twilight2000-digest Saturday, April 3 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 031 The following topics are covered in this digest: 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: AA Missiles janes Re: Support the POWs Re: AA Missiles Re: Support the POWs Re: Support the POWs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:58:36 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs At 07:24 PM 4/2/99 -0500, 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. > > 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. > Hm...I'm not sure if the objectives were communicated clearly to the general public, but for those of us who've been following this a long time they're very clear: The primary objective is to stop the fighting. One of the ways we've wanted to bring this about is to negotiate an agreement giving Kosovo autonomy (that is, limited self-government), but that's only (for us) a means to an end. It should be added (especially now) that stopping the fighting means stopping the fighting in some way other than driving people who live in Kosovo out of their homes. Right now, we'd also like to punish Serbia and especially Milosevic, in order to deter this sort of thing from happening in the future (in the former Yugoslavia or elsewhere), but that's a secondary objective. >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. > Well, I don't think we can "fix" things in the sense of making the two sides agree--you're right that that happened in Northern Ireland only after both sides got sick of the violence. But I think we can stop the figthing at least long enough for both sides to calm down: this seems to be working, so far at least, in Bosnia, though we may have to stay awhile longer to make sure the people there are really through fighting. >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. > Well, I agree it's not going to harm the rest of Europe directly, although the situation in Yugoslavia has created refugee crises that cuase problems for other European countries. In addition, the attention that it draws form governments probably distracts them from other important goals, like reforming and expanding the EU. >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. > Well the few soldiers I've heard talk about it do care. They'd like to be home, sure, but I think that as long as they believe they're making a difference they're willing to do the job. 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 02:12:13 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs At 09:48 PM 4/2/99 EST, Grimace997@aol.com wrote: >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". > It was about 2,000 at one point, but we don't have any way of counting casualties that have occurred since the start of the air campaign. We do know, from eyewitness accounts, that large numbers of non-combatants have been massacred since then, but there's just no way to tell how many--the human rights monitors from the OSCE left just before the bombing started, and the Serbs have been systematically assassinatign the Albanian human rights monitors. And even if there were monitors, the place is in such chaos, with people being driven from their homes, that it would be hard to get a grip on the question. One NATO officer I heard today, speaking from Albania I think (though it may have been Macedonia), was speaking about the refugees and asked the Serbs (rhetorically of course) where all the mean between 16 and 60 had gone; there have been accounts that in some cases men were separated from women and children, and apparently the numbers of missing men are quite large (and from other accounts, it seems that they aren't fighting with the KLA). We don't actually know what's happened to these men, but I'll give you three guesses. >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. Is it NATO's fault in the short term? I'll give you that. But it seems probable that this Milosevic's ultimate objective all along, and that NATO's actions just speeded things up. Perhaps if Milosevic still thoguht he had something to lose with respect to the international community, the measures wouldn't have been _this_ bad, but things were certainly going to get worse in Kosovo than they had been previously. >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? I do. The idea is to save more than you kill--and to save their homes and land as well. >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? Yes, I'm quite aware of them--though there's not much evidence of Serbs being driven out by the bombing (except in Serb propaganda). It is quite true that some Serbs were driven from their homes over the last year by the KLA (and on occasion massacred), but the Serbs have always been the bigger culprits, and nothing the KLA did even _approached_ what's happening now. It's a question of preventing the greater evil. That being said, a peace agreement (which the Albanians signed, while the Serbs did not) would have saved both groups from further violence. > >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. > I already did. And I think everyone else should, too. 