Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Croatia are destined to become one of the best International soccer
    sides ever.

    
    excepting Brasil of course..

    US attempting to train troops is a very big mistake indeed.

    
    There are Canadian peace-keeping troops over there right now, and
    quite frankly, the whole thing gives me the screaming heebee-jeebees.
    I don't know much about this sort of thing, but I don't see how the
    situation can be resolved without some BIG-TIME intervention.  If
    that's not forthcoming from the global community, then I'd just as
    soon we stay out altogether.
    

    
    I'd give the notion of our sending troops about 0% percent chance
    of approval by the Congress.

    We need to fully arm both sides, or all three sides.  Then find
    an acceptable location and let'm kill each other.  That way no
    women or children are getting killed, and the war mongers
    can do themselves... OH, we determine the winner by the last
    man standing.. his prize.. A BULLET!  in the head.
    
    
    Sin-te-da

    Ah, to be omnipotent.  "So, you don't want to live with those people? 
    Here, a little world ALL TO YOURSELVES where you don't have to live
    with ANYONE ELSE."

[The following has been reworded to be an announcement, not a solicitation.
 Words like "Please", etc., in the original document have been changed to
 "Participants are asked to", etc.  Active voice is changed to passive,
 and other similar changes.]

    ************************************************************
                                                              
INFORMATION ABOU THE YUGOSLAVIA (Former) EMERGENCY APPEAL UPDATE & RENEWAL
 $2,000,000 APPEAL MET            
1994-95 RENEWED APPEAL:  $200,000

100% of All Denominational Contributions
To Church World Service
Are Used to Assist Disaster Survivors
                                                            
    ************************************************************


                      CHURCH WORLD SERVICE
             National Council of Churches of Christ
                         in the U.S.A.
                      475 Riverside Drive
                       New York, NY 10115

                   Disaster Bulletin No. 853G
                        November 18, 1994

TO:        CHURCH WORLD SERVICE CONSTITUENCY

FROM:      Lawrence Turnipseed  (signed 11/18/94-M.I. Gardner)

SUBJECT:   Yugoslavia (former) Emergency - $200,000 Appeal
         

***********************************************************
***********************************************************

  SITUATION:

The impact of the UN-imposed official sanctions against the former Yugoslavia
is severe:  especially hard hit are the most vulnerable groups, the elderly,
children, refugees and displaced persons.  At the same time, armed hostilities
remain a threat.

Road access has improved and Church World Service and the international
network coordinated by the World Council of Churches are continuing to
distribute food, shoes, winter underwear, medicine, medical equipment, and
health and school kits in Bosnia Hercegovina.  (Ref. CWS Disaster Bulletin
#853F dated 5/12/93).

***********************************************************
***********************************************************

  NEEDS: 

-Funds are urgently needed for local purchase of shoes and clothing for 23,000
vulnerable people.

-7,000 health and 6,000 school kits are needed.

***********************************************************
***********************************************************

Church World Service is the only organization contributing shoes.  Shoes are
especially needed by the elderly who are very isolated.

Children are especially pleased to receive the school kits.  They are guarded
like prized possessions.  Congregations and other community groups are
encouraged to assemble school and health kits and send them to the CWS New
Windsor warehouse (address at end of list below).

HEALTH KITS:

1 hand towel		1 wash cloth	1 new bath-size bar of soap
1 comb			1 toothbrush	1 tube of toothpaste
6 bandaids		1 nail file	

Those participating are asked to wrap all other items in the hand towel and
tie it all up with ribbon.  Pack all kits in sturdy cartons.  Multiple kits
may be boxed together.  They are to indicate number of health kits enclosed.

SCHOOL KITS:

2 8-1/2 x 11 inch lined writing pads	1 blunt scissors
1 30-cm metric ruler				1 pencil sharpner
6 unsharpened pencils with erasers		1 2-1/2 inch eraser
12 sheets construction paper			1 box of eight crayons
1 12 x 14 inch cloth bag with cloth handles

Items are to be placed in the bag, folded over and secured shut with two large
rubber bands.

Only new or high-quality items listed above are to be included in each kit for
equitable distribution and securely packed one kit per box.

Participants are asked to clearly mark the outside of each box to indicate
"Health Kit" or "School Kit" and ship pre-paid to New Windsor CWS Service
Center, 500 Main Street, New Windsor, MD   21776-0188                    

***********************************************************
***********************************************************

CHURCH WORLD SERVICE RESPONSE:  APPEAL $200,000
	CUMULATIVE ASSISTANCE TOTALS:   $9,212,021

-The $2,000,000 appeal has been met and surpassed.  CWS is sending $50,000 for
local purchase of shoes and clothing and is issuing this appeal for $200,000.

Since the last Disaster Bulletin (dated 5/10/93) CWS has provided the
following assistance:

-CWS has distributed school kits (4,495), health kits (5,575) valued at
$75,000 and shoes (6,443 pairs), and underwear (30,890 pieces) valued at
$153,000 and high-energy foods in Mostar, Stolac, Zenica, Kladnaj, and
Banovici.

-CWS has sent $100,000 from the Blanket Fund to "My Neighbor" (Baptist Union)
in Zagreb, $71,376 worth of medicines to Ecumenical Humanitarian Service in
Novi Sad, and $240,000 to the World Council of Churches as part of a
cumulative total assistance of $7,197,354.  

-CWS distributed $2,014,667 worth of high-energy food to vulnerable groups in
Croatia, Hercegovina and Bosnia between April 1, 1993 and August 31, 1994 with
funding from the Agency for International Development (AID).
_________________________________________________________________
ASSISTANCE REPORTED 5/10/93	(DB 853F)			$6,557,978

ASSISTANCE SINCE 5/10/93:
	School & Health Kits		$ 75,000
	Underwear					$153,000
	Blanket Funds-"My Neighbor"	$100,000
	Medicine-Novi Sad			$ 71,376
	World Council of Churches	$240,000
	TOTAL								$  639,376

CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF ASSISTANCE				$7,197,354 

US AID CONTRACT (4/1/93 - 8/31/94)				$2,014,667

GRAND TOTAL OF ASSISTANCE 					$9,212,021
________________________________________________________________

-CWS has again applied for a $1.7 million grant from AID to distibute
high-energy foods to vulnerable groups in 23 locations in Bosnia-Hercegovnia
during the winter months.

-CWS Elkhart is processing a donation of medical equipment to be sent to
hospitals.
**********************************************************
***********************************************************

Thank you to the following which have contributed to this appeal since the
last Disaster Bulletin (5/12/93):

American Baptist Churches                  	$ 15,000
Christian Church Week of Compassion	$ 25,000
Church of the Brethren	$ 40,000
Episcopal Church	$  3,138
Moravian Church	$    400
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)	$ 25,000
United Church Board for World Ministries    $ 12,494
Designated	$169,966
Foundations	$    482
Local Congregations/Individuals	$    490

Communions have contributed $121,032 and others have contributed $170,938 for
a total of $265,436 and a cumulative total of $1,889,816.

The United Church Board for World Ministries sent 600 school kits to children
in Mostar.

Swift action is necessary to assure funding for immediate and
long-term needs.  Participants are asked to send contributions through
their communion/denomination designated for this CWS appeal #853G or to
Church World Service, P.O. Box 968, Elkhart IN 46515.

It is important to notify the CWS Disaster Response Office of
any grants sent directly.  When sending funds directly, the
recipient is to be notified that your grant should be included
in reporting of total income figures for disaster recovery.

***************************************************************
                                                             
You may call the NCC/CWS hotline for updates 1 800 456-1310.      
                                                             
***************************************************************

For further information about the emergency, contact Kenlynn K.
Schroeder, CWS Director of Disaster Response at (212) 870-3151,
or through ECUNET to KENLYNN SCHROEDER. Call (800) 733-2863 to
join ECUNET.

cc:  J.B. Campbell     M.I. Gardner K. Schroeder     M.  Maus  
     C. Fouke          S.Y. Hahn    P. Wilson        B.  Sage
     
     CWS Disaster Response Committee
     CWS Disaster Response Consultants

    
    otocka area missile sites make the mistake of locking onto
    a NATO flight.
                                    
    HARM came to the offending CroSerb radar operators.
    
    As Bihacs prepares for a massacre of the Muslim refugess 
    shelterinng in the "safe area", Akashi floats the idea of
    air dropping supplies to them.
    
    Better to die after a good meal, I guess.

Note 31.9 by CALDEC::RAH
    
    >As Bihacs prepares for a massacre of the Muslim refugess 
    >shelterinng in the "safe area", Akashi floats the idea of
    >air dropping supplies to them.
    
    so now it will escalate quickly. and our government sits and scratches
    its head. unreal.

    Did anybody see the picture of the 7 year old boy laying face
    down on the pavement with his brains scattered about, and half
    his face blown off?
    
    Makes me wonder what the hell is going on over there...is it a 
    fight for freedom or just plain murder?
    
    
    Just NUKE THE BAST...#S!!
    
    
    Sin-te-da

Shells lobbed from several miles away are no respecter of age or beauty.

And, no, it's not a fight for freedom; not even the Serbs claim it is.
It is purely a fight for complete Serbian control of the region.

/john

    
    the 7 yyr old was the victim of a sniper.
    
    some organism, resembling a human being, put
    the crosshairs of a rifle on him, got a close
    look through the sights, and watched the boy
    crumple to the ground.
    
    this is the work of a feral, no longer human, being.

Approximately 50 Canadian troops have been taken hostage by the Serbs in 
retaliation for the Nato air strikes... sorry I only heard the end of the 
news and didn't catch the whole story, but it didn't sound like anyone was 
panicking yet.

    re: the 7 year old sniped
    
    a good sniper with good equipment can fire acurately over 1,000 yards.
    been there. seen 'em. even at that range its possible to determine if
    the target is male or female, young or old. its possible that the boy
    caught a stay bullet. but not likely. one must try to understand and
    put this conflict in perspective. this is not a conflict that can be
    measured by the usual media-based yardsticks like body counts,
    territory gained, etc. no, its much worse than that. its combatants,
    after years of warfare, have become immune to most human emotions and
    idealology. they are in a cleansing process. they will kill to, in
    their opinion, purify for the forseeable future. with that mentality
    wasting 7 year olds is little different than armed opposition.
    
    which also should tell us a lot about us getting involved more deeply.

    
    right, it means that Pale should get whacked with a few of the
    leftover Saddamizers from the Mother of Battles.
    
    these are vermin, they should be made to surrender forthwith, 
    or die.
    

    the press made a big to do about the "biggest" nato air raid in history
    a few days ago. from the yugo's perspective it was little more than a
    blip on the radar screen. it only pissed a few more off. no, the only
    way this thing can be solved is through serious leadership on part of
    the US (the only military superpower left) or to let them kill each
    other indefinitely. the misery will continue and this winter will be
    filled with uncontested savagery.

    as i predicted, the total lack of leadership on the part of the US has
    caused a complete breakdown of the UN/NATO efforts. thousands more will
    die. and we have an idiot in the WH standing around say the UN will
    take care of it. the UN hasn't EVER taken care of anthing without
    SERIOUS leadership from the US. EVER!! the world will certainly burn
    the next couple of years. it'll take the US 10 years to recover from
    the disasters of this presidency. if we're lucky. 

    
    the foreign policy regarding Bosnia was the same in the Bush
    admin. ain't Clinton's fault that NATO and UN are loathe to
    cross swords with Serbs, in a faraway land among peoples 
    of whom we know nothing. mamas wouldn't begin to understand
    their kids dying over there, badly as I believe some of the
    war criminals need to be put away.
    
    if we had had very many more deaths in the Gulf I believe 
    that we may have gone home even earlier than we did, which 
    as history shows was waayy too soon. this does not augur well 
    if we are put in jeorpardy of our existence at some point in 
    future.
    

    Much as I appreciate that the immediate problem is what is happening
    now, it concerns me that few, if any, observers are considering the
    long term.  Let's face it, eventually B-H will sort itself out, one way
    or another and then the problems will *seriously* begin.  Bearing in
    mind that the Serb forces seem destined to have the upper hand in the
    end, what is being done to minimise the risk of the country, and its
    parent nation next door, becoming another Northern Ireland/UK terrorist
    zone?
    With all due respect to the US Armed Services, with whom I have worked,
    I do not believe that they are sufficiently experienced to deal with
    this potential problem, never having had to deal with it within their
    own borders.
    It's sad, but the would-be Palestine seems to be going the same way.
    I agree with the comment about the UN being less than effective.  What
    *are* the Security Council for anyway, because whatever it is, it
    certainly doesn't involve taking action to halt bloodshed.
    
    Daz.
    

    <- .20
    
    Sorry.  Please read "....Northern Ireland/UK *type* terr....."
    
    (long shift=low concentration)

RE: 31.20 by NEWOA::SECURITY "The Rich Get Richer; The Poor Get Kids"

> Bearing in mind that the Serb forces seem destined to have the upper hand 
> in the end, what is being done to minimise the risk of the country, and its
> parent nation next door, becoming another Northern Ireland/UK terrorist
> zone?

Oh,  don't worry,  the Serbs are taking care of that,  it's called "ethnic
cleansing".


Phil

    perhaps my point wasn't well articulated. or perhaps the comprehension
    of the readership is falling. however,....
    
    i didn't advocate the introduction of US forces to militarily try and
    secure a settlement. we're long past that option. what i am completely
    disgusted with is the total lack of leadership demonstrated by this
    administration within the UN and NATO organizations. if its our
    intention to do nothing then let's get that on the table and let it be.
    this GD posturing and flip flopping by the WH is only hurting the US's
    credibility on the Bosnian issues AND other potential hot spots around
    the world. #%$#, or get off the pot.

    	RE .23
    
    	I'm to the point where I actually agree with you. We should etiher
    enforce our policies over there, or not make any. However, I don't feel
    that the current administration's policy is any less effective then
    Bush was. They weren't inclined to do anything either.
    
    
    							S.R

    The US, as I understand it, wants the arms embargo lifted from the
    Bosnian Moslems; the rest of the so-called peacekeepers do not.  The
    morality of making the means available for a "fair fight" is open to
    question and this is probably what has caused the snag.  While a fair
    fight is all very sportsmanlike, the means to achieve it being made
    available would generate not only a lot of death and further misery now
    but, when it is finally all over (which would be later rather than
    sooner) B-H is going to have very many *more* unaccounted weapons for
    use by the losing minority.
    
    Does the US *have* to be the leader?  It sounds a bit like kids saying
    "It's my game and if I can't be in front then I'm not playing anymore." 
    There's a helluva lot to be said for equal partnership decisions.  Fair
    enough, the US is now probably THE richest nation in the world and an
    awful lot of dollars have gone into the B-H effort so far, but if human
    lives, and the long term concern for them, has to be counted only in
    dollars then the US would be better off out of it altogether.  The US
    must surely see that the wealth of knowledge, in the combatting of
    terrorism, will also prove to be a valuable weapon in the restoration
    of peace to this sad area.
    
    Anyone care to make a guess at how many months after the war the first
    news reports will be attributing a bombing campaign to The Bosnian
    National Liberation Army, or some such supposed organisation?  When it
    happens, how will it be combatted?  Will throwing currency at it make
    it stop?
    
    I think its fair to say that the likely outcome of the Serbs being the
    stronger side was perceived when this war was only a few months old. 
    By refusing to arm the weaker side, the odds of weaponry being retained
    by the losers are considerably reduced.  It's heartless; it's cruel.
    It's also realistic.
    
    The UN's new role must be to observe closely the way in which the
    losers are dealt with, and to intervene to prevent the feared ethnic
    cleansing which could otherwise happen.  
    
    Just one question: When are people going to start giving "ethnic
    cleansing" its proper name, as given fifty years ago?  Then, in another
    place, it was called Extermination or The Final Solution.
    

Note 31.24 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE 
    
    >	I'm to the point where I actually agree with you. We should etiher
    >enforce our policies over there, or not make any. However, I don't feel
    >that the current administration's policy is any less effective then
    >Bush was. They weren't inclined to do anything either.
    
    don't you think its about time to stop "accepting" this admins failures
    by saying his predecessor did the same? there's been plenty of time for
    this admin to get something done.

    > don't you think its about time to stop "accepting" this admins failures
    > by saying his predecessor did the same? there's been plenty of time for
    > this admin to get something done.
    
    don't you think its about time to recognize that it isn't only this
    admin, it isn't only the last admin, it isn't only the brits and the
    french and the germans and the russians, it is merely that this
    intractable situation was screwed up right from the beginning and  
    that there now is NO right policy?  The disintegration of yugoslavia 
    has been a collective failure, a complete repudiation of all the lip
    service paid for forty years by the politicians and pundits on peace 
    in Europe guaranteed by NATO.  and by EURSECOM, or whatever its called.
    Ready to stop the Warsaw pact, but totally unable to stop the butchery
    of a three-way civil war for over four years now, at immeasurable costs
    in life and sanity, refugees, private property damage, destroyed
    commerce and infrastructure, not to mention the diplomatic credibility
    of the leadership of the free world.  You think CLINTON deserves more
    blame than the system that put him into this position?  Even Bush
    couldn't salvage it, and he'd had a lot better shot, as even Eastland
    admitted, when an early Serb siege could have been shelled long before
    the ethnic cleansing took hold.  There is one way to stop the Bosnian
    Croats and Muslims and Serbs from killing each other and that is with a
    massive troop deployment.  Not supportable by any leader of the free
    world and not ONE OF THEM have the guts to admit it, publicly write
    those self-butchers off, to say: "the leaders are all at fault.  All
    have stalled negotiations in their turn, all have refused chances for
    peace.  we regret the losses of innocents but we will not get involved. 
    we will refuse to do business with those we deem responsible for
    butchery, and we will wash our hands of it."  NONE will say it; even
    though that's what they're actually doing.  Major?  Kohl, with his 4th
    four-year term as chancellor beginning, and unmatched experience, and
    on-the-spot responsibility (Germany has hundreds of thousands of Yugo
    refugees it can ill afford.)  And you pillory Clinton for it!  What's
    the point, Gene?  Congress just tied his hands on even upholding the
    arms embargo, refusing to authorise the expenditure anymore; so we're
    now unilaterally stepping back from enforcement thereof.  Thanks,
    Congress, that really helps uphold the solidarity of the free world and
    all that.
    
    Go on, Gene, tell us what leadership YOU expect from him; enlighten us
    with your wisdom.  Tell us by what fair criteria you can so earnestly
    judge Clinton's efforts as worse than the best possible of a bad job.
    
    DougO

RE: 31.25 by NEWOA::SECURITY "The Rich Get Richer; The Poor Get Kids"

> The UN's new role must be to observe closely the way in which the losers 
> are dealt with, and to intervene to prevent the feared ethnic cleansing 
> which could otherwise happen.  

Funny.  Beyond funny.  Not funny ha ah,  funny sad sad sad.  

Ethnic cleansing has been going non-stop during this whole war.  What the 
f*** is the UN going to do about it?  Perhaps wring their hands.  Maybe.

    
> Then, in another place, it was called Extermination or The Final Solution.
    
Yep.  And nobody cared then,  just like today.


Phil

Note 31.27 by SX4GTO::OLSON 
    
    >  You think CLINTON deserves more
    >blame than the system that put him into this position? 
    
    yes, dougo. i do. i've said why but apparently it's slipped your mind
    again. so..........
    
    yes. giplet could and should have done more. however, his attention to
    just about everything was distracted by slick and waffen press corps
    about US economy. but that is history and giplet gets the blame for not
    doing as much as he should have. however.....
    
    slick inherited the world's only RESPECTED military superpower. he
    inherited a position that REQUIRES leadership on a world scale. he
    inherited a position that commanded respect from friend and foe alike.
    he inherited a position that could have been used to mold and shape
    global politics and confrontations as many of his predecessors have
    done. its his total ineptitude in all facets of foreign policy that i
    blame. he should be at the forefront of efforts surrounding UN/NATO
    efforts. even if its to gain an admission of their collective failure.
    that he sits on his duff stating the US will comply with UN resolutions
    as they are passed is disgusting. especially when thousands die hoping
    in vain for the US to do SOMETHING or at least admit it'll do NOTHING.

    <-.28
    
    >Ethnic cleansing has been going non-stop during this whole war.  What
    >the f*** is the UN going to do about it?  Perhaps wring their hands. 
    >Maybe.
    
    I hadn't overlooked what has already happened, much as my comment makes
    it appear so.  I based my reply on the latest reports of fears
    expressed by the Bosnian side who are apparently resigned to being
    over-run.  As to what the UN will do about past atrocities, revenge may
    well be taken out of their hands, just as the collaborators in, and
    perpetrators of, The Final Solution are being slowly hunted down and
    brought to trial by the Wiesenthal (sp?) organisation.
    
    The UN Security Council has so far proved itself to be a complete waste
    of space but one can hope that, if they wring their hands for long
    enough, their right hands may get to see what their lefts are doing
    and then we might see some constructive action to prevent more
    atrocities.
    
    Daz
    

    
    constructive action would almost certainly involve scenarios
    such as the appearance of SAS advance guys, dramatic airdrops 
    of parachutists and epic landings of Marines both Royal and US.
    
    The Serbs know its not going to happen as they get CNN and read
    The Times as we all do. They told "Mike" just yesterday "not to
    mess with us" in the best 'hood style. A great many Serbs will 
    need to die in order to make an impression, and the casualties
    that a suppressive force would have to suffer are unnacceptable
    to the NATO countries' electorates.
    

    <-.31
    
    So the UN/NATO have reached the zero option point and must only be able
    to look back and realise that the arms embargo was a mistake at its
    inception.  It is only now that the US alone has decided that it is
    necessary to lift the embargo, but at this point what would it achieve
    apart from giving the Serbs a chance to justify a repeat of their early
    excesses?
    
    The Serbs, I believe, offered safe passage to the Moslem forces if they
    surrendered at Bihacs.  Believing the Serbs, going on past performances,
    would be like nailing jelly to the ceiling - their promises simply
    don't hold up.  This is where the UN should now be considering their
    responsibilities, having consigned the Moslems to the losing side in
    the first place.  I seriously doubt that any peacekeeper on active duty
    in B-H at the moment expects NOT to have to guard refugees at some
    stage in the near future.  Or are the UN forces simply going to abandon
    people who have come to rely on them, even if its only for the shelter
    of a slow moving APC to get safely past the snipers?
    
    All along the UN's policy has been to deny weapons to one of the
    parties in this war.  Having come this far, that policy should be
    allowed to remain in place, if only to speed the end of the fighting.
    It is too late for the defenders of Bihacs to make any significant
    recoveries, even with a sudden influx of weaponry.  The UN must be 
    prepared to accept that it will have a responsibility to care for 
    thousands of displaced people who will go Lord-knows-where.  This is one 
    which cannot be handled by relief agencies alone.
    
