty good grasp on history and what shapes and molds it. One clear theme throughout our existence is that strong personalities attempt to prey upon our fears in order to further their personal and political power and wealth. But what Milo has been up to is not just something internal. It is meant to destabilize his neighbors as well so as to weaken them and come under Belgrade's sphere of influence. Ousting Kosovars has bridled hated Albania with chaos, and undermined separatist Macedonia's stability, placing that nation's Albanian population at a disadvantage while empowering its Serb population. Let's not forget that the only reason Macedonia is an independent nation is because US and UN troops have been on the ground there for YEARS running peacekeeping operations. If Serbia wasn't a threat, why were our forces required?? Regards, Ron