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, 3 Apr 1999 15:09:12 +0800 From: "Corey Lewis" Subject: Re: Support the POWs Excuse my callous nature here, but last time I checked this has little to do with tw2000, so if we could can we at least get back on track as far as the mailing list is concerned. Ballistix - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, 3 April 1999 10:48 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. > *************************************************************************** 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 02:15:27 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs (long) At 09:52 PM 4/2/99 -0500, cell-66 Toronto wrote: >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. > Possibly, though I don't want to know what happens if they collapse economically....Ick. >nato cant peacekeep every place that is in turmoil though. the >internal goverments have to at some point sort themselves out. > Well no, but when we began this this was the single _worst_ problem spot in the world (human-rights-wise) and it's only gotten worse since then. It's also a country that's small enough that we can actually do something (unlike, say, China), so I think it's exactly the kind of situation where we should intervene. And remember, the fact that you can't interevene everywhere isn't an argument for not intervening anywhere. >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. > No, and God knows I wouldn't accuse you of supporting that. >i just hope that the outcome of this event is favorable. > Me too. 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 02:19:18 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs At 11:41 PM 4/2/99 -0500, cell-66 Toronto wrote: >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. > Well, most of the people invovled didn't choose to be there. To use your expression, they've always lived on the bridge, and I don't think we should require them to move off of it to be declared "innocent". In fact, the KLA wasn't even supported by the majority of Kosovo Albanians (though it was gaining in popularity) until the Serbian crackdown began last year. >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? Well, I think you have to work at every problem in the world a little bit all along rather than trying to solve each one in turn--especially since you're never likely to solve that first problem completely. 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 02:20:37 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs At 11:38 PM 4/2/99 -0700, rogue09@Sprynet.com wrote: >> >> >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. > >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"... > So use your own logic to show what's wrong with mine, rather than (like the last poster) just accusing me of "twisting" things. That was the main reason for my reply: if he thought there was something wrong with what I said he should have pointed it out. 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 23:31:57 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Support the POWs (long) 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. Russia should already be supplying the Serbs, just as they supplied countries in the Middle East as America was in conflict with them. I am surprised that Serbian farms were taking pieces of the F-117a that crashed-- the wreckage should have been immedietely collected and probably sent off to Moscow or somewhere. I'm sure the Russians would really want it. IMO Russia had to speak out against NATO so they would have an excuse if they are caught helping the Serbians out... "We object to NATO's actions and feel we have an obligation to help Serbia..." As a note, Israel has already been approached about supplying Serbia, although Israel would not say whether they declined... What great friends the US keeps... - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek]-) *************************************************************************** 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 00:03:23 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: AA Missiles Chris Cranston wrote: > 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 AAARG... ok well that great and wonderful operating system called Win95 died while I wrote a lengthy response, this one will be short: InfraRed guided missiles "home in" on heat from an aircraft, usually exhaust. Old or less advanced missiles will be rear aspect, that is they need to be fired at the rear of the aircraft or their chances of hitting (well the missiles dont physically have to hit the aircraft, they explode near it) are low. Flares can be dropped to "confuse" the missiles. These burn at several thousand degrees C and appear as a great target. Also IR jammers can be used, which are usually a spinning laser that blinds the missile. Radar guided missiles use, as the name says, radar to track their targets (or are guided by another radar). They'll have much greater range since they can track a target from much further away. Flying Nap-Of-the-Earth (NOE) is used to avoid radar and the missiles, as the aircraft gets lost in the ground clutter of hills, trees, buildings, etc. Also because of objects on the ground helicopts can slow or come to a stop to avoid the missiles because a helicopter hovering low over the ground might as well be a tree and the radar may ignore it. There was a problem in Germany with aircraft radars tracking cars on the Autobahn. The computers were programmed to ignore anything moving under a certain speed, but some cars would go faster and come up as helicopters. To avoid radar guided missiles, chaff is dropped. Chaff is thousands of little metal strips that reflect the radar and present an attractive target. Radar jammers, although I don't know how they exactly work, create a lot of "noise" to avoid being tracked. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 03:05:59 -0500 From: "cell-66 Toronto" Subject: janes for anyone who has not seen it www.janes.com is an excellent source for anything relating to military and to a lesser extent police. it has info on current situations and they used to do a excellent mail that covered everything from terrorist groups to new defense contracts as well as hotspots and all other stuff. well worth a look. 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: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 03:27:44 EST From: MarkChest@aol.com Subject: Re: Support the POWs Actually not all of Kosovo is worthless. The northern part is mineral rich and it is thought that Milosevic might allow the Albanians to take the southern chunk of the country, which is actually quite poor, if he takes over the northern section. However NATO believes that this is an unsatisfactory compromise. However the real wealth of Kosovo remains in the heart of it's people, since the Albanians think that this is their homeland. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 03:30:35 -0500 From: "cell-66 Toronto" Subject: Re: AA Missiles the metal strips were first used by the british in the second world war by thier bombers. they drop thousands of alaminium foil or close to. it screwed up the german radar by giving them extra false targets if my memory is right and was codenamed window. To avoid radar guided missiles, chaff is dropped. Chaff is thousands of little metal strips that reflect the radar and present an attractive target. Radar jammers, although I don't know how they exactly work, create a lot of "noise" to avoid being tracked. ~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: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 03:47:40 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Support the POWs In a message dated 99-04-03 00:58:18 EST, you write: << This was attempted. Sanctions were attempted. In fact, a cease-fire was negotiated, and Yugoslavia failed to abide by that cease-fire. >> Since Serbia did not agree to the cease-fire, they should not be held accountable by the cease-fire. In fact, during the proposed times of the cease-fire, NEITHER side truly held up to the terms. >> 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. << What you are implying here is that we can only have peace if we can beat it into the opponent. Aren't we, then, just as bad as those we are "chastising" now? >> 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. << The settlement was far from negotiated. The first two definitions of the term "negotiate" do not give any indication that a third party may draft up an "agreement" without conferring with either side, and then pressure both sides into signing, claiming that the treaty is "unalterable" (I take that term directly from a statement Clinton made in regards to the Serbs demand to change the "agreement"). The third definition could, in a weird sort of way, be used, but that would mean that we, or the Kosovars, would have to offer something to Serbia in exchange for losing the province. This was not done. The fourth definition talks of negotiating a curve, which has no bearing on the subject. This "negotiated" settlement was far from it, and was basically forcing the Serbs to give main governing rights to the province of Kosovo, and to allow foreign troops onto their soil to act as soldiers and policemen. This constitutes a form of dictatorial power of us over them. We are already using such strong arm tactics in the "peaceful" territory of Bosnia, where the leading U.S. advisor simply removed the lawfully elected Serbian ruler because he was "not agreeing" to U.S. proposals. Nothing in the Dayton Peace Accord gave the right to the U.S. to do such things, yet we threaten them with force for not meeting our demands. >> 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. << There are only 2 million people in the province of Kosovo. Only 1.8 million are ethnic Albanian. But you are correct, NONE of the 2 million volunteered to be murdered, raped and driven from their homes. Neither did the Serbs in the province. You claim that you don't believe that they should suffer for the sins of a handful, but you seem to be a steadfast proponent of bombing Serbia. Do you think that the civilian population of Serbia deserves to be punished, by us, for the handful of people that are carrying out the military operations in Kosovo? What about the civilians in Montenegro, who have tried to distance themselves from Milosevic, yet still find themselves the recipients of NATO bombs to their cities and water plants? Do they deserve this too? Is the suffering of another 2 million or more Serbs only a balance for you? What happened to trying to preserve all life, with force as the LAST response? If you can't even conceive of the whole situation being a "close call" then you are obviously biased towards the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. You give the impression, by your posts, that any suffering by the Serbs, due to the bombing, is their own fault. This is wholly untrue. People could debate forever on whether or not Milosevic would have started his "ethnic cleansing" had the bombs NOT started falling on his country, but one thing that CANNOT be debated. If it were not for us over there, dropping the bombs, a great many Serbian civilians would not be suffering right now. Bombing a whole country is NOT the best way to punish the leader of the country. >> 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. << The "stepping up" of its "massacres" of civilians did NOT occur during the peace talks. Only after the bombs started falling did the flow of fleeing Kosovars dramatically increase. Granted, Milosevic was massing forces, but the unconfirmed "massacres" had not started. >> 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. >> I don't know what exactly you mean by the above. The Balkans have always been a "hot spot" for rival fighting. Conflicts have been occuring there for well over 200 years. Granted, they are not happening "all the time", but there is proof that there were revolts and uprisings happening quite often in the past couple of centuries. I won't get into a history lesson here, but suffice to say, there was not much peace in the Balkans ever since the fall of the Roman Empire. Overall, the entire situation in the Balkans is bad. The situation has the ability to go from bad to worse. If we continue bombing, it will eventually bleed us dry of funds (and cruise missiles). If we send in troops, it will be bloody and messy, and will only achieve a monitored peace, with constant supervision necessary (something akin to Northern Ireland). If we are not willing to risk our soldier's lives in a war with no real end, then we must be willing to take the other road, which is to pull out. Any deal, now, cannot be negotiated by the U.S. We have labelled Milosevic as a "war criminal" so we cannot, politically, afford to deal with him. It will have to be up to other, European nations to create such a deal. Peace is gone from this region for a while. Now on to some Twilight stuff....hopefully.....*hint hint* *************************************************************************** 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 05:24:57 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Support the POWs At 03:47 AM 4/3/99 EST, Grimace997@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 99-04-03 00:58:18 EST, you write: > ><< > This was attempted. Sanctions were attempted. In fact, a cease-fire was > negotiated, and Yugoslavia failed to abide by that cease-fire. > >> > >Since Serbia did not agree to the cease-fire, they should not be held >accountable by the cease-fire. In fact, during the proposed times of the >cease-fire, NEITHER side truly held up to the terms. Yes, Yugoslavia did agree to the cease-fire, in October. Both sides violated it to some extent, but the bulk of the violations were on the Yugoslav side. The Rambouillet agreement is something different from the orginal cease-fire agreement. > > >> > 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. > << > >What you are implying here is that we can only have peace if we can beat it >into the opponent. Aren't we, then, just as bad as those we are "chastising" >now? > No, I'm implying that once you've tried everything short of force, that, at minimum, a credible threat of force or force itself is all you have left. Once you've reached that point, you've run out of other options. >>> > 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. ><< > >The settlement was far from negotiated. We _tried_ to reach a negotiated settlement. The ultimatum that was the proposed Rambouillet agreement was something that happened only at the very _end_ of the process, after negotiations hadn't gone anywhere over a period of months (since early 1998). As somoene who's been following this closely since early last year, I've noticed that a lot of people seem to think that everything began with Rambouillet--this just isn't the case. [Snip.] >>> > 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. > << > >There are only 2 million people in the province of Kosovo. Only 1.8 million >are ethnic Albanian. But you are correct, NONE of the 2 million volunteered >to be murdered, raped and driven from their homes. Neither did the Serbs in >the province. For the most part, the Serbs haven't been subjected to that (a few were last year, by the KLA, but they never even approached the atrocities committed by the Serbs). Again, it's a question of the greater evil. > >You claim that you don't believe that they should suffer for the sins of a >handful, but you seem to be a steadfast proponent of bombing Serbia. Do you >think that the civilian population of Serbia deserves to be punished, by us, >for the handful of people that are carrying out the military operations in >Kosovo? What about the civilians in Montenegro, who have tried to distance >themselves from Milosevic, yet still find themselves the recipients of NATO >bombs to their cities and water plants? Do they deserve this too? Is the >suffering of another 2 million or more Serbs only a balance for you?> No, they don't "deserve" it, but I accept that some of them (not many, thank god) may suffer it to save a much greater number of other people. People get hurt when you use force, but that doesn't mean it doesn't save more people in the end. >What >happened to trying to preserve all life, with force as the LAST response? Force WAS the last response. Do you have any idea what went on before Rambouillet? Try this link: http://www.rferl.org/balkan-report/archives.html (your tax dollars at work) >If you can't even conceive of the whole situation being a "close call" then >you are obviously biased towards the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. You give >the impression, by your posts, that any suffering by the Serbs, due to the >bombing, is their own fault. This is wholly untrue. No, what I specifically said is that I can't conceive is someone saying that it was morally justified