    Daz

    > So the UN/NATO have reached the zero option point and must only be able
    > to look back and realise that the arms embargo was a mistake at its
    > inception.  
    
    We're not at a zero options point.  Its just that there is no
    leadership, never has been, from anybody who should have been providing
    any, including Clinton, and without leaders it only *seems* that there
    are no options.
    
    > It is only now that the US alone has decided that it is necessary to
    > lift the embargo,
    
    "decided"?  You call a congressional vote to withhold funds to pay for
    the continuance of operations a "decision"?  With our commitment two
    months ago to the allies to uphold the embargo for six more months? 
    With our allies' troops on the ground wearing blue helmets, now at
    higher risk?  With our president (rightly) opposed to the fact (I say
    rightly because it breaks our commitment, not because the embargo is
    defensible; it isn't.)?  the US didn't "decide" anything.  The Congress
    cut the purse strings, and cut and ran from the situation.  They are
    just as guilty of a failure to lead as is the President, as is the
    Prime Minister of England, as is the Chancellor of Germany, as is the
    Secretary-General of the United Nations.  Incompetent politicians the
    lot of them, not a statesman in the bunch.
    
    > All along the UN's policy has been to deny weapons to one of the
    > parties in this war. 
    
    the embargo on the Bosnian Serbs is, ah, somewhat overlooked.  The
    accompanying embargo on Serbia, which finally pressured that state into
    compliance with the embargo on Bosnia, is also overlooked.  Don't
    misstate the policy, please; the western policy has been to deny
    increasing the level of armaments to all sides.
    
    >The UN must be prepared to accept that it will have a responsibility
    >to care for thousands of displaced people who will go Lord-knows-where.
    
    There will be more refugees.  There will be more butchery.  There will
    not, however, be a graceful UN presence safeguarding anyone.  The blue
    helmets will be shoddily pulled out in a collapse of policy and a
    collapse of dialogue.  From where do you suppose that the level of
    leadership which has been so conspicuously lacking for 4 years will
    appear to implement your ideas of UN responsibilities?  It isn't going
    to happen.
    
    DougO

Note 31.33 by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
    >We're not at a zero options point.  Its just that there is no
    >leadership, never has been, from anybody who should have been providing
    >any, including Clinton, and without leaders it only *seems* that there
    >are no options.
   
    for once i am in 100% agreement with dougo.

   
>    for once i am in 100% agreement with dougo.

	repent, the end is near.

    	And I find myself in agreement with Gene and DougO. I saw on CNN
    last night a UN spokesperson saying that we cannot use airstrikes to
    halt the advance on Bilhac because they have just set up talks for a
    cease-fire and withdrawal from the area . Why do I have doubts this
    will be honered by the Serbs. Maybe if it was the first such agreement,
    but come on, doesn't the UN ever learn?
    
    
    								S.R.

    
    shells are falling ~30/half hour on bihacs.
    
    

    the final cleansing in bihacs begins. that it was inevitable,
    considering UN/NATO stupidty, was denied only by the foolish. reports
    of cease fires that last few days was the final media based insult to
    the west. and the butchers laughed.
    
    next city please.

    Bob Dole is now outraged at how weak NATO looks.  Gee, Bob, maybe
    cutting the embargo funding off at the knees and sending our allies a
    unilateral move last month was pretty stupid, huh?
    
    DougO

RE: 31.39 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto"

Only problem with cutting funding for the embargo is we should have done it
years ago.  Best start sending arms to Croatia and Albania now,  as they are
probably next.

Our allies could care less.  Sign a "peace in our time",  that's what the 
rest of NATO wants.


Phil

    
    song of the Vukovar liberators:
    
      Milosevic, send us some salad,
      We have enough meat, we will butcher Croats

    
    ===========================================================================
    IN BIHAC, THE REALITIES OF WAR SHOW IN STARK RELIEF
    (News Analysis)
    
    ll)
    By ROGER COHEN
    c.1994 N.Y. Times News Service
    
    [EXCERPTS]
    ===========================================================================
    [...]
       It was in the area of Croatia just over the border from the
    Bihac enclave that the Yugoslav conflict began to take form in
    1990.
       Serbs living in and around the town of Knin, alarmed by the
    looming possibility of a Croatian secession from Yugoslavia under a
    nationalist politician named Franjo Tudjman, started to organize a
    rebellion.
       Nobody took much notice. These Serbs were country folk in a
    provincial Yugoslav town known mainly, if at all, as a railway
    junction. Their complaints  about Croatian nationalist symbols
    that recalled the massacre of Serbs in World War II and the loss of
    their status as a constituent people of Croatia  were abstruse and
    seemingly unimportant.
       Four years later, the same Croatian Serbs under the same
    recalcitrant politicians have come roaring back. This month, they
    surged over what is supposedly an international border to give
    decisive help to their hard-pressed Serbian brothers in Bosnia in
    crushing the Muslim-led government army in Bihac.
    [...]
       Most fundamentally, it has shown that when necessary, the
    Bosnian Serb commander, Gen. Ratko Mladic, can lead a mixed force
    of Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia in pursuit of his recently
    expressed conviction that ``borders are drawn with blood.'' With
    
     [R.Cohen misquoted Gen.Mladic's words; the actual expression is:
     "Borders are drawn with OUR OWN blood" - refering to centuries of
     suffering Serbian people has survived under different rullers and
     occupation armies]
    
    his own army stretched, this was crucial in Bihac.
    [...]
       It also appears that an American-backed international peace
    plan, offering 51 percent of Bosnia to the Muslim-Croat federation
    and 49 percent to the Serbs, may be dead because the Serbs have
    shown again  this time in Bihac  that they can dictate policy
    through force.
    [...]
       If the unity of Serbian goals has been demonstrated by the Bihac
    crisis, so, too, has the weakness and disorientation of the Bosnian
    government.
       It ordered the Bihac-based V Corps into an offensive last month
    against the Serbs, despite the obvious potential vulnerability of
    an isolated unit far from Sarajevo, and so brought a disaster on
    its people.
       These people, generally, are weary of a 31-month-old war and
    those from the Bihac enclave have distinctly mixed feelings about
    the government of President Alija Izetbegovic.
       Many of those Muslims loyal to the government resent the fact
    that Izetbegovic has not visited them since the war began  a visit
    that might have been perilous but would have fortified their
    allegiance.
       Many others are in open rebellion against the Bosnian president,
    having sided with a businessman named Fikret Abdic and joined
    forces with the Krajina and Bosnian Serbs.
       Until recently, one military leader of these rebel Muslims was a
    former Yugoslav army officer, Col. Nevzet Deric.
       In 1992, Deric fled Bosnian Serb forces who burned his home in
    the western Bosnian town of Kljuc. He went to Bihac and fought
    heroically in the V Corps of the Bosnian army, before becoming
    disillusioned with the war and defecting to Abdic's side. In
    August, Deric, 30,  a Muslim  was killed by the Muslim forces of
    the V Corps.
       His fate, and the recent fate of the Bihac enclave, reveal the
    enduring complexity of the Yugoslav conflict. All the problems of
    the breakup of Yugoslavia converge in or close to the enclave.
       These problems were first posed four years ago in nearby Knin.
    At the time, they seemed minor. But they appear no closer to
    solution Sunday, perhaps because the only obvious solution is an
    impossible one: the reconstitution of Yugoslavia.
    
    
    <TDAT> NYT-11-27-94 2024EST
    ===========================================================================
    

    
    i've only paid indirect attention to this war.  will someone help me
    understand the nature of the disagreements or desires.  My
    understanding is:
    
    - Yugoslavia split up into its prior state/country configurations (or
      something close) after the withdrawal (collapse) of the Soviet Union.
    - There is a country called Bosnia, a country called Croatia and a
      country called Serbia.
    - The populations are primarily Eastern Orthodox Christian and Muslim.
    - The Serbs are primarily Christian, the Bosnians Muslim and Christian,
      and the Croates, I don't know.
    - The Serbians in all countries are fighting to control all of these
      three countries.
    - The Muslims are fighting back.
    
    What am I missing or what is not correct above?
    
    thanks!
    
    jeff

 re .27 dougO

 two cents from Easty:

"... Bush shoulda blown Yugo navy out of water when they were
shelling Durovnik but nonetheless Clinton has done his usual waffle
house act and made it worse."

    
    the previous configurations of bosnia and hvratska were
    as provinces of the A-H empah. 
    
    

    > Our allies could care less.  Sign a "peace in our time",  that's what
    > the rest of NATO wants.
    
    Those of our allies hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees, and the
    poorer surrounding states who don't quite qualify as our allies but are
    even more destabilized by the refugee problem, certainly do care more
    than less, that the war be ended in a way that prevents further ethnic
    cleansing/more refugee problems for them.  There a several *millions*
    of displaced persons roaming around now who called Yugoslavia home less
    than five years ago.  This has had impacts upon, among other things,
    internal politics in Germany.  if you thought the Prop 187 fight over
    illegal immigrants in California was ugly, think back to the
    firebombings in Germany of immigrants less than three years ago.
    
    They care a lot, because it has direct impacts upon them.
    
    DougO

    >- Yugoslavia split up into its prior state/country configurations (or
    >  something close) after the withdrawal (collapse) of the Soviet Union.
    
    more or less accurate.  trouble really started 12-13 years ago with the
    death of Tito; he'd kept Yugoslavia from being too close a client state
    of the USSR (certainly not as close as Bulgaria or many other balkan
    states.)  But yes, with the breakup of the USSR several states broke
    away from the Yugoslav government and declared independence.  Several
    were immediately recognized by such powerful diplomatic, local
    heavyweights as Germany and Russia, so it couldn't be undone.
    
    >- There is a country called Bosnia, a country called Croatia and a
    >  country called Serbia.
    
    Bosnia is actually called Bosnia & Herzevogina (spelling doesn't look
    right, but whatever); Serbia, yes; Croatia, yes; Kossovo; Macedonia;
    and it seems to me there are a few others.
    
    >- The populations are primarily Eastern Orthodox Christian and Muslim.
    >- The Serbs are primarily Christian, the Bosnians Muslim and
    >  Christian, and the Croates, I don't know.
     
    Too simple.  Serbians and Croatians have distinct ethnic identities,
    and there are several other smaller recognized ethnic populations, too;
    greeks, albanians, hungarians, etc.  Thats a result of centuries of
    warfare in the general area and shifting borders and populations fleeing
    the fighting and resettling, over all that time.  Serbians are Slavic,
    which provides a complication, a tie-in to Russian Slavic ethnicity.
    
    Bob Holt, any clarification?  I freely admit to the possibility I may
    have missed some major elements, there are so many.
    
    > - The Serbians in all countries are fighting to control all of these
    >  three countries.
    
    no.  Serbians in all of those states have a dream of a Greater Serbia,
    with far more territory mostly carved from the others, uniting all the
    scattered Serb populations.  But Serbia, under punitive UN economic
    sanctions for most of the past four years, suffered terribly, and
    finally stopped helping the Serbs in Bosnia to conduct the war, or to
    get arms from the adjacent border with Serbia.  UN monitors have been
    watching that border for months and Serbia really is enforcing the
    embargo.  Thus, Serbia is gaining UN points for not prolonging the war. 
    They'll still certainly be there, ready to join/annex any part of B&H
    that gets ceded to/taken by the Bosnian Serbs, but they aren't actively
    supporting the warfighting effort now.
    
    >- The Muslims are fighting back.
        
    And the Croats.  This has been a three-way civil war for most of it. 
    Two sides every so often have a truce and gang up on the third.  B&H
    and Croatia have very mixed populations, and the fighting for territory
    has been mostly in those two states.  Croatia has been mostly settled
    down for a year or so now, until this fighting in Bihacs, which is next
    to a very Serbian pocket of Croatia, and the Croatian Serbs lent their
    support to the Serbs of B&H in the last several weeks, providing an
    airfield, shelling the city, etc.  The Muslims and teh Croatians in
    B&H have been united (and losing) for quite a while, now, but they
    could fall out again with each other if either percieves an advantage
    to be gained thereby.  The Muslims control the rump government of what
    used to be Yugoslavia, so every so often they are referred to as the
    government forces.
    
    Its all very complicated, a mainly three-way civil war in B&H and in
    Croatia that has killed hundreds of thousands, seen terrible
    atrocities, will never have a clear winner, and threatens all of its
    neighbors with instability as refugees mount and as ethnic hatreds are
    fueled.
    
    DougO

    > two cents from Easty:
    >
    > "... Bush shoulda blown Yugo navy out of water when they were
    > shelling Durovnik but nonetheless Clinton has done his usual waffle
    > house act and made it worse."
    
    Yes, Dubrovnik was the opportunity I was referring to that Chris and 
    I had earlier agreed was Bush's best, lost opportunity.  And worse?
    yes, its now worse, and Clinton bears some of the responsibility for
    it.  
    
    DougO

Two articles in todays Toronto Sun....  I'll edit them down a bit

(1)  Canadians targeted (Matthew Fisher)

450 Cdn peacekeepers near Sarajevo slept in dank underground bunkers last 
night for fear that Bosnian Serb gunners were now under direct orders to 
shoot at them.  "The Bosnian Serb Army has threatened to shell the Cdn base 
within 48 hours," said Maj.Sol, a Dutch officer attached to the UN mission 
in Sarajevo. The Cdn base at Visoka has come under artillery and rocket 
attack twice in the past 5 days.  A rocket missed the Cdn barracks by only 
meters Sunday as several hundred soldiers slept inside. "The Canadians have 
been told by local Serb commanders that it was a 'friendly gesture' that 
they missed (on Sunday), because their senior commanders had told them to 
fire directly at the Canadians", said Mike Williams, the UN's chief 
spokesman in the Balkans.  The Cdn base has gone under red alert - all 
peacekeepers at Visoko except a skeleton staff of observers and security 
personnel must take refuge in bomb shelters under their headquarters and 
barracks.  55 Cdns are among the 500 peacekeepers from 6 countries held 
hostage by the Serbs since last Wed.  But unlike the other hostages, most of 
whom were detained at weapons collection points or while escorting 
humanitarian convoys, the Cdns were taken at observation posts or during 
routine patrols.  Also unlike the others, who are surrounded but not under 
close detention, about 20 of the Cdns are being held under armed guard at a 
Serbian police station.  With over 2,000 peacekeepers, Canada has the 3rd 
largest UN contingent in Bosnia and Croatia, after France and Britain. 
Nobody with the UN or the Cdn military could explain last night why the Cdns 
seem to have been selected for special treatment by the Serbian military.

(2) It's all on the line in Bonia (Bob MacDonald)

The credibility and future of the UN as a peacekeeping force is at stake in 
Bosnia-Hercegovina. We Cdns should be concerned and angry about the fact 
that 55 of our best young men are being held and their lives threatened.  
After all, they went there with the finest of intentions to help the cause 
of peace.  They were not sent there to do the thing that most of them are 
well trained to do - fight a tough, deadly war.  Unless something drastic is 
done, countries like Cda should pull their peacekeeping troops out.  They 
should also lift sanctions that block the poorly armed Bosnian Muslims and 
Croats from gaining the arms they need to fight the heavily armed Bosnian 
Serbs on something resembling equal terms.  The Serbs have broken their word 
to co-operate with and protect the UN peacekeepers whom they, the Bosnian 
Muslim govt and Bosnian Croats invited to supervise a truce in Bosnia.  
Instead, the Serbs have grabbed the lightly armed peacekeepers as hostages, 
threatening their lives if the UN dares have NATO jets bomb military 
installations used in the lastest Serb offensive. That Serb offensive was 
launched against a UN-declared "safe" zone of Bihac and it is resulting in 
Bosnian Muslim villages being burned and even a 2,000 patient hospital being 
shelled.  What the Bosnian Serbs want is to force the UN to weakly impose a 
humiliating new peace treaty on the majority population of Bosnian Muslims 
and Croats.  The Serbs want it to allow them to keep 70% of Bosnian 
territory that they have seized via their big arms superiority.  The 
UN-brokered peace treaty they are defying would allow the minority Serbs to 
keep 49% of Bosnia's land.  At the moment, the frustrated UN countries 
involved are bickering over the use of NATO air power and the fact that US 
troops are not in Bosnia.  PM Jean Chretien and European leaders are 
critical of the US push for more air attacks.  But what Cretian etal should 
realize is that the UN can't allow its peacekeepers lives to continue to be 
used as pawns.  It would be much better to pull out all the peacekeepers and 
lift the arms embargo to allow the Bosnian Muslims and Croats to be properly 
armed to at least defend themselves and their families.

    http://sfgate.com/new/schron/today/mn54236.html
    (This is from today's online edition of the SF Chronicle.)
    
    U.N. Threat To Pull Out Of Bosnia 
    
    Roger Cohen 
    
    Zagreb, Croatia 
    
    Humiliated and harassed by Bosnian Serb forces, the United 
    Nations has decided to inform the warring parties in Bosnia
    officially that it will end its peacekeeping mission unless 
    a countrywide cease-fire is reached quickly. 
    
    Senior Western officials said yesterday that a planned visit 
    to Sarajevo today by Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali 
    was conceived to put the maximum political weight behind a 
    warning that fighting must stop now or U.N. forces will leave.
    
    The warning amounts to an act of desperation, after the worst 
    spell in Bosnia that the United Nations has endured. It is 
    seen as the only course left, after a week in which Serbs 
    have taken U.N. personnel hostage, subjected some to outright
    humiliation, stopped most supply convoys and demonstrated that 
    a designated safe area such as the Muslim enclave of Bihac 
    could be attacked with impunity. 
    
    ``The Boutros-Ghali visit has been conceived as a dramatic 
    gesture to deliver an ultimatum on withdrawal, if a cease-
    fire of substantial duration is not agreed,'' said one 
    informed official. A cease- fire of at least four months 
    appears to be the goal. 
    
    Michael Williams, a spokesman for the U.N. protection force 
    in Zagreb, said yesterday that the ``rock-bottom conditions'' 
    for the continuation of the U.N. mission are an immediate 
    end to the fighting in Bihac, a cease-fire throughout Bosnia 
    and guarantees that U.N. personnel can move freely around the 
    country. 
    
    ``Mr. Boutros-Ghali would be gravely disappointed if he left 
    Sarajevo without substantial movement in those three areas,'' 
    Williams said. 
    
    Other officials said a U.N. withdrawal could be announced 
    within two weeks if no cease-fire is agreed on and adhered
    to. Countless previous Bosnian cease-fires have quickly col-
    lapsed. 
    
    In effect, the threat of a U.N. withdrawal amounts to pressure 
    on the Muslim-led Bosnian government to maintain its acceptance 
    of an international peace plan, even if it is altered in some 
    ways to please the Serbs, as well as pressure on the Serbs to 
    accept the plan. 
    
    If the United Nations goes, government forces would lose any 
    buffer against the better-armed Serbs. Muslim enclaves including 
    Bihac in the northwest and Gorazde, Srebrenica and Zepa in the 
    east would almost certainly fall immediately. 
    
    And if the United Nations leaves, the Bosnian Serbs, whose 
    leaders are now barred from international travel, will lose
    their last international interlocutor. Eventually, they might 
    also face exposure to NATO military action without the shield
    of the U.N. peacekeepers, whom they have been able to use as 
    hostages. 
    
    There are more than 23,000 peacekeepers in Bosnia. Their 
    withdrawal after more than two years would be an arduous
    maneuver likely to take five months and to involve two NATO 
    divisions, including U.S. soldiers. 
    
    It would also be an admission of colossal failure by Western 
    powers in Bosnia. It would be especially humiliating for the
    European Union, which initially thought it could solve the 
    Yugoslav conflict without direct U.S. help, and for the United
    States, which has contributed no troops to the peacekeeping 
    force but has sought through numerous policy shifts to bring 
    peace to Bosnia. 
    
    Fighting continued unabated yesterday in the pivotal Bihac 
    enclave, with Bosnian Serb forces now within a few hundred
    yards of the city hospital and almost uninterrupted mortar 
    and artillery fire from both Bosnian Serb and Croatian Serb
    forces raining down on the town of Velika Kladusa in the north 
    of the pocket. 
    
    A U.N. spokesman, Herve Gourmelon, reported shelling and heavy 
    machine-gun and small-arms fire in Bihac. Just last week, the 
    shelling of Bihac, a town the United Nations vowed to protect 
    last year by naming it a safe area, would have prompted serious
    consideration of NATO air raids. 
    
    But all military threats have now been set aside, as the United 
    States and its Western partners have caved in before the fact 
    of Bosnian Serb military superiority. 
    
    Bosnian Serb television showed film yesterday of what it said 
    were several hundred Bosnian Muslim prisoners in the Bihac 
    area. Obviously coerced, the prisoners were chanting, ``Bosnia 
    is for the Serbs.'' 
    
    In the past week, the Serbs have demonstrated an almost complete 
    contempt for the United Nations, NATO and the United States -- 
    and found that this policy brought only rewards. 
    
    Williams yesterday described an incident in which three U.N. 
    military observers had been obliged to lie on the runway at
    a Serbian-held airfield in Banja Luka in western Bosnia for 
    eight hours last week when a NATO air raid was threatened. 
    
    He added that 500 U.N. peacekeepers were now restricted in 
    their movements by the Serbs and are effectively hostages. 
    A group of 55 Canadian peacekeepers near the central Bosnian 
    town of Visoko was warned yesterday that their encampment 
    might be shelled. Two rockets landed near the camp on Monday. 
    Most U.N. convoys have been stopped by the Serbs. 
    
    General Ratko Mladic, the commander of the Bosnian Serb forces, 
    said yesterday that the peacekeepers would not be released 
    until NATO divulged its flight plans to him. 

    
    I heard that the Sarajevans wanted to egg B-G but they are
    too scarce to waste.

    re: U.N. Threat To Pull Out Of Bosnia
    
    Ha.  Picture:
    
    Cops standing out in MadMikes front yard for 3 hours.  Finally
    sheriff steps up and yells:
    
    "OK, WELL, IF YOU DON'T COME OUT HERE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING HOME!"
    

    Typical!!  I take one - ONE - night off and everything happens all at
    once!
    
    I'd be interested to know what options might have been available.  I
    saw only three, none very attractive, and one appears to be the chosen
    path of the UN - complete withdrawal and NFA.  I hope B-G has the
    decency to at least resign when the Serbs finally get what they've
    wanted all along!  For the record the other options I saw were to
    either respond to the kidnappings as would be deserved by any act of
    terrorism (which would amount to a declaration of war by NATO on the
    B/Serbs).  An unlikely and extreme choice.  Or a complete withdrawal
    followed by a totally unannounced return by air only, but the problem
    with this is that the returning aircraft would not, without
    ground-based intelligence, know who to paste.  Plus, missiles do tend
    to go astray every so often.
    What other options did I miss?
    
    US politics are not my strong suit.  What would be required to overturn
    a Congressional vote, Doug?  As I understand it, the Clinton camp is
    outnumbered now; does this not mean that this vote is as near as dammit
    a decision?
    
