twilight2000-digest Saturday, April 3 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 030 The following topics are covered in this digest: AA Missiles Red Flood PBeM Campaign Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs (long) Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs (long) Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs (long) Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:30:49 +0100 From: "Chris Cranston" Subject: AA Missiles Does anyone know what effect the guidance listing of AA missiles has on the game ? Out of the other statistics Rng is obviously the range and Acc. Level is the level of difficulty when firing at a target. The following types of guidance are present: TV (the FOG-M) Radar IR CMD (Command guided) So why are these listed ? What effect do they have on the game ? How do things like flares, chaff, radar jammers and IR suppression affect these ? The section on "Defensive Countermeasures" from the Aviation handbook (P6) attempts to explain this but is incomplete. Cheers! Chris Cranston, green@helloworld21.freeserve.co.uk *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 21:51:29 +0200 From: fmmeier@freshnet.de (Meier Frank) Subject: Red Flood PBeM Campaign Hi listers, My T2K PBeM Campaign page is finally online ! I still search for some players. Everyone which is interested in a T2K PBeM game, please feel free to visit my site and send me an email with your character idea... You will find my site at: http://terranova.virtualave.net The game will begin as soon as there are enough players (6-8). That is all for now, Frank *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 16:43:50 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Support the POWs Same reason I don't display overt emotion for the TuTu's, Kurds, Basques, Palestinians etc. Im not from there. They get the same prayer the rest of you get. Some times I mention a particular child I saw on TV in a refugee line, or throwing rock, or carrying a gun. And I am sorry for all the Serbs that can't help whats goin on. But Ramirez, Gonzales and Stone are my countrymen and deserving of my attention, and better pens than mine have spent time explaining it. I doubt I could it adequately here. It's a shame it came up. > > While I can't disagree with this sentiment, I do wonder why you gentlemen > can't display similar emotion for the 500,000 Albanians who've been through > much worse than those POW's? > > Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 18:19:52 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs At 04:43 PM 4/2/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: >Same reason I don't display overt emotion for the TuTu's, Kurds, Basques, >Palestinians etc. Im not from there. They get the same prayer the rest of >you get. Some times I mention a particular child I saw on TV in a refugee >line, or throwing rock, or carrying a gun. And I am sorry for all the Serbs >that can't help whats goin on. >But Ramirez, Gonzales and Stone are my countrymen and deserving of my >attention, and better pens than mine have spent time explaining it. I doubt >I could it adequately here. It's a shame it came up. > Well, then here's my problem: you're using exactly the same logic that Milosevic and his men are using to say that it's okay to kill 100,000 Albanians to preserve a worthless bit of dirt as a "trophy" for their country, its sole purpose being to recall an event that occurred 600 years ago. You may not be as extreme as Milosevic, but it's the same logic: my people are worth more than yours, so (for example) it's okay to kill a lot of your people to save a few of mine. The other reason this bothers me is that, with more than half a million people driven out of their homes, their homes and all their possessions and even their ID papers, land records, marriage licenses destroyed, tens of thousands killed, more wounded or raped, it would bother me if U.S. public opinion could change our policy towards two million people based on our concern for three guys. I think that, at least from a legal perspective, the U.S. certainly has a greater obligation to protect its own citizens than to protect citizens of other countries, but that goes only so far--and importantly, that's not a moral argument, just a legal one. I don't think you'll find something in the Bible or the Federalist Papers that asserts that people who happen to share a country with you have a higher moral value. That's certainly not how God looks at people. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:48:36 -0500 From: "CDServices" Subject: Re: Support the POWs > While I can't disagree with this sentiment, I do wonder why you gentlemen > can't display similar emotion for the 500,000 Albanians who've been through > much worse than those POW's? > > Scott Orr I guess because those three men are our fellow countrymen and they deserve our utmost support. I tend to be a bit of a libertarian in military matters, that is I really don't think it's our interest in being there unless Serbia attacks a fellow NATO member or even a third party. I can see the legal problem that NATO attacked a sovereign nation for actions within its borders. Personally all this could have been avoided if there was some sort of system, maybe under the auspices of the UN to work things out. I'm still not quite happy with that idea either but it is a lot better than just bombing Serbia, solidifying support for Milosevic, and having Milosevic's thugs "going postal" and driving out Albanians creating a huge refugee problem. I hope we help out these poor Albanians the best as we can but since these men are our countrymen, they are foremost in our minds. I think the crux of the problem is that the many sides are not ready for peace and until that time, I guess they will slug it out. Sure, there were times that the threat of the USSR kept the peace and/or if we occupied it after a long campaign but there will be a time where there would be a withdrawl and they'll go back to fighting again. Some of my ancestors come from that area, I'm part Serbian. I look at what's going on over there and I can see why my ancestors "got out of Dodge." The best we can do is help the people who are running away from the abuse be they Serbian, Croatian, Albanian, etc., and feed, clothe, shelter, and medically treat them in the short run and to help them re-establish some sort of livelihood in the long run. I'm afraid with the military pared down to 50% of 1988 levels, we are in danger of spreading ourselves too thin. It really hurts to see what is going on over there and I can see how people would want to do something but doing it this way is about as wise as "taking a wiz on the electric fence." (with apologies to "Ren & Stimpy") Too bad superheroes are not real, I'd send in the "X-Men." B-) Chuck DE KA3WRW "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:16:34 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Support the POWs > I guess because those three men are our fellow countrymen and they deserve > our utmost support. I tend to be a bit of a libertarian in military > matters, that is I really don't think it's our interest in being there > unless Serbia attacks a fellow NATO member or even a third party. I can see > the legal problem that NATO attacked a sovereign nation for actions within > its borders. Personally all this could have been avoided if there was some > sort of system, maybe under the auspices of the UN to work things out. I'm > still not quite happy with that idea either but it is a lot better than just > bombing Serbia, solidifying support for Milosevic, and having Milosevic's > thugs "going postal" and driving out Albanians creating a huge refugee > problem. I hope we help out these poor Albanians the best as we can but > since these men are our countrymen, they are foremost in our minds. > > I think the crux of the problem is that the many sides are not ready for > peace and until that time, I guess they will slug it out. Sure, there were > times that the threat of the USSR kept the peace and/or if we occupied it > after a long campaign but there will be a time where there would be a > withdrawl and they'll go back to fighting again. Some of my ancestors come > from that area, I'm part Serbian. I look at what's going on over there and > I can see why my ancestors "got out of Dodge." The best we can do is help > the people who are running away from the abuse be they Serbian, Croatian, > Albanian, etc., and feed, clothe, shelter, and medically treat them in the > short run and to help them re-establish some sort of livelihood in the long > run. > > I'm afraid with the military pared down to 50% of 1988 levels, we are in > danger of spreading ourselves too thin. It really hurts to see what is > going on over there and I can see how people would want to do something but > doing it this way is about as wise as "taking a wiz on the electric fence." > (with apologies to "Ren & Stimpy") Too bad superheroes are not real, I'd > send in the "X-Men." B-) > > Chuck > > DE KA3WRW > > "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." > > -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been > cancelled. Oops, address any e-mail to the address where this message came from, I accidently sent it under the wrong name. Chuck DE KA3WRW "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:24:29 -0500 From: "cell-66 Toronto" Subject: Re: Support the POWs i feel when force is needed then fair enough. but that is a strictly internal matter. it was not the same as the gulf war to a point where kuwait had been invaded. i am not really sure what the whole thing over there is now about. but this yugoslav thing seems to be in doubt as to its objectives, its full reasons to be there and what the ideal outcome really is. even one of the nato commanders seemed unsure when asked. now it is sure to be a difficult and terrifing ordeal for the pow's and it must be terrifing for the refugees as well. the whole situation is bad and its not going to get any better even with the bombing. it is racial hatered they are dealing with and that is difficult to fix with bombs. northern ireland is a example of a place dealing with regligious hatred. cath/prod bombs wont fix that there, why do they believe it will work in yugoslavia. to the claims it will destabilise europe i don't agree fully with that. the civil war was going on for years there, it had just as much chance of destabilising europe. alot of europe are in on this one being nato. i dont believe that peacekeepers is the answer. that puts people froma different country who dont really care about what happens there and who ultimatly wants to go home. the serbs and albanians have to work this out eventually themselves. having foreign powers involved wont fix the problem at best only postpone it. aaron ~In darkness lies often are the truth.~ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:37:47 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: Support the POWs (long) - --- cell-66 Toronto wrote: > i feel when force is needed then fair enough. but > that is a strictly > internal matter. it was not the same as the gulf war > to a point > where kuwait had been invaded. i am not really sure > what the whole > thing over there is now about. The whole thing over there is about protecting the lives of civilians who are being threatened by their own government. Why should it matter whether this is an "internal" or "external" matter? The point is that people are being killed, that in fact ethnic cleansing is occuring, and that the rest of the world has a responsibility to protect them. > but this yugoslav thing seems to be in doubt as to > its objectives, > its full reasons to be there and what the ideal > outcome really is. > even one of the nato commanders seemed unsure when > asked. It's unfortunate that there hasn't been better leadership and communication in this matter. > now it is sure to be a difficult and terrifing ordeal > for the pow's and it > must be terrifing for the refugees as well. the whole > situation is bad > and its not going to get any better even with the > bombing. it is > racial hatered they are dealing with and that is > difficult to fix with > bombs. The bombing is intended to stop the advance of Serbian forces against the Ethnic Albanian rebels. You will see this to soon begin to succeed, as the fuel supplies of the Serbs are being systematically destroyed, along with all the other infrastructure necessary for their army to wage war. > northern ireland is a example of a place dealing with > regligious > hatred. cath/prod bombs wont fix that there, why do > they believe it > will work in yugoslavia. However, Kosovo is different because a campaign is actually being waged militarily there, even before NATO took action. whereas in Northern Ireland action is limited to bombings and sniper attacks, in Kosovo a state of war exists and ethnic cleansing is taking place. Furthermore, one of the reasons why Northern Ireland has been in such a dire state for so long is because the only two nations that are really involved are the UK and Ireland, both of whom have drastic conflicts of interest in the matter. In Kosovo, NATO truly is a Third-Party. > to the claims it will destabilise europe i don't > agree fully with that. > the civil war was going on for years there, it had > just as much > chance of destabilising europe. alot of europe are in > on this one > being nato. An air campaign isn't going to destabilise Europe, or even just the Balkans. What does worry me is Russia's reaction if ground troops are eventually deployed. If Russia were to begin to supply armaments or whatever to the Serbs to defend themselves, that would have the potential to push the situation completely over the brink. I really don't think that Russia is likely to just directly intervene militarily, but some sort of supplier situation is a little more likely i believe. > i dont believe that peacekeepers is the answer. that > puts people > froma different country who dont really care about > what happens > there and who ultimatly wants to go home. the serbs > and albanians > have to work this out eventually themselves. having > foreign powers > involved wont fix the problem at best only postpone > it. > I think that peacekeepers are the only answer, unfortunately there are many political reasons (two of which are Russia and China) against their use in this case. I think the only way to stabilize the region is the deployment of a large quantity of ground forces. Unfortunately, for some shallow reason, many people would value one of their own country's soldiers' lives above ten, a hundred, even a thousand citizens of another country. Not only is this completely hipocritical and morally stupid, it's also one of the reasons the world's hands are so tightly tied in situations like Kosovo. Things as inconsequential as one death or in this case three POWs, are blown completely out of proportion by the media, such that it seems like a national tragedy. What is in fact the tragedy are the THOUSANDS of ethnic albanians that have been killed, and the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS that may never see their homes and villages again, that are having their entire racial heritage wiped out before their eyes as Milosevic's forces load them onto trains heading for the border. Just my