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 (10681)	5/31/1999 11:41:00 AM
From: RavenCrazy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Maybe, maybe, maybe ---- Monday May 31 10:09 AM ET Yugoslavia Confirms Acceptance Of G8 Principles BELGRADE (Reuters) - Yugoslavia Monday confirmed its acceptance of the principles laid down by the big power Group of Eight countries, the state news agency Tanjug said. ''In accordance with our consistent policy of peace and defense of freedoms, Yugoslavia has accepted the G8 principles and thinks a U.N. Security Council resolution, in accordance with the U.N. charter, should enable the transfer of the resolution of the crisis from the military to the political sphere,'' it said. Tanjug's statement was issued after what it said was a meeting between Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and his top officials at which they discussed Milosevic's talks Friday with Russian Kosovo envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin. Following last Friday's meeting, state media said that Milosevic had accepted the ''general principles'' of the G8 -- seven leading industrial powers plus Russia. They include an immediate end to violence and repression in Kosovo, the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from the province, the deployment of an international security presence, establishment of an interim administration and safe return of refugees. NATO responded cautiously to that earlier report, saying it appeared to indicate progress toward a solution but that it wanted Milosevic to make a clear statement himself that he accepted the five conditions unreservedly and was prepared to implement them immediately.

To: JBL who wrote (10681)	5/31/1999 12:36:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 17770

Do you want it transformed? Transformed?? Hmmm.. semantic trap?? Reformed, yes. Transformed connotates something else that I don't think we're quite ready for as a diverse global population. The UN is the framework for a global conferacy, predecessor to global Federalism. However, a confederacy, by design, requires its members to have a voluntary adherence to the administration and policies of that confederacy. Thus, members of this confederacy must be carefully screened and selected to ensure that ALL members share common moral and political principles. The problem with the UN was that we made the fatal mistake in believing that including Russia as a permanent member of the security council would entice them to become cooperative members of that confederacy, which they obviously have not been until the fall of the communism (even now they are "democratic" in name only while ruled by a corrupt oligarchy). China was incorporated in the UN because the US recognised it was a growing power, and nice counterbalance to Russia's presence, which it was until Mao's revolution. We, the US and the other post-WWII democracies, created the UN as a means to preserve and promote the concept of democracy and freedom. It WAS NOT CREATED to permit rogue authoritarian/totalitarian states to stymie and disrupt the intentions of the UN charter. You simply don't hand the reigns of power to those who are engaged in attempting to destroy and manipulate that power for their own non-democratic interests. By granting permanent voting status to Russian and China, guaranteed that both would abuse that priviledge. We gave them equal status, when politically speaking neither were, OR ARE, politically equal to the western democracies. So you all have to tell me whether of not the UN, in its current form, is a sham or crippled organization. But I certainly feel confident that NATO and the UN did not come to this decision to use force against Serbia lightly. It has been argued, debated, and discussed to exasperation for the past 6+ years. Regards, Ron