    Re: Blue helmets and increased danger.  Without wanting to be flip, it
    has to be said that the possibility of being called to a situation like
    B-H is made clear to every new recruit before they join whichever
    fighting force.  B-H has been going for a long time, heavily reported
    in all the media but young men and women are still applying to sign up
    - one of our security bodies is awaiting a date.  That's why I said
    that personnel serving in the area would probably be expecting to guard
    refugees at some stage in the near future.
    
    You know what infuriated me most?  All the "confiscated" weapons which
    could simply be reclaimed by the various factions.  Why the h*ll didn't
    the UN arrange to have them flown out as they were appropriated?
    
    Don't tell me - lack of leadership!
    
    Daz
    
    PS: I switched Bob Dole off this a.m. (on the telly, that is)	

    >    What other options did I miss?
    
    oh, how about a concerted effort to educate the public of the western
    democracies as to what is at stake, so they'd come around to
    politically tolerating the threat of armed incursion to halt the flood
    of refugees, to halt the decline in the alliance and its ability to
    deter other troublemakers, and to halt the butchery?  Not one leader
    went about a concerted effort to demonstrate that the west has vital
    interests in preventing the continuation of that butchery, and that we
    still do.  That's one option completely forgone.  Instead, they've all
    pointed fingers at hapless UN/US/EU 'negotiators'; waiting for 'someone
    else' to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.  It is a failure of the
    first order; a failure to act against quite visibly dangerous actions
    of unruly thugs; which, while politically risky, was still necessary.
    No western leader even tried.
    
    DougO

    btw, I have previously made similar observations about the need for
    western leaders to have educated their publics to make the case for
    intervention.  Here is one such, from 9 months ago.  It originated in
    defense_issues, but I think it was crossposted in soapbox at the time.
    I would phrase things somewhat differently now, but the point is that
    western leaders should have spent quite a bit more effort on these
    kinds of issues to prepare for us to stand down current and future
    butchers.
    
    DougO
    -----
    ps - the 'Joe' I addressed below was not Joe Oppelt.
================================================================================
Note 893.145                      Do you care ?                       145 of 168
SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, BPDA West, Palo Alto CA"  58 lines  18-FEB-1994 11:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Joe, you are right to be concerned about ground action. 
    Certainly Clinton hasn't (hell, even Bush never could) articulate
    a US vital interest that would have generated political support
    for such a risky (and certainly fatal to  some of our troops)
    involvement.  If our elected leaders are completely unable to
    articulate such vital interests why should I even attempt it? 
    Yet I will try.
    
    I, and I'm sure many other outsiders, feel quite exasperated with
    those crazed and bloodthirsty killers, on all three sides.  All
    have, at one time or another in the past three+ years, been
    unwilling to accept peace in favor of their immediate tactical
    positions.  All have suffered grievances, yet have refused to put
    them aside; preferring instead to provide a fresh new crop of
    atrocities to fuel the hatreds of future generations.  Me, at
    times I'd just as soon let them all kill each other, stupid
    bastards.
    
    Of course, this analysis rather completely ignores the vast
    majority who are noncombatants and who have lost the most; those
    who were willing to live in peace; those who've lost their homes,
    families, livelihoods, and communities.  That vast majority are
    the ones we should be involved for; that vast majority represent
    a decent humanity, victimised by men with guns, that cry out for
    justice to the heart and soul of western civilization.  This
    situation is at least partly of our doing; without the
    polarisation of the Cold War, for which we share direct
    responsibility with the former USSR, these conflicts would not
    have taken shape in the particularly brutal form they now take,
    as a result of our economic victory in bankrupting the former
    Soviet Empire, leading to the current chaos and power vacuum that
    permits such atrocities to carry on unchecked.  We own some
    responsibility for setting that stage.  The victims' plight tears
    at our historical justifications for western civilisation; the
    wrongs committed against them simply cannot be allowed to
    continue if we want to continue to see ourselves as the heirs of
    the enlightenment, a moral civilisation.  
    
    That's half the motive; the other half is in the need to deter
    other thugs from land grabs.  If we don't stop it here, we'll
    face it again.  You worry about Vietnam, Joe?  I worry about the
    effect on our society of the crushing of Hungary; about the
    Prague Spring; and about the rape and dismemberment of Bosnia.
    
    So it is here that US vital interest can be articulated: if we
    don't want our hearts and souls torn out in future conflicts of
    such nature, we've got to put a stop to this one.  Or we aren't
    the peaceful, freedom loving arsenal of democracy our fathers
    were, and died to prove.  We've lost our legacy of justice.  Not
    that the legacy hasn't been stained; no, our actions towards the
    Native Americans, the Vietnamese, the banana republics, and many
    other stains on our escutcheon are still there; but we, as a
    people, still believe in justice.  I hope.  And thus we should go
    into Bosnia, to end the slaughters.
    
    It really is that simple.
    
    DougO

    <-.55 by SX4GTO::OLSON
    
    Easier said than done - much easier.  If the politicians were to listen
    to the electorate (which they don't in UK) they would very probably
    hear the loudest outcry against armed intervention, post-war, FROM the
    British public. The political roots of the Northern Ireland conflict
    were lost on many people.  They watched the news reports of yet another
    death but the documentaries did not strike such a wide audience.  More
    and more the question was being asked "When are they going to pull
    out?"  The memories would fuel a certain amount of outrage which, if
    our powers that be heard it, would go unacknowledged if the decision
    was taken to provide the armed intervention which IS required in B-H. 
    Like I say, would-be servicemen do not sign up without being given the
    hard facts of what they may be required to do and would therefore do as
    they were told.
    
    Regarding halting the decline of the Alliance, that should be up to
    the man in the street.  The UN is out of reach to us mere mortals but
    your MP/Congressman is not.  So tell 'em; tell your friends to tell 'em
    and tell your friends to tell their neighbours to tell 'em.  That's
    what they're for, when they're not being the nightly zoo slot on the news.
    
    Best and cheapest way I've found to collect signatures for a petition
    or to canvass public opinion? Xerox a message and leave copies on every 
    bus and train you can get to. As long as you're not advertising for profit 
    the most you can pick up is a litter ticket. Just be prepared to accept
    everything you collect.
    
    Daz

    
    NATO  is dead. It existed as a means for everyone in Western Eu
    to defend hearth and home against the Red Army. 
    
    With no Red Army looming, there is only a shell. Your average
    fusilier isn't going to risk his backside to live fire for a
    shell. Noone is pretending this fight is about survival of the
    UK, Germany, or even Austria. The folks back home don't feel
    motivated enough to think about it much. Its not Stalin, or
    Hitler, to anyone except the careful observer who notes the
    parallels with 1934-39. If the Serbs had firstclass academic
    or industrial capacity as Hitler did, we might be more worried.
    
    As long as Serbs aren't headed for other prey, heads will be turned
    and the readership will become more accustomed to the sight of
    7 year old boys shot deliberately by heroic chetniks.

    >Easier said than done - much easier.
    
    yeah, well, like I said, none of the western political 'leaders' has
    even ATTEMPTED it.  But that's what I was talking about when I said
    that we weren't in a zero-options position, it just seems like it with
    such a dearth of leadership.
    
    DougO

    Well, peeps, I've enjoyed the discussion.  Pity it couldn't have been
    about more promising results, but that's life.  Change of site forces
    me to say bye bye.
    
    Be nice to each other.
    
    
    
    Daz

Well, that was quick.

    
    we hardly knew ye

    i guess. i don't think that brit chap was round long enough to even
    warrant a good bye.

    
    
    
    7 UN soldiers have been seized by the serbs
    

    
    Get ready for fun in the Balkans.  Clinton has agreed to provide
    a land force to support a NATO evacuation.  He really had little
    choice, as the Brits asked and they are our allies.
    
    I guess they are getting tired of playing "living shields" for the
    ethnic cleaners.  Thought they were good at the "stiff upper lip"
    thing.
    
      bb

    <- with Dole's full support!

    Anyone wanna lay odds how long .67 stays there?

    
    Croatian Army captures several villages from Krainja Serbs.
    
    Supposedly the Croatians have reorganzied their army, equipped
    it with modern AFVs and have trained a lot of their company
    officers and NCOs in light inf tactics. They are rated as quite
    effective by the defense analysts.
    
    They've purchased upgraded  T55/T84s from the Czechs and Hungarians,
    small arms and arty ammunition mfg equipment from various ex-WP
    countries, and even have a squadron of MiG29s.
    
    Eventually Milosevic will have to reckon with this might and if
    it comes to a fight, the blood will flow most liberally indeed.

    
    They'll be calling it the Ghali-Ghali war.
    
    

    CIA Says Serbs Guilty of Most Ethnic Cleansing /
    Top politicians implicated 
    
    
    Roger Cohen 
    Washington 
    
    In what is believed to be the most comprehensive U.S. assessment of
    atrocities in Bosnia, the CIA has concluded that 90 percent of the acts
    of ``ethnic cleansing'' were carried out by Serbs and that leading
    Serbian politicians almost certainly played a role in the crimes. 
    
    The CIA report, based  on aerial photography and what one senior
    official called ``an enormous amount of precise technical analysis,''
    also concludes that although war crimes were by no means committed
    exclusively by Serbs, they were the only party involved in a systematic
    attempt to eliminate all traces of other ethnic groups from their
    territory. 
    
    The revelation of the highly classified report comes at a time when the
    United States and its European allies have embraced the Serbian
    President Slobodan Milosevic as a potential peacemaker. The Clinton
    administration may fear that wide dissemination of its findings could
    cause Milosevic to cease his cooperation, because the CIA's conclusions
    suggest that he is extremely ill-fitted for the role of peacemaker. 
    
    The report's contents were made available by three American officials
    -- one in Europe and two in Washington -- whose accounts of it
    coincided. Two of them expressed unhappiness with the way U.S. policy
    has evolved in the region. 
    
    One official, reading from notes he took from the CIA report, quoted it
    as saying that ``Serbs carried out at least 90 percent of the ethnic
    cleansings in Bosnia.'' Ethnic cleansing is the term generally used for
    the practice, common in the Bosnian war, of killing, forcibly evicting
    and persecuting ethnic groups other than one's own. 
    
    The report, the official said, continued by saying that no ``conclusive
    evidence'' had been found of the direct involvement of Bosnian Serb or
    Serbian leaders in the planning and execution of large- scale ethnic
    cleansing. 
    
    ``But,'' the report added, ``the systematic nature of the Serbian
    actions strongly suggests that Pale (site of the Bosnian Serb
    headquarters) and perhaps Belgrade exercised a carefully veiled role in
    the purposeful destruction and dispersal of non- Serb populations.'' 
    
    The report, the officials said, also contains specific evidence that
    some Bosnian Serb leaders -- including Radovan Karadzic -- knew of the
    concentration camps through which many Muslims and Croats who had been
    evicted from their homes in 1992 were processed. The evidence includes
    instructions on admissions to the camps. 
    
    Milosevic and Karadzic have consistently denied any responsibility for
    the killing, eviction and imprisonment of Muslims in the 70 percent of
    Bosnia now held by the Serbs. In an interview in December, Karadzic
    attributed the departure of nearly three-quarters of a million Muslims
    from this territory to ``chaos and fear'' in the midst of an
    uncontrollable war. 
    
    The ethnic cleansing of Muslims and Croats cited in the report took
    place throughout the area now controlled by Serbs. It was particularly
    intense in towns, including Prijedor, Banja Luka, Zvornik, Bijeljina,
    Vlasenica, Foca and Trebinje. 
    
    The report appears to refute the view -- now consistently put forward
    by Western European governments and intermittently by the Clinton
    administration -- that the conflict is a civil war for which guilt
    should be divided between Serbs, Croats, and Muslims rather than a case
    of Serbian aggression. 
    
    This argument has increasingly been used by countries -- particularly
    Britain and France -- that have been opposed to any Western military
    intervention. The Clinton administration has also made the argument as
    it has backed away from its initial expression of determination to
    counter ``Serbian aggression.'' 
    
    ``To those who think the parties are equally guilty, this report is
    pretty devastating,'' one official said. ``The scale of what the Serbs
    did is so different. 
    
    ``But more than that, it makes clear, with concrete evidence, that
    there was a conscious, coherent and systematic Serbian policy to get
    rid of Muslims, through murders, torture, and imprisonment.'' 
    
    The officials said the report had prompted what one called ``a quiet
    mini-firestorm of negative reaction in the Pentagon among people who
    see it as an effort to bring Americans into the conflict.'' 
    
    One of the officials described the report as ``very objective and
    straightforward'' and argued that a ``sanitized version,'' from which
    some aerial photographs and other indications of the CIA's methods had
    been removed, can and should be made public. 
    
    The report says that Bosnian Muslims and Croats also committed
    atrocities, some of them of great ferocity. But it concludes that these
    actions ``lack the intensity, sustained orchestration, and scale of
    what the Bosnian Serbs did.'' 
    
    During the fighting between Bosnian Muslims and Croats in 1993, both
    sides engaged in ethnic cleansing and the Croats opened several
    concentration camps for Muslims, mainly in the Mostar region. Bosnian
    Serbs have also been hounded from their homes, mainly in central towns
    like Zenica. 
    
    Richard Goldstone, the judge leading the investigations of the
    International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which was
    established by the United Nations, has privately said that two
    conditions must be met for political leaders to be indicted for war
    crimes committed in the Balkan fighting that has followed Yugoslavia's
    collapse: Did they know about the crimes? Did they have the ability to
    stop them? 
    
    Two officials said that, on the basis of these criteria, the report
    suggested virtually conclusively that Bosnian Serb and Serbian leaders
    could be indicted as war criminals. 
    
    Published 3/9/95 by San Francisco Chronicle

    
    french are dispatching the carrier foch and attendant escorts
    to the adriatic from the toulon naval base.
    
    task force is said to include FFL and french marines. 
    
    uss roosevelt is already on station. rumor is that dramatic
    military action may be ordered up by the security council in 
    the wake of boserb hostage taking.
     

    
    43 british un troops taken captive by boserbs near gorazde,
    others fought their way out using their small arms.
    
    anyone have a radio that gets SSB? i'd be guessing that milstar
    traffic may be getting frequent with supply missions winging 
    over the atlantic towards the italian bases.

    
      Perhaps a TTWA :  when Eastern-Orthodox-former-commie Serbs shoot
                       or expel Moslem "Bosnians", the admin waxes
                       indignant, but when Catholic-former-fascist Croats
                       do same-same viz Serbs, Sliq himself wonders aloud
                       if this isn't "a hopeful sign".
    
      bb

    
    at least the croats did not segregate the military-age male
    serbs, dig trenches, set up MGs, and massacree them.
    
    

While I can't say that I'm in favor of anything that's going on over there,
the more I hear about increased liklihood of US involvement, the more I
have to conclude that I really don't give a rat's patootie if they all
blow each other to smithereens. Better all of them than one American life.
It's not my problem, man.

    No man is an island and all that..if UN/NATO doesn't want to get
    involved then they/we should at least let the Bosnian Muslims get all
    the arms they want to continue this thing.  If we insist on barring
    weapons from one side, on the basis that we will protect that side,
    then we better protect them.
    
    This latest episode is another sad joke.  First we need to set up a
    committee to establish if it was really the Serbs that lobbed those
    mortar bombs, then we'll examine the appropriate response, then ...
    
    BTW, I thought there was radar equipment avialable that could trace the
    path of a mortar shell and pin point the location of the tube.  Then
    one just lobs back an appropriate answer. 
    
    Axel

> if UN/NATO doesn't want to get involved then they/we should at least ...

> If we insist on .... then we better ....
    
> First we need to ..... then we'll ....  then ...
    
Sorry, Axel, but I strongly disagree. It is not our problem, and I don't care
if all of them or any of them blow each other to bits. Let 'em kill each
other and be done with it. What we should do is ignore them all. I think once
they realize that nobody else in the world is going to pay any attention
to their plight, they may well think twice about how long they intend to
keep it up. If someone else wants to throw in with either side, let them
worry about it.

    That weapon is called a Jstar, kinda like AWACS but it monitors stuff
    on the ground and targets it as well.
    
    Next question.  You gonna fuel and maintain one of those outta your
    pocket?  Not me.
    
    I say lift the embargo, quit trying to meddle with these folks
    business.  Generate some income for our pockets as well buy selling
    these folks rockets and bombs, and tell the UN to KISS OUR FAT 
    (youknowwhat).
    
    MadMike

    Well, I guess it's all been discussed before - in here and outside. 
    It's tough compressing into a note things that have occupied books and
    endless hours of videotape.
    
    I hold European and Australian passports, and am a "resident alien" in
    the US (I escaped the autopsy - but that's another story), so when I
    say "we" that doesn't necessarily mean the US.
    
    My philosophy is pretty simple; once born everyone is entitled to a
    "fair go" and that means at least an absence of terror, pain (as far as
    possible),, hunger and cold.
    
    I also don't believe in nationalism.  The people in Bosnia are exactly
    the same as us, they deserve the same concern and help as our
    neighbour.
    
    So now the question is, should we go interfere in a fight between
    neighbours.  If yes, then let's do it, show the bully on the scene that
    enough is enough and hope the thing settles down for a while.  There is
    a lot of pessimism about that being possible in ex-Y (..they've been
    fighting for 1000's of years etc...), but they had a stable,
    prosperous, attractive country for almost 50 years.
    
    If we decide to leave them to it, then let's get out totally.  Let them
    buy what weapons they want and settle the thing, let's just make sure
    it stays contained.  The prime minister of Bosnia keeps making the
    point that the West has chosen sides - with the Serbs - by denying
    weapons to the Bosnian army.  And when we pull out let's make sure CNN
    and all the rest pull out as well, lest they disturb our evenings. 
    
    My own view?  Get involved - whenever Serbs hit a civilan target there
    will be a NATO air raid against a significant serbian military target
    at or within 20 miles of the Serb attacking force within 6 hours. 
    Choice of timing and target to be at the discretion of the local UN
    commander.  
    
    Axel

What about the problem that the Serbs have to let the UN food convoys through,
or everyone in Sarajevo will starve.

    Blocking/looting food convoy = attack on civilians

    
    
    I'll tell you what I think (IMHO)....
    
     I think Slick doesn't want to lift th embargo cause it'll get bloody 
    if he does...
    
     He's hoping for one of those "Jimmy Carteresque" type peace
    initiatives that he'll say *HE* brokered... and this to try and save
    his sorry hide with the world and the American people what he wants to
    vote for him next year...
    

    
    >  I think Slick doesn't want to lift th embargo cause it'll get bloody 
    > if he does...
    
    too late...
    

    
    >Blocking/looting food convoy = attack on civilians
    
    That's one method.  Rounding them up and gunning them down and
    bulldozing their bodies into mass graves is another.
    

>    That's one method.  Rounding them up and gunning them down and
>    bulldozing their bodies into mass graves is another.
    
they seem to be doing quite a good job of that at the moment by lobbing
shells into civilian areas, and letting others clear up the mess...

Chris.

OK, so it started...

Are we going to see 3-4 days of continuous NATO air attack, as was previously
mentioned as being a possibility?

/john

    
    From today's (8/30/95) Wall Street Journal:
    
    A U.S. pilot was killed when his U-2 surveillance plane, assigned
    to support NATO operations over Bosnia, crashed after taking off
    from a base in Britain.
    

    re: Rob
    
     The US pilot did not die as a direct result of supporting the NATO
    operations over Bosnia-Herzegovina. His death could have resulted from
    a training mission just as easily. Misadventure such as that which
    befell the young pilot happens all the time; it is hardly the sort of
    thing which ought to be used to formulate policy. That being said the
    US needs to decide what level of casualties is acceptable. The fact of
    the matter is that soldiers are an expendable asset; they are used when
    convenient to implement foreign policy goals of the sitting President.
    This nonsense about "not even one life is acceptable" (as a level of
    casualties) is just feel-good rhetoric. There is, in fact, a level of
    casualties below which the country is unlikely to complain
    significantly; so long as the administration keeps the number of dead
    american boys beneath this threshhold they are satisfied.

    re: .89
    
    What's started?
    
    Bob

>What's started?

Continuous (for the next three or for days?) NATO air strikes on Serb-held
positions in Bosnia began early this morning.

/john

Text of NATO statement announcing airstrikes 

(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

Associated Press

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Text of statement from NATO Secretary-General Willy
Claes confirming allied warplanes were attacking Bosnian Serb targets:

NATO aircraft operating with the provisions of Operation Deny Flight today
(30 August 1995) just after 00:00 GMT (0200 local) commenced attacks on
Bosnian Serb military targets in Bosnia. The air operations were initiated
after the U.N. military commanders concluded, beyond reasonable doubt, that
Monday's brutal mortar attack in Sarajevo came from Bosnian Serb positions.
The NATO operation is ongoing and details will be provided as soon as
possible.

"The operations were jointly decided by the Commander in Chief, Allied
Forces Southern Europe and the Force Commander, U.N. Peace Forces under
U.N. Security Council Resolution 836 and in accordance with the North
Atlantic Council's decisions of 25 July and 1 August, which were endorsed
by the U.N. Secretary General.

"Our objective is to reduce the threat to the Sarajevo Safe Area and to
deter further attacks there or on any other Safe Area. We hope that this
operation will also demonstrate to the Bosnian Serbs the futility of
further of military actions and convince all parties of the determination
of the Alliance to implement its decisions.

"We call upon all parties to exercise restraint. No one should seek
military benefits from our action.

"NATO remains strongly committed to the continued efforts of the
international community, including those of the Contact Group, to bring
peace to the former Yugoslavia through the diplomatic process. It is my
fervent hope that our decisive response to Monday's mortar attack will
contribute to attaining a peaceful settlement."

Sarajevans watch as NATO pounds Serbs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

Associated Press

SARAJEVO, Bosnia -- There was the distinctive buzz of NATO jets swooping
low. Then the hills ringing Sarajevo, still wrapped in nighttime darkness,
lit up as missiles hit Bosnian Serb positions hidden from view.

The people of this besieged capital were awake early, craning their necks
and hanging out of windows to catch a glimpse of the NATO air attack.

A series of rapid explosions heard just to the north of Sarajevo's frontline
prompted Musrata Sabic, dressed in a nightgown and slippers, to beam with
delight.

"I feel good, oh yes!" she said, leaning from her balcony for a better view
of an enormous cloud, lit red in the night sky from barely visible
flickering flames in the distance.

The 58-year-old stood transfixed at the spectacle.

"I really feel good, probably for the first time in this war," she said.

Residents had wondered whether NATO and the United Nations would act to take
out Serb guns that have terrorized the city for 40 months, most recently
killing 37 people Monday in the Bosnian capital's market area.

The first wave of warplanes arrived just after 2 a.m. (8 p.m. Tuesday EDT).
The hum of aircraft overhead filled the city for 45 minutes, then died down.