to have more concern for three U.S. soldiers than for 2 million (or 1.8 million if you prefer) Kosovo Albanians. Anything beyond that is words you're putting in my mouth. > >People could debate forever on whether or not Milosevic would have started >his "ethnic cleansing" had the bombs NOT started falling on his country, but >one thing that CANNOT be debated. If it were not for us over there, dropping >the bombs, a great many Serbian civilians would not be suffering right now. > Well, a few, yes. A great many, no. But at any rate this is only a small part of the picture, and therefore looking at only this doesn't get us anywhere. >Bombing a whole country is NOT the best way to punish the leader of the >country. > What is the best way? BTW, the primary objective is not punishment, but stopping the fighting. >>> > 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. > << > >The "stepping up" of its "massacres" of civilians did NOT occur during the >peace talks. Only after the bombs started falling did the flow of fleeing >Kosovars dramatically increase. Granted, Milosevic was massing forces, but >the unconfirmed "massacres" had not started. > No, actually, he began the current wave of attacks before the bombing started, right at the end of teh peace talks. I believe he did this in anticipation of the bombing, because he knew it was going to happen and he had nothing to lose, but he did start it before the bombing started. Actually, there were two "step-ups". In between the first round of talks and the second, an initial increase in attacks occurred--this was basically the resumption of what had been going on in October before the cease-fire was signed. It is certainly true that, knowing that he wasn't goign to sign and the Albanians probably would, and that this would probably result in bombings, Milosevic was basically responding to the _anticipated_ bombings even at this early date. However, the cease-fire began to break down (mostly from Serbian actions) even before the first round of Rambouillet talks, and it had been long predicted that fighting would resume as winter came to an end. The Rambouillet ultimatum was a last-ditch attempt to retrieve the situatin peacefully before the cease-fire broke down completely. >>> > 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. > >> > >I don't know what exactly you mean by the above. I mean literally what I said. I earn my living studying this kind of crap, so I have an interest in getting it right. >The Balkans have always been a "hot spot" for rival fighting. No, they haven't. They were fought over during the Ottoman invasion (through no fault of their own), and in WWI (and just before) as the Ottoman power collapsed, leaving a power vacuum. They were also fought over during WWII, but then so was the rest of Europe. Therefore, the few periods of conflict in the area have in most cases originated, at least in part, have their origins in the developments within and between the great powers, not in the Balkans themselves. >Conflicts have been occuring there for >well over 200 years. Nope. Before about 125 years ago the region was simply the border between Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. A few conflicts did take place as the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the Kingdom of Serbia grew to talke its place. >Granted, they are not happening "all the time", but >there is proof that there were revolts and uprisings happening quite often in >the past couple of centuries. I won't get into a history lesson here, but >suffice to say, there was not much peace in the Balkans ever since the fall >of the Roman Empire. > The ethnic groups which were living in the Balkans were not even the same ones living there today (except for the Greeks), so I'm not sure what you hope to prove here, except that the region is in a bad place. >Overall, the entire situation in the Balkans is bad. The situation has the >ability to go from bad to worse. If we continue bombing, it will eventually >bleed us dry of funds (and cruise missiles). If we send in troops, it will >be bloody and messy, and will only achieve a monitored peace, with constant >supervision necessary (something akin to Northern Ireland). Er, no, that wouldn't be at all like Northern Ireland--in Northern Ireland you have peace because the two sides want it. It would be more like Bosnia--which we be a good thing, because people aren't killing each other in Bosnia anymore. >If we are not >willing to risk our soldier's lives in a war with no real end, then we must >be willing to take the other road, which is to pull out. No, it would be a war with a definite end, just like Bosnia. The length of hte peace-keeping mission, _after_ the war, would be indefinite, but not infinite. I think, to save the lives and homes of a couple of million people, it's worth the cost. >Any deal, now, cannot be negotiated by the U.S. We have labelled Milosevic >as a "war criminal" so we cannot, politically, afford to deal with him. It wouldn't be the first time we dealt with him after labeling him a war criminal. I'd rather we _not_ deal with him, but it could happen. >It will have to be up to other, European nations to create such a deal. Peace >is gone from this region for a while. > Um...the other countries in Europe have been right along with us the whole way here. >Now on to some Twilight stuff....hopefully.....*hint hint* > Not until we get the facts straight. :) 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 #31 ************************************