thoughts, Michael Cook _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 20:46:39 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Support the POWs > Well, then here's my problem: you're using exactly the same logic that > Milosevic and his men are using to say that it's okay to kill 100,000 > Albanians to preserve a worthless bit of dirt as a "trophy" for their > country, its sole purpose being to recall an event that occurred 600 years > ago. You may not be as extreme as Milosevic, but it's the same logic: my > people are worth more than yours, so (for example) it's okay to kill a lot > of your people to save a few of mine. > > The other reason this bothers me is that, with more than half a million > people driven out of their homes, their homes and all their possessions and > even their ID papers, land records, marriage licenses destroyed, tens of > thousands killed, more wounded or raped, it would bother me if U.S. public > opinion could change our policy towards two million people based on our > concern for three guys. > > I think that, at least from a legal perspective, the U.S. certainly has a > greater obligation to protect its own citizens than to protect citizens of > other countries, but that goes only so far--and importantly, that's not a > moral argument, just a legal one. I don't think you'll find something in > the Bible or the Federalist Papers that asserts that people who happen to > share a country with you have a higher moral value. That's certainly not > how God looks at people. > How in the world you twisted that into what you did is........Wow! *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 21:48:32 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Support the POWs In a message dated 99-04-02 18:20:56 EST, you write: << The other reason this bothers me is that, with more than half a million people driven out of their homes, their homes and all their possessions and even their ID papers, land records, marriage licenses destroyed, tens of thousands killed, more wounded or raped, it would bother me if U.S. public opinion could change our policy towards two million people based on our concern for three guys. >> There have not been tens of thousands of people killed there. Best estimates put the number around 2000, and that is mostly "combatants". If there is an increasing number of deaths over there now, it is only the fault of NATO, for pressuring the Serbs to increase the activity of their campaign, to expedite the deportation of ethnic Albanians, so that when the smoke clears they'll be able to claim the land because they are standing on it. And where do you really draw the line on the concern for people? Do you realize that these bombings are not just hurting the military? There ARE civilians over there that had no power to alter the events that led to this. I'm sure civilians have died in our bombing, and a great many more will become sick or go hungry. Why don't you consider these people? Or what about the Serbs that are also being driven from their homes due to the bombing or fighting between the Serbs and KLA? Do you mention them? All people that suffer from the war deserve prayer, however most people tend to mention only those that are closest to them, be it politically, morally, or spiritually. Don't jump on people for not mentioning someone to pray for, until you actually take time to consider ALL the people that must suffer from this war. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 21:52:03 -0500 From: "cell-66 Toronto" Subject: Re: Support the POWs (long) although the ussr response is questionable, they are relying on a big money loan from the west to keep holding goverment. if they push too hard they may not get that. nato cant peacekeep every place that is in turmoil though. the internal goverments have to at some point sort themselves out. i am not agreeing with the conduct of the yugo goverment or its army or even the roving bands of thugs that are beating and raping in all the confusion. the loading of people onto trains sparked a image of the germans [sorry nazis not all germans were nazis] jews onto trains headed for the camps. i just hope that the outcome of this event is favorable. aaron ~In darkness lies often are the truth.~ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:41:17 -0500 From: "cell-66 Toronto" Subject: Re: Support the POWs i have two problems with certin things. 1. people who choose to go onto a bridge and stay there knowing it is a target are not innocent. it is the same as picking up a gun and joining the fight. that is a conscience decision to join the war if even in a passive way. if kids are being killed who have no idea what the whole thing is over they are innocent. or if it is the goverment and/or the army and the average serb does not agree with the action the goverment is taking then that is a shame and a tradgety and diplomatic avenues should have been followed. 2. i am all for foriegn aid, but how does a country tell its people it is giving so much in aid to another country and still have a homeless problem? aaron ~In darkness lies often are the truth.~ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 20:57:12 -0800 From: Ron Hale Subject: Re: Support the POWs Jason Weiser wrote: The American POWs and their families deserve our support. I unlike the current US president always back or soldiers, even though I don't believe Nato and especially the UN should be getting invovled, in an ethnic/religious conflict that has been going on since before there was a Yugoslavia. Just an observation and opinion; Isn't it strange that US troops are being ordered to fight by a President who was so much of a coward that not only did he not answer the call when it came, but deserted his country. Therefore, please show your support for our POWs if you have a web page by putting on it an MIA/POW flag and a few words of hope. Unfortunately I don't have a web site, yet. TTFN Ron Hale *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 00:57:46 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs At 06:48 PM 4/2/99 -0500, CDServices wrote: >> While I can't disagree with this sentiment, I do wonder why you gentlemen >> can't display similar emotion for the 500,000 Albanians who've been >through >> much worse than those POW's? >> >> Scott Orr > >I guess because those three men are our fellow countrymen and they deserve >our utmost support. I agree. But that doesn't mean we have to denigrate half a million other people in the implied comparison. >I tend to be a bit of a libertarian in military >matters, that is I really don't think it's our interest in being there >unless Serbia attacks a fellow NATO member or even a third party. I had this exact argument on another mailing list: I don't think there's anything "libertarian" about that point of view, even if some people calling themselves Libertarians share it. Libertarian philosophy says that the only proper functions of government are enforcing basic laws that keep people from hurting each other and defending the country. I don't think that, philosophically at least, libertarianism can raise an objection, to the enforcement of international law. I don't see the _philosophical_ difference between a policeman shooting a mugger and NATO shooting the Serbs. Neither the policeman or NATO has been attacked--both are coming to the aid of a weaker party. But quite apart from this, I don't think libertarianism places a lower _moral_ value on foreigners; indeed, I think libertarianism consciously eschews the sort of emotion-based policy that would lead you to make decisions based on personal concerns about a few individuals. >I can see the legal problem that NATO attacked a sovereign nation for actions >within its borders. This isn't really accurate. Under current international law (which, it has to be admitted, is constantly evolving and often fuzzy), there are a number of bases for justifying action by one sovereign country against another, if the latter country violates international commitments to uphold certain human rights _even_within_its_own_borders_. Yugoslavia is a signatory to treaties in which it committed itself, to other countries (i.e., not merely in its own constitution), not to take the actions it's taking in Kosovo. It is _clearly_ in violation (_serious_ violation) of international law; the only debate is about the proper means of enforcement, but NATO's enforcement has a fairly strong (if not bulletproof) legal basis. >Personally all this could have been avoided if there was some >sort of system, maybe under the auspices of the UN to work things out. This was attempted. Sanctions were attempted. In fact, a cease-fire was negotiated, and Yugoslavia failed to abide by that cease-fire. One problem is that Russia (with a veto on the UN Security Council) is basing its policies here not on international law but on its own perceived interests (preserving its role as a great power by keeping Yugoslavia as a client state), while China (because of Tibet and other human rights concerns) refuses to approve any action to use force to intervene to prevent human rights violations. Once sanctions have failed, UN attempts to reach a negotiated solution will not succeed unless there's at least the threat of force; thefore, if force is ruled out at the beginning, UN efforts have no hope. >I'm >still not quite happy with that idea either but it is a lot better than just >bombing Serbia, solidifying support for Milosevic, and having Milosevic's >thugs "going postal" and driving out Albanians creating a huge refugee >problem. We didn't "just bomb Serbia". We spent a long time beforehand trying to reach a negotiated settlement, and we used measures other than force toward that end; we then threatened force--for something like 6 or 7 months--before we actually employed it. >I hope we help out these poor Albanians the best as we can but >since these men are our countrymen, they are foremost in our minds. I am not aware of any moral philosophy in which three men--three men who are actually paid to risk their lives--would have a higher value than 2 million people, mostly civilians. To be blunt: those guys are volunteers, and we pay them to do a job. That job entails risks, and it doesn't