The rumor whizzed around: something somewhere was hit. But nobody heard a
blast.

Shortly before 4 a.m. (10 p.m. Tuesday EDT), the planes returned. The
screech of jets mingled this time with the din of propeller aircraft.

A cacophony of explosions followed, ripping through the night and echoing
off the hills ringing Sarajevo.

The young day was lit by the flashes of missiles north and south of the
city. For a while, the barking of terrified dogs was, apart from an
occasional burst of anti-aircraft fire, the only response on the ground.

For 45 minutes, the jets kept returning, the missiles kept landing. Again,
there was silence for five minutes. Then the city shook with huge booms.

The heavy guns of the U.N. rapid reaction force, dug into the slopes of
Mount Igman southeast of the city, opened up, and officials sounded warning
sirens.

After almost an hour of U.N. fire, the Serbs responded by dropping several
mortars on the city.

As the sun came up, Sarajevans were scurrying into their basements.

    re: .93
    
    I left the apartment this morning before the paper arrived and watch
    very little TV, so I didn't know what was happening.
    
    Gee, it's only what, 4 years too late?
    
    Bob

NATO planes, U.N. troops answer Sarajevo massacre with bombardment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
From Wire Reports

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina (Aug 30, 1995 - 10:24 EDT) -- Answering a
brutal attack on Sarajevo that dared a reluctant world to act, warplanes
from NATO countries and U.N. gunners unleashed a bomb and artillery assault
today on Serb targets around the city.

Bosnian and Western leaders hoped the strike -- the most massive in NATO
history -- would finally force the rebels to pursue peace.

More than 60 aircraft from several NATO countries flew from bases in Italy
and the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt to carry out the attack,
said Maj. Panagiotis Theodorakidis, a NATO spokesman in Naples.

NATO and U.N. officials spoke of "extensive" damage and destruction of the
Serb targets. NATO chief Willy Claes said the attacks would continue.

The first two waves of aircraft, including U.S. Navy F-18 and F-14 fighters,
struck in the dead of night, beginning just after 2 a.m. (8 p.m. Tuesday
EDT).

NATO officials refused to specific which other countries were involved in
the raids. However, British, French, Dutch and other nations' aircraft are
in the region enforcing a U.N. "no fly" zone over Bosnia.

U.N. sources said the planes also targeted Bosnian Serb air defenses near
the towns of Mostar in the west, Gorazde in the east, and Tuzla to the
north, but there was no immediate confirmation from NATO.

Lt. Col. Chris Vernon, a U.N. spokesman, said NATO targets included
"air-defense radar and communication sites, ammunition depots and command
posts throughout Bosnia."

A third attack came around 9 a.m. (3 a.m. EDT) and was directed against
Bosnian Serb military targets near Sarajevo, said Lt. Col Pierre Briere,
another U.N. spokesman. The planes, which appeared to be American F-16s,
headed east toward the Serb-held suburb of Ilijas where detonations were
heard.

Two F-16s flew toward the suburb of Lukavica, the rebels' most important
military position within the city. Seconds later, a huge cloud of smoke
floated over the area. There was no immediate U.N. or NATO confirmation of a
strike in that vicinity.

Between the second and third air raids, the multinational rapid reaction
force, positioned on Mount Igman, southwest of the city, fired more than 600
shells on Serb positions surrounding the Bosnian capital, Briere said. A
"very important" ammunition depot was destroyed southwest of Sarajevo, he
said.

The overnight raids left bright flashes of light tinging the sky. The
spectacle awoke Sarajevans, and many were hanging out their windows to watch
the assault on their Serb foes.

"I feel good, oh yes!" declared 58-year-old Musrata Sabic, leaning from her
balcony for a better view. "I feel good, probably for the first time in this
war. It looks like they are skinning them alive!"

Residents in the Bosnian capital staged an impromptu early morning carnival
as news came through on their radios that NATO had begun its raids. By
contrast, streets in the Bosnian Serb stronghold of Pale were deserted as
people stayed in shelters.

The United Nations said there were no NATO or U.N. deaths. Adm. Leighton
Smith, NATO's southern European commander, told Cable News Network that no
aircraft or allied soldiers were hit.

Five European Union observers, however, apparently were killed in a
Serb-held suburb of Sarajevo, Reuters reported.

With the international community expressing determination for the first time
to strike the Serbs until they stop threatening the capital and other U.N.
"safe zones," the NATO campaign could mark the turning point in the
40-month-old Bosnian war.

It could force the Serbs to accept peace terms they have rejected. But if
the Serbs react defiantly as they have to past NATO raids, that could
scuttle the U.S.-sponsored peace mission and lead to a pullout of U.N.
troops and the flow of direct Western military aid to the Muslim-led Bosnian
government.

"Our objective is to reduce the threat to the Sarajevo safe area and to
deter further attacks there or on any other safe area," Claes said in a
statement. The operation, he said, should "demonstrate to the Bosnian Serbs
the futility of further military actions."

U.N. spokesman Alexander Ivanko suggested the NATO assaults would continue
until the Serbs agreed to pull back heavy weapons from the Sarajevo region
or until those weapons were destroyed.

Lt. Gen. Bernard Janvier, commander of U.N. forces in former Yugoslavia,
informed Gen. Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb commander of that in a letter,
Ivanko told reporters.

The joint U.N.-NATO operation "will be ongoing until, in the opinion of both
NATO and U.N. commanders, the threat to the civilian population of Sarajevo
is removed," Ivanko said, citing the letter. "It's basic message was: 'We
have warned you of the consequences of an attack ... against a safe area.
Unless that threat is removed the NATO-U.N. operation will be ongoing."'

A 12 1/2-mile heavy weapons exclusion zone around Sarajevo was imposed last
year but it gradually eroded.

The first official reaction from the Bosnian Serb leadership came from their
self-styled foreign minister, Aleksa Buha, who condemned the NATO bombing of
Serb positions around Sarajevo and said: "NATO stepped over the line of its
involvement in the conflict."

"Alleged Serb shelling of Sarajevo was not the real reason for this
ridiculous act by the international community," the SRNA news agency quoted
him as saying. He did not elaborate.

Serbs dropped several shells on downtown Sarajevo. The government responded
with dozens of mortar rounds out of the city toward Serb positions.

Bosnia's president, Alija Izetbegovic, was in Paris, where he had just
concluded two days of peace talks with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Richard Holbrooke.

He welcomed the NATO airstrikes as a long-awaited sign that Bosnia is "
moving toward peace."

"The world has finally done what it should have done a long long time ago,"
Izetbegovic told reporters.

His foreign minister was more cautious.

"We believe it's certainly a message that cannot be misunderstood, that
terrorism and the types of atrocities that we've seen in Sarajevo will no
longer be tolerated," Foreign Minister Muhamed Sacirbey told Associated
Press Television.

Holbrooke left Paris today for the Serbian capital, Belgrade, to meet with
President Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia.

Milosevic is trying to pressure the Bosnian Serbs to accept a peace deal.
Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was also in the Serbian capital.

President Clinton, speaking in Jackson, Wyoming, said the NATO operation was
"an appropriate response to the shelling of Sarajevo."

But Russia, a traditional Serb ally, protested.

President Boris Yeltsin "condemns any act of violence on the territory of
the former Yugoslavia," the Russian president's press secretary, Sergei
Medvedev, told the ITAR-Tass news agency.

    
    > He welcomed the NATO airstrikes as a long-awaited sign that Bosnia is "
    > moving toward peace."
    
    uuuuuhhhhhhh....... huh?
    

    .98
    
    Sorry the logic escapes you.  Sometimes the shortest road to peace is
    by way of a real war instead of by allowing one party to whale away on
    the other with little or no risk of reprisal.

    <----- {thud}

    > -< NATO snarf >-
    
     How the mighty have fallen. 

    Hare Binder is enjoying a little schtick.

    Don't give me a hard time, Doc.  I was there, it was there...

    
    Sounds like George Costanza...   ;^)
    

    
    
    You both had a little too much to drink.......

    
    > Sorry the logic escapes you.
    
    Oh I assure you that I understand the meaning, I was questioning the
    wording.
    

    .107
    
    What, pray tell, was wrong with the wording?  I'm sure you can give us
    all a lesson in the proper use of English for clear communication.

REport at Noon:

U.N. Plane, French Mirage two-seater, down over Sarejevo, two parachutes seen
falling into Serb held territory.

We will prolly see the bodies dragged thru the streets of a Serb enclave 
tonight or tommorow :-(

    
    re:.108
    
    Hey Blinder
    
    
    GOOF HOOK YOURS ELF
    
    HTH
    Dan

    
    
    Dan, that was not very nice.
    

    .110
    
    Aha, a tacit admission that he's not the language maven he purports to
    be!
    
    Carry on.

    
    Terrie, I've been called far worse.

    Dicky, I just get tired of your superior attitude.  You think an awful
    lot of yourself.  It's a good thing to, because with that attitude, few
    others will.  I assume that you are not quite as stupid as you are
    acting, and you understood my point.  I was commenting on the irony of
    saying bombing the hell outta some one was a step towards peace.  I
    completely understand the necessity of force.  Again I was commenting
    on the irony of the statement.  If you still are having difficulty
    understanding it, look up irony in the dictionary!

    [grab shovel, dig bigger hole]

    
    [split more wood for the coffin]
    

    .113
    
    Dan, if you find it necessary to resort to obscenity, even couched as
    cute misspellings of similar-sounding words, as your best effort at
    telling someone off, then you have more problems than I care to address
    here - or anywhere else.  Now, if you could manage to insult me
    effectively *without* stooping to foul language, then those looking
    in on this little spat might be impressed.
    
    I quite honestly did not understand your point.  You appeared not to
    understand the choice of words in the quotation you cited, yet you
    claimed to understand the logic therein.  May I suggest that you get
    out your dictionary and look up the meaning of irony.  And check
    paradox and oxymoron while you're about it.

    >Dicky, I just get tired of your superior attitude. 
    
     Not to mention his superior intellect. You're overmatched, Dan. Quit
    while you're ahead. Why be a Hurricane McNeely? You gettin' big bucks?

    
    
    Hoover? Kirby? Beverly?
    

    
    Yeah, Dick...<snicker>...quit...<giggle>...acting...acting...
    
    ...actingggggg...
    
    ...
    
    ...STUPIDBWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaa <gasp!>
    

    
    PAGING DR HOWARD, DR FINE, DR HOWARD

    
    > Now, if you could manage to insult me
    > effectively *without* stooping to foul language, then those looking
    > in on this little spat might be impressed.

    You see dick, that's the difference between you and I, I don't feel the
    need to impress people.  I suggest that you seek professional help
    regarding you inferiority complex.

    > Not to mention his superior intellect. You're overmatched, Dan. Quit
    > while you're ahead.

    "overmatched" hardly Mark, I assure you I've dealt with people with his
    affliction before, they're rather predictable.  As for educationally
    speaking, that's a laugh.  I deal with PhD's or a regular basis.  I'm
    not impressed with one's educational history.  If they are unable to
    apply knowledge, then it is useless.

	>>I suggest that you seek professional help
        >>regarding you inferiority complex.

	aagagagagag!  oh... stop it... you're killoran me.

    
    
    RE: PhDs or a regular basis...
    
    
    
    Which do you deal with most..PhDs or regular basises?
    
    
    
    
    :*)
    Terrie
    

    
    {knitting}
    
    

    
    
    Come on Dick... be a nice guy and let him off the hook...
    
    Or are you all gonna give him the "thumbs down" like in the
    coliseum?
    

>>                   -< What's this 'Beverly' stuff about ??? >-

	<look of regret>

    .126
    
    > "thumbs down"
    
    Or, as the Romans would have said it, "pollice verso."
    
    FYI, Mr. Experienced-with-PhDs Killoran, I'm not educationally gifted. 
    I got where I am despite having had only a single year of kollidge.  It
    ain't what your sheepskin says, yasee, it's what you do with your gray
    matter that matters.  So if you've been laboring under the delusion
    that I was flashing my diploma at you, I'm glad to disabuse you of that
    notion.

    
    
    Atta boy Dick!!!
    
    Ease him on down....
    
    :) :) :)
    

    >"overmatched" hardly Mark, 
    
     One sign of ego is a failure to acknowledge one's betters. Of course,
    since this condition can also be caused by an inability to distinguish
    the same, one ought not jump to conclusions.
    
    >I assure you I've dealt with people with his
    >affliction before, they're rather predictable.
    
     Then what's your excuse? You're as predictable as they come.
    
    >As for educationally speaking, that's a laugh.  I deal with PhD's 
    >or a regular basis. 
    
    SFW? What does that make YOU? Garbage collectors "deal with" PhD's on a
    regular basis too. Any inference regarding one's intellect based upon
    the education level of those they "deal with" is bound to be a tenuous
    connection at best.
    
    >If they are unable to apply knowledge, then it is useless.
    
     Again, what's your excuse? You're just the latest in a long line of
    loudmouths that overestimate their intellect and don't know when to
    shut up. "It's better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and
    prove it" is an adage you'd do well to heed, though you just aren't
    quite bright enough to pick up on the wisdom of doing that.
    
     Your whining about people with superior attitudes is actually rather
    amusing; what do you expect us to do, adopt an air of false modesty
    around you so you don't feel inferior? Please. Quite frankly, your nose
    wouldn't get rubbed in it so often if you didn't come off as such a
    know-it-all. Sometimes the wise choice is to defer to others'
    expertise- problem is you seem incapable of recognizing those
    situations as they arise. /hth (though it won't.)

    
    re: .129
    
    >One sign of ego is a failure to acknowledge one's betters.
    
    Weren't slaves taught to think this way??
    
    Do you adopt that attitude Mark??
    
    Seems we're a bit touchy these days...
    
    I really don't understand it.... It's not like he's a thumper or fundie
    or anything...
    

Hey, I'm daft me, but 'appy...

Chris.

	i think Mark is trying to say "pipe down, whippersnapper", but
	he just can't be succinct.  it's a chromosomal thing. ;>

    
    > ... I'm not educationally gifted. 
    > I got where I am despite having had only a single year of kollidge.  It
    > ain't what your sheepskin says, yasee, it's what you do with your gray
    > matter that matters.  So if you've been laboring under the delusion
    > that I was flashing my diploma at you, I'm glad to disabuse you of that
    > notion.

    Then I commend you on your perseverance.  

    > "it's what you do with your gray matter that matters."  

    See yet another thing we agree on.

    The reason the I thought you had an advanced degree was because you
    have the obnoxious attitude of one who is educated beyond his
    intelligence.  If you were to improve your attitude, you would not only
    be smart, but you might even be an enjoyable fellow. 

    Hoping for you future improvement...
    Dan

    
    
    pearl two, knit one
    pearl two, knit one
    

    >Weren't slaves taught to think this way??
    
     We're not talking about human worth here, we're talking about knowing
    when someone knows more about something than you and reacting
    accordingly. It is the height of folly to continue to bluster when
    someone has demonstrated a superior grasp of a subject; thinking men
    don't do it.
    
    >Do you adopt that attitude Mark??
    
     Do I acknowledge my betters? Bet your ass. You won't find me telling
    off Binder when it comes to classical music, or Wolinski when it comes
    to cooking, or Markey when it comes to software. etc.
    
    >I really don't understand it.... It's not like he's a thumper or fundie
    >or anything...
    
     Sometimes being a dork is enough.

       re .135:
       
       Moderator!  Moderator!  I corrected this faute yet it ongoes!

    >i think Mark is trying to say "pipe down, whippersnapper", but
    >he just can't be succinct. 
    
     Oh, I can be (one recalls a two word reply to His Em that was oh, so
    succint) but since it's not going to work with him anyway might as well
    use him as a scratching post. :-)

Hey!

Y'all remember that time when Judge Mark Komar was a newbie and he
tried to tell Dick he needed a spellin' lesson? 

:^)

    
    RE: .136
    
    Well... maybe we're talking semantics here, but I would use
    knowledgable (ie Dick viz. music, You and wine..etc.) vs. "betters".
    
     Ain't no one better'n me... taller maybe, prettier... smarter... more
    "knowledgable"... 
    
     *Better* at basketball, baseball, fishing... etc... and if that's the
    way you meant the word, then fine, I accept that. 
    
      "Betters" conjurs up an image (in my mind) of some snooty intellect
    looking down his/her nose at me cause I ain't as bright or rich or
    worthy as them...
    

    
    Okay children you all seem to be getting a bit cranky.  Put your heads
    down on your desks, it's naptime.
    
    

    .140
    
    ...or as well educated in the use of your mother tongue, it would
    appear.
    
    ...and the tumbrels keep rolling onward...

    
      Former Yugos people, former Yugos !!
    
      bb

    
    .140 --- BINGO Andy.
    
    .143
    
    > Former Yugos people, former Yugos !!
    
    What's this about used cars?

    
    re: .142
    
    >...or as well educated in the use of your mother tongue, it would
    >appear.
    
    
     Which ain't the King's English BTW...
    
    
    But you "knew" that... right?
    

    
    .139, Jack:
    
    I have fond memories of note 16.6, and those that followed...
    
    ;^)
    

NATO planes, U.N. troops answer Sarajevo massacre with bombardment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina (Aug 30, 1995 - 15:36 EDT) -- Dozens of
warplanes from NATO countries unleashed bombs on Serb targets around
Sarajevo today in the biggest assault in the alliance's history. Bosnian and
Western leaders hoped the open-ended strike would finally force the rebels
to make peace.

A French Mirage 2000C fighter was shot down by a Serb missile in mountainous
terrain near the Serb stronghold, Pale, French Defense Minister Charles
Millon said, confirming the only reported allied loss. Two airmen ejected,
but their fate was not known, he said on television.

'We're doing everything to recover the pilots," he said, refusing to comment
on what was being done. A U.S. administration official in Washington said
the two airmen apparently survived.

The NATO assault, backed by the heavy guns of the U.N. rapid reaction force,
was in retaliation for Serb shelling of a Sarajevo market that killed 37
people Monday. NATO chief Willy Claes said the offensive would continue and
possibly grow more severe unless the Serbs were brought to heel.

More than 60 aircraft from several NATO countries flew from bases in Italy
and the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt to carry out the attack,
said Maj. Panagiotis Theodorakidis, a NATO spokesman in Naples, Italy.

Between the nighttime and daytime raids, the multinational rapid reaction
force, positioned on Mount Igman, southwest of the city, fired more than 600
shells on Serb positions surrounding the Bosnian capital, the United Nations
said.

Lt. Gen. Bernard Janvier, commander of U.N. troops in former Yugoslavia,
said the air raids and artillery barrages were able to "seriously reduce the
(Serb) artillery around Sarajevo."

NATO targets included air-defense radar and communication sites, ammunition
depots and command posts throughout Bosnia, said Lt. Col. Chris Vernon, a
U.N. spokesman. U.N. and NATO officials said the airstrikes heavily damaged
many targets, including a munitions factory and two ammunition dumps.

Later assessments, described by Pentagon officials as based on incomplete
information, were less confident. One U.S. official, speaking on condition
of anonymity, said there was a "medium" level of bomb damage; another
official advised against characterizing the damage as overwhelming.

Five waves of aircraft streaked through the skies over Sarajevo, striking
first in the dead of night, just after 2 a.m. (8 p.m. Tuesday EDT).

U.N. sources said the planes also targeted Bosnian Serb air defenses near
the towns of Mostar in the west, Gorazde in the east, and Tuzla to the
north, but there was no immediate NATO confirmation.

Spain said two high-ranking Spanish military officers and a Spanish envoy
died near Sarajevo, but that it was not clear if they were killed by NATO
bombs. A mission spokesman said in Brussels, Belgium, that the Spaniards'
driver and interpreter also died. One was believed to be Irish, the other
Dutch, European Union officials said.

There were no other reports of casualties.

The overnight raids left bright flashes of light tinging the sky. The
spectacle awoke Sarajevans, and many were hanging out their windows to watch
the assault on their Serb foes.

"I feel good, oh yes!" declared 58-year-old Musrata Sabic, leaning from her
balcony for a better view. "I feel good, probably for the first time in this
war. It looks like they are skinning them alive!"

NATO officials refused to specify which countries were involved in the
raids, but officials in Washington said 50 U.S. aircraft participated in the
first strike. French, British and Dutch planes also took part.

On their fifth run, planes struck in late afternoon near the Bosnian Serb
headquarters in Pale, southeast of Sarajevo. An army barracks was hit, and
sources there said a major Bosnian Serb air defense radar complex on nearby
Mount Jahorina had also been damaged.

A French plane on the bombing run spiraled out of the sky, then disappeared
behind a low hill near the town. A blast, apparently from a bomb, exploded
in front of the hill as smoke, apparently from an earlier bomb, dissipated
behind it.

Then two parachutes drifted out of the sky.

When Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic heard an allied plane had been
downed near Pale, he leaned out the window of the Pale TV building and
shouted, "Find the pilots! Find the pilots!"

The United States had search-and-rescue crews in the area, but it was not
immediately clear whether they were headed toward Pale to try to retrieve
the French airmen.

Karadzic, who was thought to have been in Serbia, called the NATO strikes "a
moral disaster for the Western world and for the U.N." because they had
taken a side in a civil war.

"Our lines are holding firmly despite all this, and because of it," he
declared. "Our lines will hold even firmer and we'll win in the end."

He indicated he might pull out of the latest U.S. peace initiative. "I think
those bombs can destroy the peace process, too," Karadzic said.

The president of Bosnia's Muslim-led government, Alija Izetbegovic, was in
Paris, where he had just concluded two days of peace talks with U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke.

He welcomed the NATO airstrikes as a long-awaited sign that Bosnia is "
moving toward peace."

"The world has finally done what it should have done a long, long time ago,"
Izetbegovic told reporters.

Holbrooke left Paris today for the Serbian and Yugoslav capital, Belgrade,
to meet with President Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia. Milosevic, who
instigated the war but wants to end U.N. sanctions against Serb-led
Yugoslavia, is trying to pressure the Bosnian Serbs to accept a peace deal.

In a statement on official radio, the Serb-led Yugoslav government in
Belgrade demanded "an urgent halt to air attacks and implementation of force
of any kind" and called for peace talks.

With the international community expressing determination for the first time
to strike the Serbs until they stop threatening the capital and other U.N.
"safe zones," the NATO campaign could mark the turning point in the
40-month-old Bosnian war.

It could force the Serbs to accept peace terms they have rejected. But if
the Serbs react defiantly as they have to past NATO raids, the
U.S.-sponsored peace mission could wither, leading to a pullout of U.N.
troops and the flow of direct Western military aid to the Bosnian
government.

"Our objective is to reduce the threat to the Sarajevo safe area and to
deter further attacks there or on any other safe area," Claes, the NATO
chief, said in a statement.

And he told ABC-TV's "Good Morning America" that "if the Bosnian Serbs are
continuing to launch a challenge, we will continue and even enhance our
military activities."

