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 (10636)	5/31/1999 12:47:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 17770

An excellent article. Lays it out for all thinking people. Of course, there are unthinking people on this thread who embrace the slaughter of innocents as a legitimate use of American military power. For those people, Mary Robinson, Jimmy Carter, and President Mandela can be dismissed as mere pawns of the Slob ethnic cleanser. Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland, has questioned the "proportionality" of Nato's action in international law; former President Jimmy Carter has described the bombing as "senseless and excessively brutal", and President Mandela of South Africa has stated that Nato's actions are equally criminal with those of President Milosevic. For the rest of us, and 82% of Americans (maybe more by now), we are disgusted by Clinton's need to keep this dog wagging. I agree totally with Mandela -- he and Blair should be right up there in the dock next to Milosovic in front of the war crimes tribunal.

To: JBL who wrote (10636)	5/31/1999 12:50:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 17770

The most frightening thing about that article and its implications are that American pilots have been put in an untenable position -- mutiny, or commit war crimes. How many pilots will be tried in Nuremburg 1999? To think of our pilots condenmed to prison or death for war crimes they committed by refusing to disobey orders makes me understand--not approve of, but understand--those Nazis who refused to disobey their orders and wound up tried at the original Nuremburg trials.

To: JBL who wrote (10636)	5/31/1999 12:53:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

One other comment -- those who would dismiss your article as Serbian propaganda will have to close their eyes to truth extra hard, considering the source -- the London Times ranks as one of the five most respected newspapers in the world. Even Barry and the other slavering blood-lusters will have trouble dismissing the Times as a pro-Serbian publication.

To: JBL who wrote (10636)	5/31/1999 6:23:00 AM
From: cody andre	Respond to of 17770

Good article. Might does not make it right.

To: JBL who wrote (10636)	5/31/1999 8:26:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

JBL, To add some flavor to that article, the author, SIR William Rees-Mogg, is the co-author of a doomsday economics book, Blood in the Streets (which sits upon my bookshelf at this moment). It's an interesting little book written back in the late '80s fortelling the soon to come collapse of the world economic order, hyper-inflation, and a rush to precious metals (if I recall the premise properly). I consider his perspective slightly opportunistic. When the lawyers and economists start tearing apart a document such as the NATO charter looking for violations of international law, while ignoring the obvious failure of the UN security council to prevent the iniating violations of international law by Serbia, then I have to believe these guys may just have a personal agenda they are implementing against NATO (or just trying to find a legalistic reason to prevent taking a stance against the current operation). There have been MANY examples in which MANY countries who are MEMBERS of the UN have iniated violent actions against their neighbors or internal populations. And considering that the Security Council is a flawed organization wherein any ONE of the permanent members (like China or Russia... or the US) can veto a particular course of action, it obviously has difficulty in resolving issues that involve personal rivalries/interests between two or more of the permanent members. We can see an example of this in the Balkans where China and Russia both threatened vetoes in the UN thus neutralizing the UN ability to respond militarily to Milosevic's violations of international law. Personally, I'm beginning to think the security council needs to be revised providing the 5 permanent member seats to the 5 most prosperous economies or by placing these seats into the hands of dedicated neutrals or unaligned nations like Switzerland, Sweden,... etc. Regards, Ron