say anywhere in thier contracts that their lives won't be risked in foreign lands to protect foreign people. I feel for them, but the risk is part of the package--and for the moment, at least they're quite safe as prisoners, if not in a really good situation. These guys knew going in that force was one element of our foreign policy, and when you use force, people get hurt, including your own soldiers. Contrast this with two million Kosovo Albanians who did not volunteer to be murdered, raped, and driven out of their homes; there were a few terrorists in the KLA when it was first formed, but I don't think the rest of the population deserves somehow to suffer for the sins of that handful. I'm sorry, but I can't even conceive of this one being a close call. >I think the crux of the problem is that the many sides are not ready for >peace and until that time, I guess they will slug it out. Well, in fact one of the sides is ready for peace and signed a peace agreement. The other side responded to this signature by stepping up its massacres of civilians. There are not, by the way, "many sides" here; sometimes there are, but here we have just two (there are other parties involved peripherally, but only two sides fighting). Even if both sides still wanted to fight, there'd be something to say for us stepping in just to stop the killing. The preservation of human life has a high moral value, and in addition it helps to ensure political stability, which furthers our foreign policy interests. >Sure, there were >times that the threat of the USSR kept the peace and/or if we occupied it >after a long campaign but there will be a time where there would be a >withdrawl and they'll go back to fighting again. In the past century (before the present fighting that began in the early 1990's), there have been only three short periods of warfare in the Balkans. One of those was the Balkan Wars, which occurred when the Ottoman Empire collapsed; the other two were WWI and WWII, which the Balkans shared with the rest of Europe. There are other coutnres in Europe (such as Poland) which also fought wars in this century other than WWI and WWII. Yugoslavia, before the present problems, saw slightly more fighting than most of the countries of Europe, but not a lot more. However, it is _completely_inaccurate_ to say that the parties there "have been at war for centureis". They've spent the vast majority of the time at peace, just like the rest of the world, and even the worst conflicts don't go back any further than the late 19th century (not even that long in Kosovo); unless you want to count the Ottoman invasion of Europe as the beginning of the present conflicts--but if you do that, you have to exlain somehow the 550 years or so in between in which things were mostly peaceful. >Some of my ancestors come >from that area, I'm part Serbian. I look at what's going on over there and >I can see why my ancestors "got out of Dodge." The best we can do is help >the people who are running away from the abuse be they Serbian, Croatian, >Albanian, etc., and feed, clothe, shelter, and medically treat them in the >short run and to help them re-establish some sort of livelihood in the long >run. Well, no, the best we can do is to put in ground troops and stop the killing. You may not agree with that option, but it's a real option, so I don't think you can say "the best we can do" is something else. >I'm afraid with the military pared down to 50% of 1988 levels, we are in >danger of spreading ourselves too thin. That's true; but personally my response would be to build up the military to a level where it matches our foreign policy, and to move dollars from boondoggle hardware and excess bases to personnel and readiness. >It really hurts to see what is >going on over there and I can see how people would want to do something but >doing it this way is about as wise as "taking a wiz on the electric fence." >(with apologies to "Ren & Stimpy") Too bad superheroes are not real, I'd >send in the "X-Men." B-) Well, I think there are ways to do it successfully. I have grave doubts about the current course, though I think almost everyone who knew something about the subject was surprised that things turned out so badly; and you can't make decisions by hindsight. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:26:00 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs (long) At 05:37 PM 4/2/99 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: > >An air campaign isn't going to destabilise Europe, or even just the >Balkans. What does worry me is Russia's reaction if ground troops are >eventually deployed. If Russia were to begin to supply armaments or >whatever to the Serbs to defend themselves, that would have the >potential to push the situation completely over the brink. I really >don't think that Russia is likely to just directly intervene militarily, >but some sort of supplier situation is a little more likely i believe. > This is almost certain. In fact, one shipment of disassembled MiG's(-21's I think) was already discovered en route. Precisely WHO in Russia might be providing weapons is another question entirely; things aren't under centralized control there anymore. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:27:41 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs At 08:46 PM 4/2/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > >> Well, then here's my problem: you're using exactly the same logic that >> Milosevic and his men are using to say that it's okay to kill 100,000 >> Albanians to preserve a worthless bit of dirt as a "trophy" for their >> country, its sole purpose being to recall an event that occurred 600 years >> ago. You may not be as extreme as Milosevic, but it's the same logic: my >> people are worth more than yours, so (for example) it's okay to kill a lot >> of your people to save a few of mine. >> >> The other reason this bothers me is that, with more than half a million >> people driven out of their homes, their homes and all their possessions >and >> even their ID papers, land records, marriage licenses destroyed, tens of >> thousands killed, more wounded or raped, it would bother me if U.S. public >> opinion could change our policy towards two million people based on our >> concern for three guys. >> >> I think that, at least from a legal perspective, the U.S. certainly has a >> greater obligation to protect its own citizens than to protect citizens of >> other countries, but that goes only so far--and importantly, that's not a >> moral argument, just a legal one. I don't think you'll find something in >> the Bible or the Federalist Papers that asserts that people who happen to >> share a country with you have a higher moral value. That's certainly not >> how God looks at people. >> >How in the world you twisted that into what you did is........Wow! > There's nothing twisted about it: I used straightforward logical reasoning from basic moral principles, rather than just going with my gut feelings. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 23:38:51 -0700 From: rogue09@sprynet.com Subject: Re: Support the POWs > > >How in the world you twisted that into what you did is........Wow! > > > There's nothing twisted about it: I used straightforward logical reasoning > from basic moral principles, rather than just going with my gut feelings. > > Scott Orr I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this one... Logic is never foolproof-and your making all sorts of assumptions about how everyone is reacting from "gut feelings"... T.R. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:49:28 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs At 08:57 PM 4/2/99 -0800, Ron Hale wrote: > >I unlike the current US president always back or soldiers, even though I don't >believe Nato and especially the UN should be getting invovled... I've never actually heard anything indicating that Clinton didn't support our soldiers. I know that he didn't believe in the intervention Vietnam, just as you don't believe in the intervention in Yugoslavia, but as you point out, that's not the same as not supporting the troops. Now it may be that at some point he actually said something against the troops, but I've never heard it personally; are you sure though that you aren't just assuming it? >...in an >ethnic/religious conflict that has been going on since before there was a >Yugoslavia. > That last part is simply false. >Just an observation and opinion; Isn't it strange that US troops are being >ordered to fight by a President... No, it's not strange. In the U.S. system of government, the military forces are under the control of the President. That control is an attribute of the office itself, not of the man or woman who happens to be in that office at the moment. That's what having a Constitution and being a nation governed by law is all about. And for similar reasons, the rightness of this policy has nothing to do with Clinton--or are you suggesting with should refrain from conducting foreign policy while we have a President that you personally don't approve of? >...who was so much of a coward that not only did >he not answer the call when it came... I'm not sure what you mean here: Clinton was never drafted. He was on the list, but "the call" never came (if it had, and he'd fled to another country, he'd have been prosecuted when he returned--indeed, there are still people who _still_ can't come back to the U.S. because they fled to Canada or elsewhere to avoid the draft). Or do you mean that Clinton failed to volunteer when the U.S. was in a war? If that's what you mean, I presume that you hold the same low opinion of Ronald Reagan, who failed to volunteer in WWII. >...but deserted his country. > I'm not sure where you got this idea, but it's not something that actually happened. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar in the UK (which is a normal thing for U.S. students to do for a year during college--it's very presitigious actually, and the competition for Rhodes Scholarships is very tough), and he also I think visited the USSR once (and lied about it later--surprise), but he never deserted the country. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #30 ************************************