U.N. spokesman Alexander Ivanko suggested the NATO assaults would continue
until the Serbs agreed to pull back heavy weapons from the Sarajevo region
or until those weapons were destroyed.

The U.N. sent that message in a letter to Gen. Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian
Serb commander, Ivanko told reporters.

"Its basic message was: 'We have warned you of the consequences of an attack
... against a safe area. Unless that threat is removed, the NATO-U.N.
operation will be ongoing," Ivanko said.

A 12 1/2-mile heavy weapons exclusion zone around Sarajevo was imposed last
year but it gradually eroded.

Serbs dropped several shells on downtown Sarajevo today. The government
responded with dozens of mortar rounds out of the city toward Serb
positions.

President Clinton, speaking in Jackson, Wyo., said the NATO operation was
"an appropriate response to the shelling of Sarajevo."

But Russia, a traditional Serb ally, condemned both today's offensive and
the Serb attack that provoked it.

"We still oppose the use of force to solve the Yugoslavian crisis,"
President Boris Yeltsin said in an interview carried on Russian Public
Television.

    
    
    Saves on downed pilots...
    
    
    
    Methinks it's a fair trade-off
    

    besides, i think they'll be billing the Serbs at the end of the month

I haven't heard whether they have yet to retrieve the french pilots
that were downed several weeks ago.

Are they still hiding ?

Doug.

    
    Jason, not using the Tomahawks no the AA emplacements because it costs
    too much, is like not changing the oil in your car's engine because it
    costs too much.  I believe the phrase is "penny wise, pound foolish".

    Dan

    
    
     That would be like taking money out of your back pocket and putting it
    in one of the front pockets...
    

                         <<< Note 31.155 by LABC::RU >>>

Then why the hell aren't you screaming for equity on their parts
instead of pissing and moaning about the national policies in the
country of your citizenship, Jason?

    
    
    Is it me, or does it seem like most of the hardware over there is ours? 
    I heard this morning that we are going to send some F117A's over there.
    

    
    
    So Jason....
    
     How are you going to make them pay up?
    
    Many of them can't even pay their bills in NYC for everyday things, and
    you want them to fork over dough for a "police action"??
    

    
    .159
    
    >Many of them can't even pay their bills in NYC for everyday things, and
    >you want them to fork over dough for a "police action"??
    
    How often does this happen?  Any numbers?
    

    
    
    
                       SHADDUP!!!!
    

    
    :^)
    

>    You are the one screaming and moaning.  If you keep doing that like
>    my son, I might as well ignore you next time.

Well, I'm hardly screaming, Jason. If I was, you'd know it, because it
WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS!!! And I'm not moaning, either, other than that
I continually note that your answer to most of the problems you see 
tends to be a tax-and-spend answer.

>  Which country of citizenship you suppose I have?

Well, I'm assuming you're a citizen of the United States of America,
based on what you've stated regarding your voting plans and record.
    
>    What I want to say is every country in UN should share the peace
>    keeping cost there.  Don't you agree?  Do you have any problem with
>    it?

No - of course I don't have a problem with it. That would be why I suggested
that you worry that issue (their equity) rather than the spending policies
of the country of your citizenship, the USofA.

Which part did you miss?

       Jack, I think he's probably Canadian.
       
       --Mr Topaz

I dunno - LABC:: is apparently in ElLay.

    So, what's all this on Paulll Harrrvey this morning about
    five Russian diplomat types who are going to place themselves
    in Bosnia as a "human shield" against our bombs?
    
    As for involvement there in general, I'm of course with the
    two-thirds of Americans who are opposed to it, but we've
    been through all that ad nauseam.
    
    Chris

    
    
      The Russians are learning from the world about Political Correctness
    and how certain actions/words will get people's attention.
    
     They are now accusing NATO of "genocide".
    
    It's interesting to see they were nowhere to be found when atrocities
    were being committed by these same peoples who are dying now...
    

>   <<< Note 31.160 by TROOA::COLLINS "Every now and then it's gotta rain." >>>

    
>    .159
    
>    >Many of them can't even pay their bills in NYC for everyday things, and
>    >you want them to fork over dough for a "police action"??
    
>    How often does this happen?  Any numbers?
 
Yes, at last count U.N. delegates owed $9million to N.Y. merchants and the city 
itself(services, parking tickets, etc).

   
Amos

    
    .168, Amos:
    
    See 474.60, and note who posted it.  ;^)
    
    I was being facetious.
    

>   <<< Note 31.169 by TROOA::COLLINS "Every now and then it's gotta rain." >>>

    
>    .168, Amos:
    
>    See 474.60, and note who posted it.  ;^)

I knew I was quoting a reliable source, just couldn't remember who it was :-} 

   
>    I was being facetious.

I guess I'm oversensitive due to the fact there are folks in here who think 
that any disagreement with the U.N. or the left makes us automatic readers
and followers of stormfront implying nazi/white-supremecist/whatever 
background. 
    
Amos

    
> ...there are folks in here who think 
> that any disagreement with the U.N. or the left makes us automatic readers
> and followers of stormfront implying nazi/white-supremecist/whatever 
> background. 
    
    Amos! Who on earth could you be talking about....? ;-)
    

    I don't know if this is "new news" or "old news", but USA Today's
    Web page is reporting that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow was attacked
    with a grenade launcher by forces unknown.  No one was hurt.
    Anti-American sentiment in Russia is reportedly high because of
    the NATO airstrikes against Bosnian Serbs.
    
    Chris

    
    
    
    
        If the Bosnian Serbs continue to refuse the UN/NATO mandate
        of removing their "heavy weapons" in and around Sarajevo
        despite the on going air campaign,....what's next?
    
        Some military analysts are saying that the targets should
        be redirected towards civilian sites,..i.e. dams,..power
        stations. Others are saying that the Serbs will not capitulate
        unless you start "killing their troops on the ground". And
        there are others that are saying that the only way to remove
        that artillery is with "ground forces".
    
    
        What's next?? Is this going to be an escalating chain of events?
    
    
    
        Ed

    Better get Russia involved in the peace plan first.

    You picked a draft dodger as CiC.  It should be interesting what he
    would have to say about this.
    
    -Jack

    Did the Former Yupo note get filled up?

    Chris,
    
    Heard about the attack on Moscow embassy on ABC radio news last
    night.  Don't know the announcer, but he went on to comment
    that the grenade launcher was left behind and close to it was
    a mysterious leather glove :-)
    
    

    
    
    
        Ah,....moderator,....will you please put my entry into
        topic #31. That's where it should be.
    
        thanks and regards,
    
    
        Ed

    
    
    
      NATO has just called off the air strikes.
    
    
      Ed

>      NATO has just called off the air strikes.

The reason given, being ...?

    Probably at Russia's request.

>The reason given, being ...?


 They're going to Disneyworld!

    No, that would be Euro Disney where you can't get mayayonaise on your
    fries.
    
    hth
    
    /glenn

    
      As a display of the high principles motivating the organization ?
    
     bb

    NATO has called off further airstrikes because Ratko says he's moving
    the heavy weapons away from Sarajevo.
    
    DougO

    .185
    
    Why do NATO believe Ratko this time?  He's proven himself to be about
    as duplicitous as they come.

    
    .186
    
    Perhaps because they shot at him this time.
    

    I don't have a full story on it, Dick, I heard a fragment of a radio
    report.  Dunno what guarantees he's given, and its quite certain that
    the airstrikes will resume if he reneges.
    
    DougO

    
    
    re a few back
    
    
    you put mayo on your fries??????
    
    
    Chris
    :)

    
      Um, could somebody please explain what the "mission" of the
     20k US troops is supposed to be ?  You don't have to do it in
     Pentagonal like Gen'l Shali-etc.  I mean, under what condition
     could you say their "mission was accomplished" ?
    
      bb

    
    > I mean, under what condition could you say their 
    > "mission was accomplished" ?

    eeerrr... probably the the clueless one declares victory.  Regardless
    of the results.

    >> Um, could somebody please explain what the "mission" of the
    >> 20k US troops is supposed to be ?
    
    To create an international military diversion for Bill Clinton,
    to make him appear presidential, and to grease his re-election
    by the drones who deserve him.
    
    
    >> I mean, under what condition
    >> could you say their "mission was accomplished" ?
    
    Four more years, Novembah 1996.  How many will die for this?
    
    Chris

    
      Yesterday, Helms' committee was holding hearings with Christopher,
     Perry, and Gen Sh+, televised on CSPAN.  Not so entertainingly
     partisan as usual - both the witnesses and members from both parties
     kept repeating how worried they were about the plan, but also how
     worried they'd be WITHOUT the plan.  At least the administration
     promised they would nix any sort of UN command - it would be NATO.
     The mission remains as mushy as ever, howsomever.
    
      bb

Did you see the walking dead(Christopher) on TV press show where he said
"we can get the Bosnians to give up their guns by either a buy-back program
or make them register them".

Even you die-hard antigunners ought to be able to see the stupidity in
that attempt.

and if it won't work there why will it work here?

The Clintoon admin is dead they just haven't laid down yet :-}

    Did he actually SAY that?  InCREDible.
    

>   <<< Note 31.195 by DRDAN::KALIKOW "DIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName&Glory!" >>>

>    Did he actually SAY that?  InCREDible.
    
Yes he did!  I rarely lie about the stupid statements made by gov't types
the truth makes them look bad enough. :-} :-}

Amos

    
       Yeltsin threw a wrench in the machinery at the UN self-congrats
     party.  Said it was "unacceptable" to Russia (erstwhile panslavic
     Serb ally) for NATO to command the peacekeeping force.  While Sliq,
     Christopher, Perry, Gen Sh could mebbe talk Helms committee into a
     NATO op, there's no way under UN command.  Jesse would have a field
     day with the "hostage" rhetoric, and even the Dems in the committee
     would scurry.  On the other hand, Yeltsin still has a Security
     Council veto.  Very nasty fer Sliq, who could use a righteous war
     right now.
    
      bb

    Take it one step further.
    
    HIRED MERCENARIES are taken hostage.
    Combat soldiers are taken prisoner-of-war.
    POW's are entitled to the geneva convention accord.  Hostages are not.
    
    Does our country field combat soldiers or mercenaries?
    
    MadMike

    
      Croat-Serb talks broke down amid a renewed dispute over a slice of
     Serb-occupied land in eastern Croatia.  With crucial peace talks on
     Bosnia due to start Wednesday in Dayton, Ohio, diplomats struggled
     to keep the two sides from launching any military offensives.
    
      Croatians voted in a parliamentary election viewed as a referendum
     on President Tudjman's strong nationalist policy.  The government
     called the election nine months early to capitalize on the president's
     military victories against rebel minority Serbs.
    
      bb

    Probably Mr. Topan's idea.

    
      Yesterday, the House passed (by 2-1 margin) a non-binding resolution
     calling on Sliq to submit any groundtroop plan to Congress before
     sending in 20+ k folks.  The WH made the ritual growls reminiscent
     of Reagan and El Salvador, but not much will come of it till there
     is a real proposal.
    
      The US Constitution makes me queasy on the separation of powers in
     military matters, as it gives both the executive and legislative
     powers, which it seems to me make wars very hard to conduct.  I never
     like the War Powers Act.  Yet the ambiguity is original, straight
     from the Founders, who distrusted armies very much.
    
      bb

    Suppose the talks at Dayton OH (Wright Patterson AFB) with the warring
    parties come down to: (Serbs) "we will sign if there are no war crimes
    trials or investigations."
    
    I think that this may be a possibility...
    
    What would Bill do?
    
    What would Congress do?
    
    What would Nato do?

       Some people have wondered why Dayton was selected as the site for
       negotiations.  It's because the US expects and hopes that the
       parties will come to an agreement more quickly in Dayton: the
       sooner they agree on the terms, the sooner they can get the hell
       out of Ohio.

    
    Why don't we just bomb the hell outta Ohio, so:
    
    1) I don't have to go there next week.
    
    2) We solve the Bosnian problem.

    Hey HEY!  There will be no nuking Ohio.  Not when I'm so close to
    getting my home theater set up just right.  Just a few more
    components...

    Nuke Ohio?
    
    
    Well, the Atlanta Braves did their bit :-)
    
    

    This is easy, let me field it...
    
>    Suppose the talks at Dayton OH (Wright Patterson AFB) with the warring
>    parties come down to: (Serbs) "we will sign if there are no war crimes
>    trials or investigations."
>
>    I think that this may be a possibility...
>
>    What would Bill do?

   	Change his mind.
    
>    What would Congress do?

    	Call Bill an idiot, but back him up anyway.
    
>    What would Nato do?
    
    	Watch.

    
      Christopher's "deadline", after which he was going to pull the
     plug on the Dayton talks, was 10 AM yesterday.  They are still at
     it, with no end in sight, and reportedly the hangup is the map.
    
      The three parties have been drawing/redrawing the zones faster than
     a US state legislature when gerrymandering.  But still no deal.
    
      bb

<----but they can do that fast when they are using an etch-a-sketch!

    
      Hey, they came up with a split !  So now 20-25k armored US troops,
     and they're all set.
    
      What a statesman Clinton is.
    
      bb

    
      Watched the ceremonies and listened to the blather, plus Clinton's
     and Lugar's speeches and news confs, plus Gingrich's comments.
    
      Slick will get his way on this, and the troops will go in, barring
     real stupidity on his people's part.  Constitutionally, this is right,
     as he is Commander in Chief.  You cannot run foreign policy or any
     military op from Congress.  On the other hand, you can bet on Congress
     holding lots of hearings on this, and a bunch of speechifying.
    
      I'm ambivalent.  There will, of course, be US casualties.  But there
     is no reason to expect them to be huge.  The real question, though,
     is whether "Bosnia" as described in the agreement, with two domestic
     governments but only one foreign policy, currency, etc, is viable.
     I'm pessimistic and I'll say why in some detail in more notes.
    
      Consider this duality for a second :
    
      Self-Determination   vs.   Multiculturalism
    
      In past notes, I have pointed out the folly of self-determination
     as a principle in nation building.  But multiculturalism is even
     worse as a fundamental principle.  The world is beset with the
     problem of minority ethnicity, racial, linguistic, religious, 
     cultural, geographic.  Bosnia is sort of a worst case.  If neither
     of the extreme positions in my strawman duality are sustainable,
     how is the world to avoid unsightly travesties.  1/4 million have
     died so far in Bosnia (estimated).
    
      bb

    You racist.

    
      Oh, and while we're at it - keep an eye on Richard Holbrooke.  This
     guy reminds me of McNamara, Henry K, etc.  Boundless ego, hogs the
     media limelight, endruns his superiors, bullies through his opinions.
     He is gambling bigtime on this, and will be remembered forever in
     history for America's Bosnia episode, good or bad.
    
      bb

    bb
    
    I share your concern about this.  Saw a clip on the tube last night;
    we have troops training in Germany that are expected to be among
    the first to enter Bosnia as part of the "peace enforcing" contingent.
    
    One officer was stressing over and over NOT to hunt for weapons that
    appear to have been left behind, he said most will be booby-trapped
    and "guaranteed to give you a bad hair day".  When he was being
    interviewed he said most military forces know that there are many,
    many land mines; he said these alone will cause much carnage.
    
    I have a lot of doubts about this agreement; I know I joked about
    "some people will do anything to get out of Dayton", but I question
    how solid this agreement is.  My gut tells me it wouldn't take much
    of a disagreement between the ethnic groups to have this blow up in
    OUR faces.  As the officer said in the film clip; getting our troops
    in will be easy and won't take much time at all.  Getting them back
    out if hostilities resume is an entirely different story.
      

    
    Hmmm...let's see. 
    
    We've had "peacekeeping" troops in Cyprus, for say, 30 years now ?
    
    How long did it take for our African expedition to come unraveled ?
    There, it was US troops against local thugs and robber gangs, not
    against battle-hardened troops.
    
    We sent "peacekeeping" troops to the Golan Heights.  That really 
    helped.  We currently keep them in the border area between Israel
    and Lebanon.
    
    A Serbian nationalist sparked the first World War.  Would
    "peacekeeping" forces have prevented that?
    
    On and on it goes...playing policeman where criminals rule.
    
    This is pure, unadulterated crap. Call your Congressman and ask him
    to volunteer his children to go to Bosnia along with your own.

Why do you use Cyprus as an example?  When did the last casualty occur there?

    
    Cyprus, because of the longevity of the "operation", and the fact that
    the "operation" is there to keep two warring factions occupying the
    same territory from killing each other.
    

    TTWA:
    
    What kind of "peace agreement" demands American deaths as part
    of the bargain?  Just Say No.
    
    If they really want peace, they can have peace without us breathing
    down their necks.  If they don't really want peace or can't handle it,
    Americans shouldn't be standing in the way of bullets that are intended
    for someone else.  Nor should Americans be firing any bullets at anyone
    else.  Exactly what is the mission there (other than to stand there and
    be easy targets), and exactly what is the "game plan" for when it gets
    out of control?
    
    Chris

    > What kind of "peace agreement" demands American deaths as part
    > of the bargain? ...
    > If they really want peace, they can have peace without us breathing
    > down their necks.  If they don't really want peace or can't handle it,
    > Americans shouldn't be standing in the way of bullets that are intended
    > for someone else. 
    
    And if Europe falls apart because this chance to separate the
    combatants is lost?  Will *that* be worth any lives?  Because
    you won't get asked next time, you'll be told - and the costs
    in American lives in the next big European war will be much, 
    much higher, than what is at risk now.
    
    DougO

    > And if Europe falls apart...
    
    In the life insurance business, this is known as "driving the hearse in
    front of the house".

    Has Congress approved the use of troops for the Bosnia "peace keeping"
    agreement (seems like this would be close to a treaty of sorts, since
    US troops are part of the deal- making at least a Senate approval a
    must)?
    
    Can Clinton send troops wherever he wants, whenever he wants?  Why does
    the idea that he can scare the hell out of me?  [he needs some sort of
    approval, constitutionally speaking- if our government is still making any
    pretense of folloing the law of the land]
    
    
    -steve 

    
    
>    Can Clinton send troops wherever he wants, whenever he wants?  Why does
>    the idea that he can scare the hell out of me?  [he needs some sort of
>    approval, constitutionally speaking- if our government is still making any
>    pretense of folloing the law of the land]
    
    	Yes, he can. Under the current state of emergency, he has far
    reaching powers.
    
    
    jim

    
      Yes, he can.  Commander-in-Chief.  See Constitution, Article II.
    
      Of course, eventually, he has to ask for money.  It is illegal
     for him to spend money unless appropriated (or entitled), neither
     of which is true yet.
    
      Anyway, they're going, now, in any event.  What the Congress must
     do, constitutionally, is oversee, demand information and answers
     to questions, expose all aspects.  They will, as they usually do.
    
      bb

    >> And if Europe falls apart because this chance to separate the
    >> combatants is lost?
    
    Preposterous... the Domino Theory doesn't sell any better now than
    it did thirty years ago for Vietnam.  Funny how all of SE Asia didn't
    tumble like they told us it would.  So, in the final analysis, what
    was gained by all the deaths and suffering?  And wasn't McNamara
    surprised... what's he doing now, crying in his cup... is this an image
    of Clinton and his pals 25 years from now?
    
    
    >> Will *that* be worth any lives?
    
    Whose lives are we talking about here?  Ours, or those of our loved
    ones?  Would we fight in this war ourselves?  Would we send family
    members or friends?  If not, how can we be so presumptuous as to send
    other Americans to die in this war that's none of our business?  Is it
    somehow okay because we don't know them?
    
    I'm no more willing to send strangers to die for this than I'd be to
    send people I know.  To me, they're not abstract pawn soldiers, they're
    Americans with families and friends.  I have no desire to see Americans
    experience the kinds of personal losses and tragedies that we saw
    during Vietnam.  No vital American interests are involved here; the
    United States is not at risk.  We are not the world's policemen, doomed
    to endlessly serve up our people to die for the good of the world.
    
    What short memories everyone seems to have.  Do we really want to bring
    this kind of tragedy upon ourselves again?
    
    
    >> Because
    >> you won't get asked next time, you'll be told - and the costs
    >> in American lives in the next big European war will be much, 
    >> much higher, than what is at risk now.
    
    "Told?"  In what way?  The cost in American lives will be zero, if we
    choose to stay out of it as we should.  It is not an automatic
    obligation that we must fight in any European war of any kind.  I will
    never buy into the notion that war is inevitable.  I definitely don't
    buy into the notion that Americans need to line up like cattle to die
    in everyone else's wars all over the planet.  But like I said in an
    earlier note, I'm not going to cover that old ground again...
    
    Chris

So, in that case, why should any other country bother to get involved?  It
doesn't affect Britain, France, Germany etc, so why should we send in our
troops?

Chris.

    
      Well, several Boserb groups have already denounced the agreement
     and demanded the reopening of map questions.  US refused.  The 20K
     US troops have already been preceeded by some setup-type guys.  The
     US will get the middle sector, I think (correct me if wrong), with
     20K Brits in the North and 20K French in the South, including the
     Sarajevo stuff.  Perry was on the talk shows yesterday, and the US
     Prex will "address the nation" on all channels tonight at 8 PM, on
     the subject of Bosnia.  This is a big speech for him.
    
      According to one poll service, under 50% of American voters could
     identify which continent Bosnia was on.  The troops in Germany were
     hyped up and enthusiastic when interviewed.  Like any group of young
     people placed on alert, they are primed to go.  The reserves are
     going to be called up, but details are hard to come by.
    
      bb

>> So, in that case, why should any other country bother to get involved?
    
    That's up to each individual country to decide, of course.  If
    you happen to be in a country that is either bordering the war
    area and/or is at direct risk by the war, steps to contain it
    might be considered.  These steps need not necessarily involve
    the last resort of sending in people to shoot things at each
    other and receive similar fired projectiles in turn.
    
    I hear that the United States forces make up one-third of this
    proposed Bosnia force.  Where's the rest of the world?  The U.S.
    has about five percent of the world's population...
    
    Chris

    
    And Perry has said that the US will not be involved if the Bserbs do
    not approve the agreement.  This may be all for nothing.
    
    
    Mike

>So, in that case, why should any other country bother to get involved?  

Countries should get involved when their national security or economy will
be jepordized by the current events. Clearly, we are talking about a civil war,
and not a war across national boundries.

The Europeans should own most of this particular problem. Instead, the US is
providing 100% of the naval support, and 80% of air support and know we are 
about to provide 33% of the ground support. This all has expenses tied to it.

Where the hell is the rest of Europe! (at least Britain and France are in there
in more than a symbolic measure).

>It doesn't affect Britain, France, Germany etc, so why should we send in our
>troops?

 Exactly!. If this isn't important enough to the neighboring states why should
 we give up the lives of our children for this civil war.

 Why? 

