I think the only big problem with the UN is the permanent seats on the security council. Let the US, UK, French (?) Russians and Chinese stand for election like everyone else. If they're so great as they think they are they'll be elected by the members. If they're not, well, get 'em off the security council.

I have a feeling the aforementioned countries would have a bit of a problem with giving up this power though. Hows about we threaten them into it with airstrikes?

------------------
"Breen. Try saying it. Bre-een. Rolls nicely off the tongue, doesn't it?"

You can all sit around and Serb-bash until you get your precious little countries bombed to hell.

If people here don't respect international law, fine. You all bow to this "President" who tries to define agressor like he does sexual relations. Most of you don't even know anything more than what Adolf Clinton tells you(shown by your lack of knowledge regarding WWI, WWII, the Domino Theory, and the KLA). Hence, I have no point bashing my head into a wall with you brainwashed Americans (and I use that term to include most of you, since you're assimilated Americans who just don't like the name). So, that pretty much ends my run on these forums(shame I can't go out in the kind of blaze I did on the TrekCentral ones). This profile is soon to be deleted.

Any final words? Well, yes. This outpouring of bile from brainwashed Americans has brought back my sense of _Slavic_ pride. You'll all soon be sorry that I am just one of hundreds of millions.

A little something to think about: the Ukraine just voted to AGAIN become a nuclear power.

Now, in the words of my prophetic quote from the Femmes...

*bows*

Good night.

------------------
I drink therefore I am.

-Descartes

------------------
Goodnight my love...the brightest star in my sky...

The phrase "Pre-emptive strike" comes to mind.

It's okay, guys, he obviously doesn't know more than whatever his people have been feeding him, either. "Brainwashed?" Talk about the pot and the friggin' kettle...

I'm not surprised. Go ahead, pick up your ball and go home. You were losing anyway.

Didn't even bother to try to respond to my last couple of missives on the previous thread.. which is pretty much what I expected. Noone likes to see their logic torn to ribbons like that.

Re: Slobodan Milosevic- This guy is probably the real cause of the problems in the Balkans. The real reason for all this conflict is simple: he wants a unified Serbia by limiting the rights of all other ethnic groups (or doing things the easy way, as we have just seen).

Re: Kosovo- This region has many of Serbia's historical artifacts. In other words, it is Serbia's Jerusalem. But that does not justify the killing done by the Serb armies. And I don't think anyone will sit by as one country kills some people it doesn't want there for the sake of making a Serb state.

Re: KLA- The Serbs say that the KLA are the real terrorists, and if anyone should be bombed, it should be them. As someone said, the KLA does not escape without blame either, as some attacks went way beyond Self-defense.

Re: Bombing Campaign- With all the ethnic cleansing going on right now, we may be justified to start the bombing campaigns, but they must be directed against Milosevic, not the Serbs.

Re: U.S. Involvement- I really can't say for sure why the the U.S. is an integral part of this campaign. Maybe the U.S. really has a concern. Maybe the U.S. really wants to prevent ethnic Cleansing. Maybe Clinton has another scandal brewing and is simply cooking up a diversion.

Re: NATO involvement- Same reasons as above, just remove the Clinton scandal part.

Re: Brainwashing- I don't buy any of it. There are a lot of people who think that this conflict is useless. And there are a lot of people who said that if something isn't done, then a lot of poor people will die. Let me ask this question for all Serb supporters out there: if we simply packed our bags and go home, what will happen to the Albanians? And how would you feel if they died a la the Jews in WWII?

Except this: the bombing campaign is just the first step. Ground troops (and lost of them, NATO now estimates it will need about 200,000) are the next step, and the reason is simple. Despite all of the hype given to air power, it has failed to stop the humanitarian problems in Kosovo and it has failed to stop Milosevic. It has also failed to completely wipe out Serb air defences.

This so called phase 2 of the air campaign, in which NATO planes must fly lower and slower in order to hit smaller targets like troop columns, is not only far more dangerous to the pilots and planes, its much more difficult to hit much of anything. Tanks and troop carriers can be hit, but the troops themselves that are comitting the (alleged) atrocities are spread out in villages and over the country side. It is now becoming generally recognized (although many politicians are still denying) that only ground troops will ultimately solve the problem if Milosevic refuses to back down. And so, send in the marines.

The result is a hostile ground invasion of a sovereign country, one that is not sanctioned by the UN. And yet there is no real plan (no public one anyway) as to what to do with this situation. Create an independent Kosovo? Forcibly remove Milosevic from power? I think NATO gambled that Milosevic would back down, and they gambled wrong. And now they are stuck in a situation that can only get more unstable, without a clear direction to follow.

Personally, I am in favour of the bombing, but what I am not in favour of is setting a major international precedent for the future without having a clear idea of what you intend to do or what you ultimately want to accomplish. Saying you want to save lives is fine and nice, but in these situations we need something more specific. NATO may have it, I hope they do, but they're not telling anyone (possibly for political reasons).

------------------
"Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you."
-Commander Riker, USS Enterprise

I just don't get it. You're going to leave here just because of a difference of opinion? If I have an argument with someone, I don't just run home and decide never to see or speak to that person again. You have your opinion, and are entitled to it, as all of us are. I, and many others, are of the opinion you are wrong. That is also an opinion people are entitled to. Giving up like that is simple cowardice. What would Patton have to say about cowardice? But, if you wish to leave, that's your choice.

As for being a brainwashed American, I think not. But I would much rather be brainwashed, and have moral sensibility, than be unbrainwashed, and see genocide as something that is perfectly fine. And if you haven't gotten the jist of what most of us are trying to say, here it is in plain English.

Genocide is wrong. And if it means violating International Law to prevent it, then International Law be damned. We are saying to the world the Holocaust will not happen again. And what does abdicating ethnic cleansing say about you?

------------------
"We choose to do this and more. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
-- John F. Kennedy

2)Genocide is a thing to be stopped at virtually all costs. (Reverse genocide being the exception - Picard knew this.)

Suggested:
1) Milo seems to be a lot of the problem. His agenda appears to be to remain on top, no matter what. Dangerous thing in a pseudodictator. In anyone, really. He gives the orders, he should be a target. Just as our military chiefs would expect to be targeted in the event of war.

2) Ground troops from the European NATO countries should go in, given air cover by US planes. It won't be pretty, but it looks like it's the only way to effectively counter Milo's troops in the field. I don't like the idea any more than you do.

3) The Russia problem: Russia should be gently reminded where most of its monetary support, etc comes from. Where its grain came from, even during the Cold War. Whose buying its space equipment to use in the ESA Mars Express program, etc. Whose paying them lots to build new stuff for the Space Station. It's not an insurmountable problem. Serbia may be an "ally," but what have they done for Russia lately? If it were in Russia's interest, they'd turn their backs on Serbia, too.

4) Ukraine's going to be a nuclear power again? Okay. Who are they afraid of, Us? Germany? Russia? It's probably too soon to invite THEM to join NATO.. Russia wouldn't like that, either. But perhaps the big grainbox should be considered by the EU? It always helps to have a friendly breadbasket. Would cut down considerably on the threat (admittedly, I don't know the politics behind these ideas.)

Gee, I don't miss the flames at all.

The countries in NATO are being threatened; as a member of NATO we have an obligation to protect them. That is what NATO is about; member's security.

Anyone hear the thing about concentration camps springing up?

First....your logic ain't THAT powerful.

Anyway - End point...agree to disagree?

------------------
I drink therefore I am.

-Descartes