 I understand the atrocities going on over there, but that has been going on for
 milleniums all over the world.


 Doug.

     >> According to one poll service, under 50% of American voters could
     >> identify which continent Bosnia was on.
    
    Under 50%, eh?  Well, it was good enough to get Kernel Clinton in
    there, and it's probably the same "under 50%".
    
     >> The troops in Germany were hyped up and enthusiastic when interviewed. 
    
    Interesting... hyped up to do... what?  Aren't they supposed to be
    basically standing around doing nothing?  I mean, <set sarcasm bit>
    they're just "preserving the peace", right?  Kind of like being a
    mall cop, if we believe Slick.  Let's count how many times he says the
    word "peace" tonight, and then let's store it away for future
    reference, his promises of "peace", when things start getting nasty.
    
    Chris

    
    
>    Interesting... hyped up to do... what? 
    
    	It's a natural reaction to going to an area of potential danger.
    When my brother's unit was on call to go to Desert Storm, his whole
    unit was pumped with adrenaline.
    
    
    jim

RE: 31.227 by AMN1::RALTO "Clinto Barada Nikto"

> The U.S. has about five percent of the world's population...

And rather more of the world's income,  wealth and military power.


Phil

    
    
    
    I suppose there's a point to that?

    
    	I understood it to be an interesting observation.
    
    	If he'd mentioned % of the total number of the world's guns I
    	guess you would have been interested and wouldn't have quest-
    	ioned it.
    

    >the Domino Theory doesn't sell any better now than
        it did thirty years ago for Vietnam.
    
    nonsequitor.  This isn't the domino theory- this is the ethnic strife
    scenario in the balkans, which has drawn in the neighbors several times
    in the past, WWI being the most prominent example you can't have
    forgotten.  Have you?
    
    > No vital American interests are involved here ...
    
    I have a very different view.  American interests, and the interests of
    the western civilization to which we are the leading heirs and of whose
    traditions we are the guardians, are threatened by the disintegration of 
    nation-states into civil war and anarchy.
    
    What do you think the world is going to be like if murderers like 
    Arkan are to be allowed to destabilize entire regions?  There are
    several MILLION refugees in Europe from the states of ex-Yugoslavia. 
    The consequences of their plight are huge.  The violence, destruction,
    loss of commerce, loss of political voice, atrocities, are bad enough,
    but that the political and economic stabilities of neighbors are
    threatened means that the chaos can spread.  It is not farfetched to
    assume continued conflagration and the spreading of war's terrible toll
    to Hungary, Albania, and Macedonia - slightly further afield Slovakia
    could go, too- and once those countrysides are aflame how will Greece
    and Turkey be kept out?  Two NATO members, remember- our pledge to
    guarantee their security applies.  Not to mention Germany, awash with
    refugees and struggling to maintain social stability as it digests the
    ruins of the former east german state and populace.  If Bosnia isn't to
    get better, it *will* get worse.  The risks are immense.
    
    So, just what do you think American interests are, anyway?  To me its 
    very clear that we have an interest in the stability and enrichment of 
    the nations that used to be stuck behind the iron curtain.  For historical 
    reasons Britain and France simply can't do the job alone.  We have a 
    further interest in leading western civilization when others can't- as
    the country which has twice in this century risen to the call of
    preserving western civilization we have placed ourselves in the leading
    role which now demands that we continue to meet that responsibility. 
    We are betraying the commitments of WWII veterans in their millions if
    we refuse to stand fast with 20K troops now.
    
    We have the power to stop this.  We have previously declared ourselves
    the leaders of the West.  We betray our civilization as decadent and
    unworthy of our professed principles if we fail to use that power in
    this obviously justified and sensible manner.  And we will see the
    results of that failure in increased regional instability around the
    globe - if Americans can't be persuaded to support the costs of leading
    western civilization, then that civilization, having won a great
    victory in the 40 years of the cold war, will ultimately fail.  I'd
    rather we accept the responsibilities that no one else can shoulder.
    Otherwise, the world *will* come to be ruled by the likes of Arkan,
    Saddam, and Quadafi.  That *your* view of American interests?
    
    DougO

    
    <--- Oh great. Now the future of Western Civilization is hanging in the
         balance.
    
    	 "Trade with all. Alliances with none."
    
    	 --- George Washington, our un-hip and very out-of-touch first 
    	     president.

    
    
    
    I imagine I will be receiving a message from Gene within a day or two
    regarding this.  If it's printable, I will post it here, it ought to be
    a doozey.  Watching Slick last night made my stomach turn.  He will use
    any ploy to get his way.  If he sends our troops and there are casualties, 
    Slick will have their blood on his hands.
    
    
    Mike

    
    	I'll give slick this, he knows how to play to the public. The
    troops will go....I have no doubt in my mind. Let's just hope this
    little political venture doesn't turn into a replay of our scrap with
    Uncle Ho....
    
    
    jim 

    When any president sends troops into a hostile environment, they will
    have their blood on their hands.  I expect casualties as do the CIC,
    Joint Chiefs etc.  There will be deaths merely by virtue of everyday
    living from accidents on the road or in the air.  This has been the
    case with every major operation where U.S. troops have been involved. 
    I just hope that they are given the ability to fight back with
    devastating and overwhelming force in the event that hostilities erupt
    involving out troops.  
    
    The only reason so far that sounds plausible but still unpalatable is
    the argument that we must participate to contain the situation and
    prevent it from spilling over the borders.  Can someone in a
    non-rhetorical way please help me with the bit of history that suggests
    this may be an eventuality?  
    
    Brian

    
    
    I wonder what we would have thought if someone interceded in our civil
    war........

    The French and Brits both tried to through surreptitious means.  We
    employed Hessian troops as mercs in the Revolution.  
    
    

    How's the President going to pay for this little war game? He's
    threatening to veto the defense appropriations bill because it's too
    big. Moving 20K troops isn't free, Mr. President. You wanna play Mr.
    Foreign Policy, you gotta find a way to pay for it.
    
    Personally, I think that the europeans ought to be sending more of
    their own. This is really a european problem, a problem that should
    have been addressed long ago. The dearth of actual leaders in europe,
    of course, led to the situation we are now experiencing. (Not that WE
    did much to help the situation, he said, referring to the arms
    embargo.)
    
     All things considered, in many ways, this is an uglier situation than
    Kuwait.

 I noticed the prez used all the right buzzwords..hatred, intolerance, Multi
 ethnic and diversity..that oughta get him a few points.


 

    We are going to be the world's police whether we (the citizens) like it
    or not, and there's bloody little we can do about it.  It's all part of
    the plan.  
    
    I noted that Clinton made sure to include that our troops will be under
    a US general; however, the whole operation is under the UN.  Guess who
    is really in control?  Just more political rhetoric, as was Clinton's
    mentioning this police actions in the same breath with WWI and WWII.
    
    The man is a consumate liar, but the American sheep will swollow this
    one, as will Congress.  We are only told what is disseminated by the
    media- and you can bet that for every truth there are 10 half-truths
    and 5 outright lies.
    
    Call me synical.
    
    We have no business interfering with Bosnia.  We have no vital interests
    there that warrent our sending troops, no matter how much the spin 
    doctors work at telling us that we do.  "Save the children", "save the
    innocent", etc. will always be the cry that the spin doctors KNOW will
    get the public behind nearly any action, regardless of how
    ill-conceived it may be.
    
    I find it interesting that Clinton went out of his way to try and get a
    peace treaty in Bosnia- and that this treaty would include US troops. 
    Does this seem weird to anyone else?  
    
    
    -steve

Subj:	The Quagmire Begins

-- [ From: Gene Haag * EMC.Ver #2.2 ] --

Get used to the sight of body bags being unloaded in Dover.

Nearly three years ago newly elected president Clinton faced
the dilemma of what the US should do about the escalating Balkan 
civil war. The Bush administration had failed to articulate any
meaningful US policy and the new president was being pushed
by hawks at home and European allies for some sort of a
cooperative commitment to address the problem. The Clinton
administration, feeling the need to act decisively, chose the
"easy" way out. Those decisions will now needlessly cost
American lives.

Tonight the president while take his message to the American
people. He will attempt to justify the deployment of 20,000+
American troops to the Balkan states with statements of
American commitment, peace, and containment. Statements
that most surely will ring hollow to those Americans whose
sons and daughters will lose their lives in a cause not supported by
the people or congress.

The deployment of American troops to the Balkans is a direct
response to a commitment the Clinton administration made 
nearly three years ago. At that time, urged on by Secretary of State
Christopher, the president issued a blanket policy statement committing
US ground forces to the Balkan region in the event UN forces
needed evacuation support or as members of a peacekeeping
mission once hostilities had terminated. In the spring of 1993,
with the Balkan civil war raging in full force, the possibility of
a UN evacuation or "peace" breaking out anytime soon was,
at best, a remote prospect. The president and his policy makers
effectively were buying time with a policy shunned by our allies
as a "non-commitment". That policy, made in haste, is now the
cornerstone of the US response to the very shaky peace 
agreement SOME of the warring sides tentatively agreed to in 
Ohio.

Upon deployment the US military contingent will find a group of
peoples indifferent to their presence at best and hostile in the
worst.  A great many of the warring factions have not agreed to
the Ohio peace agreement and have vowed to fight on - US
troops or no US troops. It is virtually impossible for US troops
to avoid hostile conflict with one or more well trained, experienced
armies. Open warfare resulting in US casualties, perhaps
significant casualties, is all but guaranteed.

The president will cite "vital US interests" as justification for the
US troop deployment and associated deaths. WHAT US vital
interests? Stopping the spread of the war is no more vital now
than three years ago. Does the US really have the "moral 
obligation" to stop the atrocities committed in the name of
500 year old hatreds as Christopher constantly reminds us? 
If so, then why not in many other parts of the world where 
such atrocities are common place? I can't wait to see if the 
president mentions his letters from the Balkan leaders
guaranteeing cooperation and the safety of American troops.
Those letters are meaningless and it is an insult to the American
people that Clinton would advertise them as some sort of a
security blanket the troops can wrap themselves in.

This troop deployment is being made to back up a Bill
Clinton commitment. A commitment made in haste and without
the consent of the American people or US congress. It is 
also made in light of the upcoming presidential race and the
sagging fortunes of the Democratic party. It is a big stakes
political gamble that has more to do with "re-election" than 
atrocities. It is also a gamble Bill Clinton will lose, as will 
many US military personnel.

The bitter irony of this whole conflict is that Bill Clinton's only
salvation would be the resumption of hostilities in earnest. 
That would allow the president to withdraw the commitment
until peace is somehow majically restored. And if Bill Clinton
got lucky, and he IS one lucky individual, the war would rage
on through the 1996 US presidential elections.

Tonight the president will speak at length about "America's
roles and commitment's" that must be honored. That will be
a lie. There is no consensus among the majority of the
American people, or our political leadership, that we have
made any commitment to enforcing peace in the Balkans.
That commitment was made by Bill Clinton and his
administration - a commitment they had NO constitutional
authority to make (the restoration of the US constitution
is a subject for another article).

Tonight after you watch the president pitch his policy ask 
yourself if you are convinced it is worth the American lives
it surely will cost. And get used to the live, solemn broadcasts 
from Dover.

Vote in '96 like your very country depends on it - because it does!

    Did Clinton state he would take FULL responsibility for any deaths that
    occur over there?  
    
    If so, thenwhat does "Take Responsibility" actually mean?? In other
    words, what price is he willing to pay as CiC for death?  
    
    

    I cannot accept the "save Western civilization" arguments in .235.
    It's not 1914 anymore.  There's a better way now, other than jumping
    in with swinging fists, through improved communication, technology,
    and other general advances in civilization and civilized behavior
    since those days.
    
    We should be setting an example to the world by our refusal to
    employ violent methods other than as a last resort.  Instead the
    "leaders" of this country have done the opposite, engineering a
    "peace" agreement that intentionally (and suspiciously) includes
    direct American military involvement as a fundamental component.
    Waging war while invoking the name of "peace", as someone pointed
    out on the radio yesterday, is akin to <r.o.>'ing in the name of
    chastity.
    
    
    re: .244
    
    Good note... it's clear that Colonel Clinkton has explicitly
    rigged the "peace" agreement to put American troops into the war
    zone in order to provide a desperately-needed foreign diversion
    for himself, and to "look presidential".  Actually, he may have
    even more sinister motives, but I'll leave those to the reader
    to ponder.
    
    As for the American sheep swallowing this up, this is what I'd
    expected too, but this morning's radio news has some interesting
    poll results.  In many telephone polls being run by radio and TV
    stations all over the country, with each one getting thousands of
    calls, this morning's results are consistently showing that 85-90%
    of Americans are opposed to sending American troops into the Bosnia.
    In the Boston area, the number was 89%.  Almost nine out of ten
    people opposed, *after* Clinton's speech.
    
    "America must choose peace", indeed, Slick.  You choose "peace" by
    staying home and not fighting.  You don't choose "peace" by sending
    thousands of armed troops into a war zone.  This outrageously blatant
    twisting of the word "peace" is insulting and offensive.
    
    Those of us who don't already know are about to learn what Clinton's
    definition of "peace" is.
    
    Chris

 ZZ   it's clear that Colonel Clinkton
    
    Could it be???  Naw.  Too much of a coincidence.
    
    Diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssssmissed!

re: Brian

>    I just hope that they are given the ability to fight back with
>    devastating and overwhelming force in the event that hostilities erupt
>    involving out troops.  

I share your hope, as I think we've learned over the last thirty years
that that's really the _ONLY_ conditions under which we should be involving 
ourselves militarily anywhere.

I also expect I share your skepticism that this will be the case, given
the "intent" of the impetus behind this foolhardy move from The War Hero.

It's no wonder he didn't learn what most people did, given what he was
up to thirty years ago.

    
      It wasn't a very polished performance.  He stumbled several times,
     and the speech lacked a unifying theme.  Of course, perhaps these
     speeches mean less today, with cable.  Apparently, most viewers
     didn't even watch.  As for Dole, he was even more non-committal
     than usual, if that's possible.  Expect Christopher, Perry, etc
     to get a very hostile reception at hearings later in the week.
    
      Politically, I think the GOP should give him his rope, without
     any enthusiasm, by a small margin.  But they're maybe not that smart.
    
      bb

    >  Politically, I think the GOP should give him his rope, without
    > any enthusiasm, by a small margin.  
    
     That's what it sounded like Dole was doing.

    Clinton's speech last night shows him to be perhaps the most skilled,
    slickest public speaker since Hitler, Churchhill and FDR, using words
    to make evil actions sound good. His gross lack of principles, shown in
    his willingness to send Americans to die to bolster his feelings of
    power, combined with his supreme ability to sound good lets him project
    sincerity and good intentions with persuasive skill. Pandering to envy
    and parisitism, Clinton "compassionately" extracts maximum capital from
    working taxpayers to buy votes and power from the public. Bill Clinton
    is a professional Elmer Gantry who exudes sincerity, confidence and
    compassion upon all whom he exploits for his own self-serving power and
    selfish ego. Seeking unearned power through virtuoso lying, Bill
    Clinton is emasculating America's long term economy for his own power.
    Left unchecked, his criminal agenda will destroy America. He is willing
    to start a war, loot, kill and build violent hatred in order to sustain
    his own destructive power.

Churchill.  NNTTM.

    Tom:
    
    I think you give him too much credit.
    
    For the morons of this country, yes, he's slick.  Otherwise, he's a
    good ole boy.
    
    

    
    
    Only thing about giving him his rope is that it's not himself he will
    end up hanging.  Maybe he will politically, but the lives lost will not
    be his.
    
    
    Nothing wrong with a good ole boy, Jack, I know quite a few, many with
    more sense than we see around here.
    
    
    Mike

    ^I think you give him too much credit.
    
    He has admittedly wanted to be President of the United States since he
    was a boy. He set his life's path in this direction and has done
    everything that it takes to get there. He made it. No Jack, I think you
    give him to little credit.

    Oh Tom, I admire his tenacity in life.  But Clinton isn't dealing with
    Arkansas nincompoops anymore.  He's now dealing with the whole country. 
    I can't explain the Alzheimers syndrome our country went through in
    1992 but worse things have happened.

    oh jack, the country's alzheimers syndrome happened from 1980 to 1988
    when nancy was president. /hth

    
    
    Yup, millions of jobs created, US regaining the respect that had been 
    lost internationally, Soviet Union put on the brink of collapse,
    inflation low, people's standard of living going up, yup, ole Ron was
    out to lunch, he was......
    
    
    Nice comment seeing as the man is suffering from the disease now. 
    Hopefully you won't have anyone in your family stricken with the
    disease, but if you do, remember your jokes.
    
    
    Mike 

    i said the _country's_ alzheimer's, not ron's.  obtw,
    the ussr pushed itself into collapse and inflation seems
    pretty low right now too...

    ZZ    the ussr pushed itself into collapse 
    
    So you agree that Socialism doesn't work?

    How many actors turned President does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    
    New bumper sticker:
    
    "SEND CHELSEA"

    sneer at western civ, boys, while I cry because Clinton's all we got.
    The job needs doing, and nobody countered .235 with anything but
    slobbering over bad ol' Bill Clinton.  Ignore him.  The job has needed
    doing for quite awhile, no matter WHO is president.  Any of you rabble
    want to think Bob Dole is going to know how to handle the job of
    President after watching that waffle last night?
    
    Give 'em enough rope to hang, now who's playing party politics with the
    interests of the nation?  Pretty clearly the GOP is just as guilty, or
    they'd be out there articulating why this is a bad idea.  Nope, they
    just mumble and hope Clinton trips without bringing them down.
    
    And in here the same-old slanging at Clinton, with utter disregard for
    the issues.  What a rabble.
    
    DougO

    
      DougO - in one year, some Americans will be dead, hopefully not
     many, and Bosnia will still not be a nation.  This is a no-op.
    
      bb

    RE: .241

>    The French and Brits both tried to through surreptitious means.  We
>    employed Hessian troops as mercs in the Revolution.  

    I know the Brits employed Hessians ("Yonder are the Hessians ... or
    Molly Stark sleeps a widow").  Did the revolutionists as well?


    RE: Sending Troops

    First let me say that I don't like defending Slick and I look forward
    to the day that he has a giant EX- in front of his title.  That said, I
    have heard an explanation that actually makes sense why it is in our
    national interest for us to send in troops and it also makes sense why
    Clinton can't come out and say it:  The Gulf War.

    The Saudi's took a gamble within the Arab community when they let the
    United States use their soil to launch attacks against a fellow
    Arab/muslim state.  The preception in the region (gee, I wonder how
    they could get this perception) is that the west _only_ comes to the
    aid of muslims and muslim countries when there is oil involved.

    Enter Bosnia.  Here's a muslim popluation that has no oil and the west
    has no real stake whether these people live or die, except perhaps the
    principal of not just standing around while people die.  Therefore if
    the west makes the stand on principal, the Saudi's are vindicated in
    the muslim world for supporting the west, because the west is not
    solely interested in muslim oil but also in the muslim people.

    The only real catch at this point is whether or not pussy-footing
    around for the last 3 or 4 years (Bush included) ruined the chances for
    Bosnia to be a "we care about muslims" token gesture or not.

    -- Dave

    P.S.  Of course if you don't believe that protecting our oil dependent
    way of life is of national interest then the whole point is moot
    anyway.

    >Any of you rabble
    >want to think Bob Dole is going to know how to handle the job of
    >President after watching that waffle last night?     
    
     You say waflle, I say he was measured. He clearly supports the power
    of the presidency to order the troops, and he says that a case can be
    made to support the mobilization. He stopped short of doing the
    President's job for him. Gee, I suppose we should hang him for that.
    He's jockeying for that job, remember? Besides, he also said that it
    was an easy no vote, recognizing that this is a political football and
    saying so to everyone. This puts pressure on the members of his party
    to articulate why they are voting no- a real waffle, that. Just another
    case of seeing what you want to see, Doug.
    
    >Pretty clearly the GOP is just as guilty, or
    >they'd be out there articulating why this is a bad idea.  Nope, they
    >just mumble and hope Clinton trips without bringing them down.
    
     So the opposition party is supposed to do the Prez's job for him, eh?
    How come that wasn't the case when we had a republican president?
    Hmmmm?

    > It's not 1914 anymore.  There's a better way now, other than jumping
    > in with swinging fists, through improved communication, technology,
    > and other general advances in civilization and civilized behavior
    > since those days.
    
    I don't believe what I'm reading.  This is so utterly naive.  Where to
    start?  Civilized behavior doesn't evolve merely with the passage of
    time.  Atrocities are happening now, today, despite the existence of
    all the examples any civilized person would need.  The problem is that
    many, with power and guns, aren't civilized.  I repeat the statement
    from .235- are such men as Arkan, the Butcher of Bosnia, to be
    permitted to destabilize entire regions?  Either we let it happen, or
    we don't.  I know what *I* think is the response of civilized nations,
    and ignoring it, retreating into isolationism, as we did after the
    first World War, is NOT an acceptable answer.
    
    DougO

    >I know what *I* think is the response of civilized nations,
    >and ignoring it, retreating into isolationism, as we did after the
    >first World War, is NOT an acceptable answer.
    
     Then join the armed forces and volunteer. Sending other people's kids
    to die is pretty easy, all things considered.

    Mark, "doing the President's job for him" is not what I ask of Senator
    Dole or those of his party inclined to oppose the President.  I ask
    them to do their OWN jobs, which means evaluating the foreign policy
    requirements of the country and not impeding same.  Dole admitting a
    "case can be made" while refusing to make it is a waffle, absolutely.
    
    DougO

    >join the armed forces and volunteer.
    
    Been there, done that.  You?
    
    DougO

    >Dole admitting a "case can be made" while refusing to make it is 
    >a waffle, absolutely.
    
     Well, if that's what you want to see.
    
     The White House has been supporting an arms embargo against the
    Muslims, allowing the Boserbs to slaughter them with virtual impunity.
    Now he wants to send our troops there. I suppose you can't see any
    waffle there.

    DougO's right.  The president was elected and if people die over there,
    remember that YOU cast the ballot for him.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    > I wonder what we would have thought if someone interceded in our civil
    > war........
    
    They did.  See San Jacinto incident, Florida & Alabama incident,
    and 1872 Geneva Treaty when the US won $15 million in compensation
    for British interference in the US civil war.  The decision was awarded by
    an international arbitration court.  Y'know - back in those bad ole
    days whan we used to just duke it out.....
    
    Colin
    
     

    >Been there, done that. 
    
     Then it should be a simple matter for you to rejoin your unit with
    all the power of your convictions.
    
     Oh, BTW, how much time was spent in harm's way? Weren't you a ROTC
    desk job type? All things considered, it's a pretty easy stint in the
    armed forces, compared to being a grunt, fr'instance.

    RE: .264

>    Give 'em enough rope to hang, now who's playing party politics with the
>    interests of the nation?  Pretty clearly the GOP is just as guilty, or

    Doug,

    If the current president was a Republican, the Democrats who are
    currently advocating sending in troops would (rightfully) be out
    questioning why were sending in troops, just like they did before we
    sent troops into Saudi Arabia.

    The opposition party has a responsibility to force the president to
    make a clear case for sending in troops BEFORE the troops are sent. 
    Once the troops are sent then there should be a period of time when the
    opposition party shuts up and stands behind the president and lets the
    president call the shots (no pun intended).  

    At what point the opposition party could/should resume their call for
    removal of troops would depend on the situation, how much national
    interest is involved, and how high the body bags are stacked.

    -- Dave

    >>Been there, done that.
    >
    > Then it should be a simple matter for you to rejoin your unit with
    > all the power of your convictions.
    
    Noticed you ducked the question.  Don't tell me to join up again when
    you haven't even been once.
    
    And as far as being in harm's way, no, I didn't have hazardous duty. 
    Luck of the draw.  Someone else in this company who was also in an ROTC
    engineering program in my timeframe ended up in charge of security details 
    on fence perimeters in Germany near the Fulda Gap, carrying a loaded
    rifle a couple of times a week.  The point is, when I signed that
    paper, there were no guarantees that I wouldn't be legitimately ordered
    into dnagerous situations.  Anybody who signs up without that clear
    knowledge is fooling themselves; the volunteer forces are expected to
    have to fight, based upon the political leadership's choices.  People
    who sign up know this.
    
    But you're simply out of bounds, Mark.  It is legitimate to be
    concerned with the lives of the troops at risk.  But it is illegitimate
    for you to pretend that such is the sole or overriding concern, or for
    you to pretend that those of us who are persuaded by other aspects of the 
    situation are simply stay-at-homes with no real concept of the risk
    potential.  You have signally failed to address my concern that this
    war may very well spread, and cost far more than the 20,000 troops
    currently proposed.  Get off your bankrupt high horse- it offends me.
    
    DougO

    DougO:
    
    Harms way or not, you joined and I appreciate your patriotism.  
    
    I still harm a problem reconciling Clintons attitude now with his
    attitude years ago.
    
    -Jack

> The opposition party has a responsibility to force the president to
> make a clear case for sending in troops BEFORE the troops are sent.
 
Does anyone think this is happening?  

DougO

    >> I know what *I* think is the response of civilized nations,...
    
    If the only response a "civilized" nation can come up with involves not
    only killing other people, but sending others of our own country to die
    for our own ideological goals, then I submit that the use of the word
    "civilized" does not apply.
    
    
    >> and ignoring it, retreating into isolationism, as we did after the
    >> first World War, is NOT an acceptable answer.
    
    I did not say to ignore it.  Why is death and killing a mandatory
    element of any solution that is acceptable in this matter?
    
    Becoming involved in a war, and ultimately escalating that war by our
    involvement in it, is what's "NOT an acceptable answer".  I've heard
    memories of WWI invoked here a few times.  Consider that what Clinton
    is doing here is following the exact formula for "prelude to world
    war".  It reads exactly like a "future history" book of how a little
    local war turns into a big nasty war with lots of countries involved
    from all over the world.  Clinton is escalating this war, right now, by
    upping the ante and bringing all these other countries and forces into
    it.  You don't stop a war by bringing in more and more forces.
    
    I can't believe that we have to go through this pain all over again.
    Is there any hope that we can pull ourselves above the endless violence
    that the rest of "civilization" seems determined to wallow in for all
    eternity?
    
    Chris

    
    Slick didn't learn much from Vietnam, perhaps he should have gone.
    
    20K troops + 40K nato is way too small a number to really do anything 
    if the contestants start anything.  Between the terrain and the long
    borders, troop density will be very low.  Also, we're not aligned
    with any of the locals.  Very bad situation.
    
    This is the worse of all approaches.  If we're gonna go there, go big.
    That was the lesson of Vietnam. 
    
    What happens if someone car bombs a barracks and takes out 100 
    of our guys?  What is our response?  Do we pack it up and go home?
    Worse yet, what happens when the polls show Slick being VERY unpopular
    when/if body bags start coming home.  I don't think he's got the
    guts to stay the fight if the polls show him losing elction votes.
    
    al 
     

    >> 20K troops + 40K nato is way too small a number to really do anything 
    >> if the contestants start anything.
    
    He knows this.  He'd never have gotten "approval" for many more than
    20K troops to start with (not that he's getting approval for this, but
    that's after-the-fact), so he didn't try.  This is just the beginning,
    his foot in the door.  By the elections next year, if not sooner, we'll
    either be fully involved (whatever that involves, 200K or more), or
    he'll simply pull out once the going gets tough, and look even more
    ridiculous.
    
    And then, what exactly will those men have died for, other than
    furthering Slick's own political gamble?
    
    Chris

>    >> I know what *I* think is the response of civilized nations,...
>    
>    If the only response a "civilized" nation can come up with involves not
>    only killing other people, but sending others of our own country to die
>    for our own ideological goals, then I submit that the use of the word
>    "civilized" does not apply.

    A few points:
        1.  I would agree with you if ALL nations and ALL people were
            civilized, but if this was true we could safely eliminate all
            law enforcement agencies.
        2.  The ->goal<- is not to kill anybody.
        3.  There *is* a brokered peace deal.

    Yes, probablistically someone will be killed by unfriendly fire.  But
    we are not going in with guns blazing into a fire fight.

    The questions that I would like to know the answers to are (and I admit
    to not watching Clinton's address):
        1.  What is the time table for removing the troops.
        2.  What is the mission.
        3.  How can we identify when that mission has been completed and
            the troops can come home.
        4.  How can we identify when that mission is no longer realistic
            and we need to pull the troops out.

Truck bombings and hostages taken.

    re: .283
    
>    Yes, probablistically someone will be killed by unfriendly fire.  But
>    we are not going in with guns blazing into a fire fight.

    And herein lies the problem.  If we actually had a viable reason to go
    there to begin with, then this is what should be done.  Identify the
    enemy, then go in and clean house.  Trouble is, there is no "enemy",
    nor are their any real "allies", either.  We have a peace agreement
    between factions that could barely shake hands (with no eye contect, if
    C-Span ramblings are accurate). 
    
    Our troops have no "goal" other than to keep peace- by killing if
    necessary (oxymoronic, IMO).  They will be SITTING DUCKS, lined up in a
    row between many warring factions (there are warlords within
    territories who are not exactly agreeable to each other, etc.).  
    
>    The questions that I would like to know the answers to are (and I admit
>    to not watching Clinton's address):
    
    I watched part of Clinton's address and a lot of C-Span last night. 
    Here are my conclusions:
    
>        1.  What is the time table for removing the troops.
    
    There is neither any set time table, nor any real plan of extraction.
    
>        2.  What is the mission.
    
    To enforce peace by force.  Killing is condoned to keep the peace.
    
>        3.  How can we identify when that mission has been completed and
>            the troops can come home.
    
    Clinton was not clear on this, and Congress seems to have no idea after
    reading the peace accord.
    
>        4.  How can we identify when that mission is no longer realistic
>            and we need to pull the troops out.
    
    See my answer to 3., above.
    
    
    According to the Congresscritters who spoke last night, there is
    overwhelming public agreement (at least amoung their constituents) that
    we should NOT send troops over to Bosnia.  This is where I (obviously)
    stand on the situation, as well.
    
    Of course, I will be labelled an isolationist for my views that the US
    should have VITAL INTERESTS involved before sending troops outside this
    country; and that this is a European problem that is best handled
    internally.  Centuries of infighting will not be stopped by 20,000 US
    troops, nor the 40,000 NATO counterparts.
    
    
    -steve 

    I don't agree with sending troops, but I thought I heard our 20,000
    would be matched by 20,000 each from the Brits & French totally
    60,000 available to "enforce the peace".
    
    I saw a newclip that indicate the British aren't exactly thrilled
    at this prospect either (don't blame them); but the man
    speaking said the Brits would *really* be POd if we bail on them
    now.
    
    I just wish Slick could explain to me how the situation in Bosnia
    is any different than Viet Nam.  If VM was WRONG, how is Bosnia
    RIGHT?
    
    

    .286
    
    In VN, we went into a hot war, ostensibly as advisors.  We went in to
    win the war for freedom.  In Bosnia, we don't go in until peace is in
    progress.
    
    In VN, we were prohibited from shooting back at first.  We were
    prohibited from conducting operations in North VN.  Basically, we were
    sent in as targets.  In Bosnia, we will be encouraged to shoot back
    with everything we've got if somebody so much as blinks at us.
    
    In VN there was no clear, achievable, limited objective.  In Bosnia,
    there is.  And a timetable that's been determined by military experts,
    not by politicos.
    
    That's the difference.

	Dick, I think if Clinton explained it like that, he would have been
jumped on. But I think your explaination is the better version. But seeing it
is an election year, it's got to be spelt out. :-)

I have to agree that Bosnia bear no resemblence to vietnam.
The pres has covered most of his bases.

All fighting sides have agreed to this peace truce.

We will have to be ready to strictly enforce this plan if we
are to be successful.




Doug.

re: .287, Dick

> In Bosnia, we will be encouraged to shoot back
> with everything we've got if somebody so much as blinks at us.
    
>    In VN there was no clear, achievable, limited objective.  In Bosnia,
>    there is.  And a timetable that's been determined by military experts,
>    not by politicos.

Whoa for a minute.

You seem to have definitive answers to some questions which were raised
yesterday in here by, I believe, Pvt. Parts (although I don't find the
reply in this string). Are you sure that the above have been clearly
established, or is this your belief as to how things will go?  (I must
admit to not having personally heard Slick's address the other night.)

    	I don't see how we can undo in a year what has been simmering for
    	centuries.
    
    	However from a cost perspective I disagree with those who base
    	their opposition on cost alone.
    
    	Much of the cost will be borne by the military whether we go to
    	Bosnia or not.  Salaries, training maneuvers, etc., all would
    	have to be paid for under any circumstances -- including idle
    	peace.  Yes, there are incremental costs, and they can legitimately
    	be argued against, but many of the oppositions based on cost are
    	using the total cost and not the incremental cost.

    
      I agree with you, Joe.  There isn't any objective worth mentioning,
     but there's no reason this has to be a disaster.  It might just
     turn out to be much less than meets the eye.
    
      bb

    .290
    
    >> In Bosnia, we will be encouraged to shoot back...
    
    Slick says that's the orders that will be given to the troops - "fight
    fire with fire, and more" were his exact words.  The US troops will,
    furthermore, not take orders from any except US officers, all the way
    up to the US general who commands the NATO force.
    
    >> In VN there was no clear, achievable, limited objective....
    
    Military advisors say that disarming the factions, restoring lines of
    communication, pacifying the natives, and ensuring that Bosnia will be
    able to protect itself after NATO leaves should, and will, take about
    one year.
    
    This peace also comes with a built-in guarantee that war crimes will be
    prosecuted.  That's rather a sticking point for Serbia.

    >Noticed you ducked the question.  Don't tell me to join up again when
    >you haven't even been once.
    
     I'm not the one singing the praises of sending our boys in harms way.
    I haven't decided whether this is a good idea or not at this point.
    
    >And as far as being in harm's way, no, I didn't have hazardous duty. 
    
     Lucky for you.
    
    >But you're simply out of bounds, Mark.  
    
     As has been adequately demonstrated to me, there are no bounds
    anymore.
    
    >It is legitimate to be
    >concerned with the lives of the troops at risk.  But it is illegitimate
    >for you to pretend that such is the sole or overriding concern, or for
    
     Nobody said it was the sole concern. But it is a legitimate concern,
    and one which has not yet IMO been adequately addressed.
     

>    Slick says that's the orders that will be given to the troops - "fight
>    fire with fire, and more" were his exact words.  

Actually,

    "we will fight fire with fire, and then some"

Doug.

    Looks like the "20,000" figure is morphing into "37,000".  And some
    high-ranking Pentagon type is now saying that even after one year,
    we'll still need to leave a large force stationed in Bosnia, so it's
    not really "one year".
    
    Slick got his foot in the door, and now it will be easy for him
    to gradually up the numbers.  Who's going to say no?
    
    
    re: shrill debate
    
    Yep, I'm an extreme isolationist and anti-war type, and any deployment
    of our troops in harm's way is sure to get me barking and snapping like
    the Breakstone dog.  To me, losing even one American life for this is a
    disaster.  It's certainly a disaster for the guy's family and friends.
    
    Chris

    
      The GOP is having some political fun, drafting a resolution that
     supports the mission, but with so many reservations that it will
     be meaningless.  Dole said it might pass the Senate late next week
     or early thereafter.  The administration is appalled - it almost
     prefers no resolution at all, possible in the House.  Forget about
     a ringing endorsement - this ain't the Tonkin Gulf Jr.
    
      bb

    The military strategists who will be running the show are saying 
    that sending US troops over there is not a good idea, according to
    C-Span ramblings.  

    
    "Those unable to understand the dangers inherent in employing troops
    are equally unable to understand the advantageous ways of doing so."
    
    					- Sun Tzu, `The Art Of War'
                                       

    I have been extreemly disappointed in Bush over his non-action in this
    matter.I had hoped that Clinton would be different (as he said). He was
    not.
    
    I had proposed in a notes file a couple of years ago that the
    shortsighted military and politoco leaders saw help as 100,000 on the
    ground or nothing and air power could not do it. I not so respectfully
    disagree and event have somewhat proven me right. 
    	I had proposed a massive cruise missile assault on all Serb towns
    from which the fighters came from. The targets would be water supplies,
    electricty, bridges, food supplys, fuel supplys, etc. Make the families
    of the Serb agressors live the same way as the Muslims in Sarejevo
    (sp). One thing we did not learn from VN is that you fight the war in
    someone elses country, not the country you are trying to save. 
    	We could/should have employed this method until the Serbs begged us
    to stop by withdrawing to their previously owned area. The airpower and
    cruise missile attacks at the end brought the Serbs to the negotiating
    table. We should have kept it up with the missiles until they came to
    the surrender table. Aircraft have pilots who can be shot down and held
    for ransom/bargaining chips. Use the missiles from ships in the
    Adriatic like we did.
    	People understand two things; Love and Fear. In this/most cases the
    latter is much easier to make someone see...
    

>    I have been extreemly disappointed in Bush over his non-action in this
>    matter.I had hoped that Clinton would be different (as he said). He was
>    not.

 As I recall, Bush had several plans to choose from in halting the advance
on the serbs and protecting most of Bosnia (by elliminating supply routes
and strategic placement of UN troops). When he lost the election he consulted
with Clinton and gave him the call (since he would inherit the problem).

Doug.

    
    
    re: last few
    
    I was going to bring up the subject (and I'm sure it's back there
    someplace) as to... "Why now"???
    
     Why not in 1990? Or 1991? Or 1992? Or 1993? Or 1994?
    
     Is there a magic number of dead that had to be reached before Slick
    reacted??
    
    What has changed since June of this year when Slick stated
    (paraphrased) "It's none of our business"...???
    
    
     Also, it seems there is dissension in the ranks of European countries
    involved re: the US-brokered Bosnian peace accord. Germany says it's
    unjust. The French say it does not do enough to protect certain
    factions. The Brits say one year of US troops is not long enough...
    
     Ahhhh... unity...
    
    

    What has changed?
    
    There's a peace to keep, agreed to by all sides- perhaps it'll even get
    signed the 8th, as scheduled.  That's what has changed.
    
    DougO

    Like the middle east accords signed by Arafat, Rabin, et al, not all
    factions are in agreement. It remains to be seen whether the leaders
    can keep their followers under control. There seems to be a lot of
    pissing and moaning about the agreement already, which is not a hopeful
    sign.

    Mark,
    
    It will be interesting to see if anyone can keep the "leaders" under
    control :-(
    

    
      I was listening to the House hearings briefly on CSPAN last night.
     My impression was that the Congress isn't thrilled by this whole
     thing, neither party.  They want it to go away so they can resume
     the budget posturing and squabbles.
    
      And they're at the same sort of thing over in the Senate.  All next
     week, too.  At least you get a lot of details.  Did you hear that
     "our" sector, the northeast including the infamous Brcko corridor,
     will have, besides our 20k troops, Norwegians, Turks, and Russians,
     all under our general (Nash)'s command ?  No American ever commanded
     Russian troops before.  Should be interesting !
    
      bb

    I was at least heartened to see The Pres. authorize the use of
    devastating force in the event the troops are attacked.  Now maybe the
    commanders on the ground can have a free hand in providing for the
    safety of their own.  
    
    Brian

    re: authorizing devastating force
    
    That's a win-win situation for Clinton.  He gets to look heroic
    and protective of the people that he's sending in there, while
    at the same time conveniently escalating the war, so he can "justify"
    sending more troops in there.
    
    Chris

    RE: 31.300

>    	I had proposed a massive cruise missile assault on all Serb towns
>    from which the fighters came from. The targets would be water supplies,
>    electricty, bridges, food supplys, fuel supplys, etc. Make the families
>    of the Serb agressors live the same way as the Muslims in Sarejevo
>    (sp). One thing we did not learn from VN is that you fight the war in
>    someone elses country, not the country you are trying to save. 

    Let me start by saying I am in no way condoning the Serb attrocities
    and I freely admit to not being a 100% up on the history of the
    Serb/Bosnian/Croatian conflict.  However, singling out the Serbs as the
    (historical) agressors is a little simple (a simple approach most
    probably adopted by western nations for convoluted reasons).

    During WWII, the Serbs fought on the side of the Allies against the
    Nazi's.  I believe that it was the Croats (though it could have been
    the Bosnians, I don't remember which) fought on the side of the Nazi's.

    The Western governments have a vested interest in coming down on the
    side of the muslims (because of the middle east) and therefore against
    the Serbs.  The Soviets (being an oil exporting country themselves)
    don't have the same vested interest and instead can support their
    historical allies (Serbs).  

    I don't completely understand the Western media's role/motivation in
    all of this.  They have definately been giving us a one-sided sound
    bite version of the events.  There have been attrocities committed by
    all sides in the conflict.

    The bottom line is that none of the (political/ethnic) sides are
    innocent in this affair and saying that the Serbs should be bombed into
    submission is denying the other realities of the situation.

    -- Dave

re: authorizing devastating force

Is this like the "devastating force" that was permitted in Vietnam, or
the other "devastating force" that was employed in Baghdad?

Why do I doubt that it's the latter?

    
      Mebbe the devastating force in Somalia.  I wonder if they have a
     place in Germany where they practice getting dragged through the
     town by warlords...
    
      bb

    RE .309
    
    My point is that the people fighting 'live' someplace.If they are not
    fighting to protect their home, then they are fighting to take away
    someone elses home. Don't allow them the luxury of have their home safe
    from attack. That is my point. If the Muslims and Croats are doing this
    too, then give them a 'taste' too.
    
    We are getting more sophisticated weapons all the time. The use of
    ground forces in this case is not a wise idea. 
    
    How about some predictions:
    
    	I predict that:
    
    		1.  We will suffer a massive terrorist attack that will
    		    kill 10's of soldiers
    		2.  We will declare victory in bug out
    
    Steve

    re: Note 31.312 by 43GMC::KEITH
    You missed a couple zero's in your prediction.
    
    I heard that the pentagon has put an order in for 100,000 caskets
    from Batesville Casket in ARKANSAS, and a 50,000 order for body
    bags with 3M.  Interesting since only 20,000 soldiers are scheduled
    to go to Bosnia.
    
    I predict a quagmire.  I predict problems.  only 30% of the people
    condone sending soldiers to bosnia.  They will quickly become
    bummed out when the folks start arriving in Dover.  This situation
    is not good.
    
    MadMike

    Deja vu.  Wasn't this the same note entered before our little walkabout 
    in the desert a few years ago?  Predictions of "wait 'til you see the
    bodies being unloaded in Dover blah, blah, blah."  It is a done deal. 
    Folks are going over.  Please, I want to hear all about how this is a
    payoff conspiracy with the Clinton's involvement in the Batesville
    Casket Co. and how the now infamous Rose law firm represented 3M in
    some product liability cover up.  

    >I heard that the pentagon has put an order in for 100,000 caskets
    >from Batesville Casket in ARKANSAS, and a 50,000 order for body
    >bags with 3M.  Interesting since only 20,000 soldiers are scheduled
    >to go to Bosnia.
    
     My malarkey meter is pegged.
    

    
      It would probably help immeasurably if we shot somebody about now.
    
      Almost anybody in Bosnia would do, but a flagrant wacko or two would
     be ideal.
    
      Fear is goodness.
    
      bb

    Those "20,000" soldiers have mysteriously turned into 50,000, according
    to C-Span ramblings last night.
    
    No surpise to me...no, not a surprise at all.

    RE: .313
    
>    I heard that the pentagon has put an order in for 100,000 caskets
>    from Batesville Casket in ARKANSAS, and a 50,000 order for body
>    bags with 3M.  Interesting since only 20,000 soldiers are scheduled
>    to go to Bosnia.
    
    As was alluded to earlier, the Pentagon massively over ordered body
    bags for Desert Storm.   Hmmm.  I wonder what they do with all those
    unused body bags ...

    -- Dave

    -1 trash liners...
    

    They send them to Sam's clubs and BJ's to sell as snow removal bags.  

    Don't know if MadMike's pulling our collective legs, but I fear he
    is closer to truth than fiction.  I mentioned in another note a few
    days ago about a friend's son ('chopper pilot) heading for Bosnia.
    Scott told his Dad that most of the guys on his base in Germany
    DO NOT have a good feeling about Bosnia.  They knew they faced a
    severe test with Desert Storm, to paraphrase him "at least we all
    felt that those at the top and the brass had a plan" in the Middle
    East; they feel no such confidence now.  Their morale took another
    big hit when they found out they would be deployed before Christmas.
    
    Heck, if we're to believe what we're seeing on the news and in the
    press, it seems difficult to believe this "agreement/cease fire"
    will last long enough for the official movement of troops to get
    there.
    

    Chelsea should be a Candy Striper in a MASH unit in Bosnia...

    Drawing comparisons to Desert Storm is not really possible.  DS had a
    defined aggressor with a highly publicized motive.  The battle ground
    was also very well defined with virtually no place to hide.  There was
    a lot of build up about elite troops and crack units and highly trained
    and equipped with all the best of everything blah, blah, blah.  Over in
    a flash.  We suffered as many causalties from friendly fire, accidents
    and natural causes as we did from enemy fire.   
    
    Bosnia on the other hand would scare the willies out of me.  Everyone
    is a potential enemy.  Everyone has a chip on their shoulder because
    they are right and their cause is just and we have no business messing
    with their affairs.  Our troops are effectively caught in a political
    and tactical crossfire.  bb had a good though brutal suggestion in
    going in and making an example out of some unfortunate.  The only way
    the NATO forces will survive is if they establish military credibility
    by meeting any aggression with a devastating reaction.  Add to the
    above demographic mess, Bosnia and environs are far more rugged, easily
    defensible and provides outstanding geopgraphy for guerilla type
    warfare.  Hit and run operations could be easily carried out.  The
    enemy is fairly homogenous racially.  It makes it far more difficult to
    determine what a persons politics are.  
    
    Brian

    
    
      According to the Wall Street Journal today, watch out for Bosnia
     scams and other fundraising schemes this season.  Telemarketers
     solicit mailed funds with Bosnia sob stories, then run away.  Heaviest
     always is end-of-year solicitation.
    
      bb

    
    > ...DS had a defined aggressor with a highly publicized motive.  The battle 
    > ground was also very well defined with virtually no place to hide...

    Good points I hadn't thought of, thanks...

    > Bosnia on the other hand would scare the willies out of me.

    eeerrr...uuummmm, never mind.  :-)

    I agree with you Bri, Bosnia has the potential to be a tremendously
    ugly situation.  I hope not, but I feel it will turn very ugly...
    :-P

    I heard an interesting piece on NPR two days ago.  They were
    interviewing an (ex?) high level Brit on NATO going into the former
    Yugoslav area.  

    One of the major points was that for historical reasons, the US military
    is ill equiped to handle such a mission.  He stated that given both the
    French and British history on colonization and using military force to
    pacify colonies, they were more equiped for a non-hot war.  

    The US on the other hand doesn't have a history of pacifying a people
    but is very good at hot-wars, going in agressively and putting down an
    enemy.  They are not trained to be peace keepers.

    That's true.  Even US army cooks go in with buns glazing.

    re: .313
    
    The Batesville Casket Co. is based in Batesville, Indiana.  I saw their
    trucks all the time on my daily commute between Cincinnati, Ohio and
    Indianapolis, Indiana, back in the early '70s.
    
    Bob

    Darn, and it made for such a good conspiracy too.  

Batesville Casket is owned by Hillenbrandt Industries.  They also own
a company that makes hospital beds and American Tourister.  They've got
you coming and going.

    re: Note 31.323 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE
    
    Bingo.
    
    That deal about caskets and bodybags is a rumor, fwiw.  Rumors
    eventually get picked up by the real media and you can then take
    it as gospel.
    
    Any american going to bosnia will be a target.  They'll stand around
    and get shot at.  Who do you retaliate against?  Massive force, blah
    blah blah... what a crock.  Wait and see.  It won't be long now
    until you get to see the highlights on CNN.
    
    MadMike

    There have already been a few firefights between UNPERFOR forces
    and regional forces.  I don't know about the other contingencies but in
    all cases those who fired on British units came off second best.
    33 members of the Royal Welch Fusiliers were taken hostage and were
    eventually released unharmed in the face of threat of stiff
    retaliation.
    
    There have been between 7000-10,000? UNPERFOR soldiers there for many
    months with relatively few casualties. Why should the regional forces
    suddenly start targetting newly-arrived American troops when they could
    already be hitting lightly armed UNPERFOR forces?
    
    C
    

    Because we are the great Satan, still.  News reports of protestors
    dragging a U.S. flag through the mud and folks stomping on it..... Don't
    hear much about the French of British flags getting similar treatment. 
    We are going to be targets of aggression merely because of how we are 
    perceived, deservedly or not.  There are outside muslim fighters from
    Afganistan and Iran that are sworn by the call for the Jihad to kill
    the infidel.  That would be us.  
    
    Brian

    
      A group of 5000 Boserbs held a rally yesterday, at which speakers
     denounced the agreement as a sellout, and the crowd chanted
     anti-American slogans.
    
      bb

    
    The last time I was looking at a collection of honoured American
    flages it seemed that the most revered were also the dirtiest
    and most bullet-riddled.  C'mon - you're the world leaders
    don't dodge the draft.
    

    The reason we're the target is because we locked those guys up in a
    room and crammed a "treaty" down their throat.  As I recall, all sides
    were vocal about not liking the agreement immediately after.
    
    Clinton's purpose in getting this thing signed was to send our military
    ground troops over there.
    
    Also, remember that Clinton has been denying any intent to involve US
    ground troops for the last umpteen months.  So we know that this has
    been the plan all along.

    Howcome there are twice as many caskets as bags?
    
    Who determines who gets a bag?  Or do some come home in bags and others
    in caskets? 
    
    Enquiring minds...

    The bags go over, the caskets stay here.  

    
    Show me any peace agreement that has been universally accepted by all
    participants from day one.  There will always be some minority that
    will feel wronged by the agreement.  If the US wants to accept
    credit for the agreement, then it should also accept part of the
    responsibility for the implementation.   With that responsibility goes
    risk.    

    Show me a peace agreement that worked where all participants were
    pressured into signing it by an outside party who just happened to have
    a lot of money and a big army.
    
    Usually the participants at least have a desire for peace, even if the
    outcome represents a compromise.  I don't see that here.  All I see is
    coercion.

    I guess you must have missed the Arab/Israeli peace accord. Hardly
    perfect and full of holes, but somehow functioning.  Tell me that
    there was no US participation in that one.
    
    Most of the information that I've seen indicates that the majority of
    people in the Balkans want peace, although they may find the price of
    it to be more than they had bargained for the majority will go along
    with the deal.
    
    Most other reports indicate that while the US forced the participants
    into a room, they hammered out the deal themselves.  The focus here
    seems to be on the potential for failure, and it might easily fail.
    But it will definitely fail if the US does not participate.
    
    C
    
    

    Arab/Israeli peace accord will not last, but that is another topic. 

    
    So the bottom line is that the situation is so hopeless that it's not
    worth trying?  The Arabs/Israelis, Serbs/Croats, Irish/English will be
    back at each other's throats.  Best thing we can do for the Bosnians to
    is lift the arms embargo and make a bit of cash while they kill each
    other. 
    
    In that case, why bother with all the global participation bullshine?
    Pull your troops out of Germany and Japan.  Move the cruise missiles
    from Greenham Common in the UK and shut down Guantanamo bay.  Get back
    to splendid isolation and you'll have fewer things to worry about.
    
    All the strutting about the world stage arranging bogus peace deals
    and pretending to be a leading nation tends to look a bit bogus if
    you are not going to back it up.
    
    Colin
    
       

    Hey, nothing wrong with being an isolationist...it's not a dirty word. 
    George Washington was an isolationist, in fact, and people generally
    agree that he was an okay chap and a good first Prez.

    Leech,
    
    Downside to being an isolationist nation is the fact that if any
    other nation decides to take a shot at us we wind up in a war
    anyway.  Germany and Japan made that point via WWII; because we
    tried (or FDR claimed) we wouldn't get involved, there was no
    preparation and we were caught with our pants down as far as
    armaments were concerned.
    
    All the Rosie Rivetors helped catch us up; but I wonder if the
    loss of life would have been less if we (as a nation) hadn't been
    doing an imitation of a ostrich and had been better prepared.
    
    Just caught that old Belushi film about the Japanese invading the
    west coast; the movie was a riot and I enjoyed it, but if things
    had gone a bit different after Pearl Harbor the premise of that
    movie could have been a reality.
    
    

    Karen:
    
    The lessons to be learned betwwen the two world wars was that a strong
    defense was a detterent against many an aggressor nation.  We can be
    more isolationist with a strong defense and still be effective in the
    world at a much less loss of life than the messy road we're getting
    ourselves into in Bposnia...imho.

    RE .345
    
    The movie 1941 was very close to reality! Things were very bad on the
    left coast after PH. FDR made his famous statement about how to get the
    Japanese to fire the 1st shot. He was arming us as fast as possible.

    It's unlikely that those zeros would sneak by past our spy
    satellites...  

    
    
    Anyone else notice how Algore was praded out on the news programs this
    weekend?  I'm sure it was beacause of his military service, I wonder
    how it felt having slick's hand up his arse.
    
    
    

    
    Given that slick is a totally political animal, I have to really wonder 
    why he's sending troops to Bosnia when polls show a 2:1 (60% to 30%) 
    margin against sending troops.  It seems so out of character for
    him to do anything counter to the polls. 
    
    al

    
    Hati is a character in "Avalon".
    
    Haiti is the country.
    
    -b

    and Avalon is where?

    
    RE: Avalon
    
    It's a series of children's books, about a small 19th century
    town, mostly from the perspective of a young girl (Addie,
    I think?) It became a TV series on the Disney Channel.
    
    -b

| <<< Note 31.353 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

| and Avalon is where?

	In Boston, on Landsdown Street. Right across the street from Fenway
Park. Nice club. 


Glen

    Avalon is a floating island; its exact whereabouts are best known to
    Morgan le Fay.

    RE: .352

>    Hati is a character in "Avalon".
>    
>    Haiti is the country.
>    
>    -b

    Sorry about that.  Below the note is reposted with spelling (at least
    partially) corrected.

    -- Dave

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 31.351               The Former Yugoslavian States               351 of 356
HIGHD::FLATMAN "Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund"    38 lines  11-DEC-1995 12:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Again, I hate defending Slick (and I can argue why we shouldn't be
    going into Bosnia as well).  However, ...

>    Given that slick is a totally political animal, I have to really wonder 
>    why he's sending troops to Bosnia when polls show a 2:1 (60% to 30%) 
>    margin against sending troops.  It seems so out of character for
>    him to do anything counter to the polls. 

    The polls were running against him sending troops into Haiti, but he did
    it anyway.  In the final analysis, Haiti didn't go too bad and the
    entire operation helped his public image (He took action.  It paid off,
    and his naysayers were wrong).

    Do I think the Haitian operation can be compared to Bosnia?  No. Why?
        1.  In Haiti "us" versus "them" was more clearly defined.  Someone
            was on our side.
        2.  Haiti is smaller and more easily overrun with overwhelming
            force.
        3.  The mission and the definition for success was more defined in
            Haiti than it is in Bosnia.
    and the list goes on.

    Why go into Bosnia?
        1.  Payback to the Saudi's for the Gulf War by helping a muslim
            population that doesn't have oil.
        2.  The US was instrumental in getting the peace deal signed.
        3.  The US's role as leader of the free world would be damaged if
            we didn't.
        4.  Slick has put the credibility of the office of the President of
            the United States on the line.
        5.  All the military force in the world doesn't do you a bit of
            good if you're not willing to use it.  (How many idle threats
            were made against the Serbs to no avail?  How far would Hitler
            have gotten if (a) there was a significant enough military
            force to oppose him, and (b) that force had been brought to
            bear when he started his "acquisitions".)

    -- Dave

    > Avalon is a floating island.
    
    Afalon = Vale of Apples.  Ynys Wittryn or Isle of Glass is the island,
    at least it is in the traditional tale.
    

    re: .350
    
    >> Given that slick is a totally political animal, I have to really wonder 
    >> why he's sending troops to Bosnia when polls show a 2:1 (60% to 30%) 
    >> margin against sending troops.  It seems so out of character for
    >> him to do anything counter to the polls. 
    
    First, it depends on which polls you listen to.  The more "open"
    phone-in polls done by radio and TV stations tend to have a bit
    more credibility with me than the "controlled" kind of "so-and-so
    polling firm polled 350 people in the Bacon Hill area, with a
    plus-or-minus 4% statistical mumbo-jumbo".  The phone polls have
    tended to run much more "against", as much as 9:1 against.  This
    value is generally consistent with the opinions that I've encountered
    myself just in the course of talking to people about it, as well.
    
    But to answer the "why is he doing this?" question, it seems that
    whatever hidden agenda he has here is so imperative that it exceeds
    even his usual bum-sniffing approach to determine what he should do
    from one minute to the next.  It's pretty scary, frankly.
    
    Chris

    
    The mumbo jumbo is realtively simple to understand, if you take the
    trouble.    It's based on the Central Limit Theorem, which is derived
    from the laws of probability.
    
    The basis of inferential statistics is that you want to estimate how
    the whole population feels about an issue. You can't ask everyone, so
    you select a sample from the population and ask them.  There are a few
    different valid methods for sampling, but a "self selecting" sample is
    not one of them.  All you have is a subset of the population that
    happened to be listening to the show and feels strongly enough about
    the issue to phone.  It's likely there will be a strong bias in the
    results and they may not be representative of the population.
    (Note the "may not" - sometimes they are.)
    
    A real polster tries to eliminate such bias, but it's not always
    possible. The plus/minus value appended to a simple inferential
    statistic is an acknowledgement of the fact that the data is not a
    truly random sample and is prone to "sampling error".  It is an
    indicator of the level of confidence that the tester has in the sample,
    and that the tester is applying valid methods.
    
    Colin
    
                        
    

    I lost my in-progress reply to .360 when I lost a network connection,
    but I'll re-do a shorter one here:
    
    Yes, I learned all that statistical stuff in college and as a QA
    guy in another company, and it's all well and good if the pollster
    is honestly attempting to take a random poll.  In my usual cynical
    manner, I'm highly suspicious of this assumption when it involves
    the network television news and their paid polling companies.
    
    There's lots of things you can do to skew the sample and the results,
    and still be able to wave the "this is good statistics" banner and
    apply the "Plus or Minus" seal of approval, if you intend the results
    to come out a certain way.  You can go to certain areas, pick out
    certain kinds of people, word the questions in a certain way, voice
    them in a manner so as to elicit a desired response, and so on.
    
    Given my distrust of that stuff, I still believe that a random,
    spontaneous phone-in poll generates more believable and more
    representative results.  I know that there are problems with a
    self-selected sample, but I have an easier time accepting its
    credibility if it's not made available to an obvious subset of
    the population (such as a sex survey in Playboy magazine, which
    is skewed for obvious reasons).
    
    Chris

    I tend to go the other way.  If a news organization is totally
    honest, and prefaces a poll result with the qualification that it is
    unscientific then that's fair enough.  I'll take the data and evaluate
    it against other results.  Other news organisations will take pains to
    use an independent polling organization and that (for me) increases the
    credibility.  I'll take that data too - even if it's unpalatable.
    Phone polls have very little value other than to reflect a preferred
    bias.

    
    
    Rockets fired in Bosnia.  One supposedly hit the hotel where the
    reporters are staying.  No reported injuries or deaths.
    
    
    Mike

    
      If they got Rather, I'll waive a Bosnian flag...
    
      bb

    
      Oh, and by the way, is it just me, or are others totally confused
     by the plethora of votes in both Houses of Congress on murky Bosnia
     resolutions ?  Last night the airwaves were filled with impassioned
     speeches which left me wondering what the speakers had just said.
     Also, while there was some party-line voting, there were also some
     wierd allies.  Has the Congress "resolved" anything, yet ?  Last
     I heard, BOTH the resolutions supporting and opposing the mission
     were defeated.
    
      bb

     >> Last night the airwaves were filled with impassioned
     >> speeches which left me wondering what the speakers had just said.
    
    That's exactly their intent.  They don't want to put a stake in
    the ground on this issue, the damned wimps, in a pathetic attempt
    to offend the least number of people in their usual fence-straddling,
    as well as to enable future claiming that they were on the correct
    side of the issue no matter how this disaster turns out.
    
    I'm pretty upset with the Congressional wimping out on this matter,
    particularly by Dole and Gingrich.  I smell a rat.  And in the final
    analysis, what is the difference between all these people?  Not
    enough of a difference to make a real difference, apparently.  But
    we already knew that, I guess.
    
    To raise a semantics issue:  What's the point of a resolution that
    says you "support the troops" (while opposing the policy)?  Exactly
    what does it mean to "support" the troops?  Does it involve saying
    or doing particular things?
    
    If it merely means "although we don't agree with this mission, we
    don't blame the troops", then that's a no-brainer, at least to me.
    If it means "although we don't agree with this mission, we'll agree
    to endless escalation or anything else as long as it's done in the
    name of 'supporting the troops'", then I have a problem with it.
    
    But like the term "Commander in Chief", the term "supporting the
    troops" can be manipulated and twisted into getting us to agree with
    just about anything that the powers-that-be want to do.  Dangerous.
    
    Chris

    RE: .363
    
>    Rockets fired in Bosnia.  One supposedly hit the hotel where the
>    reporters are staying.  ...

    Glad to hear their aim is improving ;^)

    
    
    RE: .366 Chris,
    
    I think you may know this already, but it's so we won't have a repeat
    of Vietnam with the way the troops are treated.  While I was too young
    to be there, I have some friends who were treated very shitily when
    they returned home.  Called baby killers and worse, spit on and roughed
    up when there were several "peaceniks" against one of them.
    
    Mike

    re: .368
    
    Yeah, I understand that unfortunate stuff from back then...
    I was one of the (few?) people who was vehemently opposed to the
    war but held no bad feelings for the soldiers.  It just doesn't
    make the slightest sense to feel animosity towards the troops...
    after all, they didn't make the high-level decisions that kept
    escalating our involvement there.
    
    What doesn't make sense is that Congress should feel the need to
    pass a resolution saying that *they* support the troops.  What
    specifically does this mean?  I'm worried that it may be twisted
    to mean that "anything goes now, or else we'll be accused of not
    supporting the troops".  Kind of like the old "loyalty oaths", where
    if you even looked askance at anything governmental, they were ready
    to try you for treason.
    
    This government has already proven itself capable of pretzeling the
    English language in ways that would leave George Orwell's jaw hanging.
    I just want to make sure that the phrase "support the troops" doesn't
    get out of hand.
    
    Yes, we like the troops, and don't blame the troops for whatever
    happens in Bosnia.  No, we will not let Clinton escalate this into
    World War III in order to "support the troops".
    
    Chris

    Clinton is now sending money on top of the 20,000 (though in reality
    the number is 3x this) troops.  The "immediate" amount being sent is 
    $87,000,000 - already budgeted (whatever that means), so it's on its way. 
    I wonder how much will go out with the next budget?
    
    If our government is going to shut down again due to having no budget,
    how is it that we can find $87,000,000 to send to Bosnia?  I mean,
    we've already sent government workers home once due to lack of funds. 
    I imagine that $87,000,000 is enough to pay a few government workers,
    at least.
    
    
    -steve  

    I thought I heard on the news this morning that some kind of peace
    agreement had been signed.  But then again...I could have dreamt(?) it.
                                                 

    talk about digressions.
    
    government shutdown only affects those branches for which
    appropriations bills for the coming (now current) fiscal year have not
    been passed.  In early november only 4 has been passed, and 2 of those
    were vetoed, so only 2 of the 13 major spending bills were in effect to
    fund government.  Agencies funded by the other 11 were shutdown.
    
    Currently, though, I think 7 or 8 of the major bills have been passed
    and signed.  If there's another 'shutdown' it'll only affect those
    parts funded by those 5 or 6 unpassed measures.  DoD is funded.  That's
    where the money comes from.
    
    DougO

    
    >I thought I heard on the news this morning that some kind of peace
    >agreement had been signed.  But then again...I could have dreamt(?) it.
    
    You heard correctly, all parties signed the agreement while
    simultaneously bemoaning the content.  Par for the course for peace
    agreements.

             <<< Note 31.370 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    If our government is going to shut down again due to having no budget,
>    how is it that we can find $87,000,000 to send to Bosnia?  

	Our Secretary of Energy has agreed to stay home for a month?

	;-)

Jim

    
      The troops will go in pumped up.  But Bosnia is a very cold place,
     and setting up a DMZ is a lonely business.  If a morale problem
     develops, it would be mot likely in March/April.
    
      By the way, has everybody noticed that just about all Bosnians,
     Moslem, Serb, or Croat chain smoke cigs, and most of the kids
     can already speak some English, albeit with a heavy Turk or
     Serbo-Croatian accent ?  This could matter later.
    
      bb

    
    
    There's already a morale problem with them having to be there/away from
    their families over the holidays...
    

    re: .372
    
    Thanks for the clarification.  My main thrust, clumsy as it may have
    been, was that we are on one hand shutting down segments of government 
    (those parts we have no appropriations for), while the other hand is 
    shoveling large sums of money to Bosnia.
    
    Something about this just doesn't sit right with me.
    
    -steve

>    ...while the other hand is shoveling large sums of money to Bosnia.

    Unfortunately, to the federal government, US$87,000,000 isn't a large
    sum of money.

    I heard about the treaty signing on NPR.  One thing that sticks out in
    my mind is that if all parties are agreed to peace, why do they need US
    troops there?  All parties involved can bring their own designated
    areas under control (the warlords and other factions within a given
    territory).  If they cannot do this, then I fail to see how 20,000 US
    troops, loosely scattered along the borders, is going to be a tremendous
    help.
    
    
    -steve

>   Unfortunately, to the federal government, US$87,000,000 isn't a large
>   sum of money.
    
    Too true.  Of course, IT ISN'T THEIR BLOODY MONEY!!!
    
    This attitude is why the fedgov is in debt to the tune of $5trillion. 
    If it was their money, you can bet that spending cuts would come
    wholesale and immediately.

    I think the point is that they don't trust each other, but they see the
    presence of the US troops as some guarantee that the other parties will
    not break the accord.  Also, there will be many thousands of troops
    from other countries.  Some traditionally neutral countries are now also
    committed to sending peacekeeping troops.  Last I heard, even Finland
    was sending a contingent.   The final number could exceed 60,000.

    
    
    And all will be well within one year (as that's the limit of US troop
    involvement)!!!
    

    There are no guarantees of success, and a history of abject failures.
    What's wrong with taking a risk on a *chance* of peace?  It's a tad
    more noble than taking a risk for oil or ideology.
     

> It's a tad more noble than taking a risk for oil or ideology.

    Nobel perhaps, but it doesn't impact my standard of living as much as
    oil does.  :-)

    -- Dave

We _do_ have a economic interest in the area.  One word --





Yugo.

    Yes, an interest in never allowing such an abomination to darken our
    highways again.  Three lug nuts per wheel was bad idea when it was on 
    a lousy French car and the Yugo only managed to confirm this with flying
    colors.

    Hey! I had one of those Frog cars - they were great.  You can take the
    whole thing apart with three wrenches and a screwdriver.  It got about
    65 miles to the gallon and 72 mph from a 625cc flat twin aircooled
    engine. They were designed in 1935 and only ceased production a few
    years ago. Loads of character.  Yugos, on the other hand, are crap.

    
    
    Me too!!! I especially liked the semi-convertible top!!!
    
    :) :)
    

The whole Bosnia "treaty" is available for perusal on the web:

http://www.access-dayton.com/bosnia/peace3.html

It *guarantees* 60,000 troops, of which our CIC has promised the 20,000
we hear about on the news. No other country has guaranteed any other
number of troops. It doesn't take much imagination to guess who will be
filling out the number when the other countries dawdle about meeting the
commitment made by someone else.

Art

    Since this "treaty" has to do with Americans, shouldn't it have to be 
    approved by the Senate?  We are a part of this treaty, the center of
    it, even (according to the parties involved).
    
    
    -steve

    
      Sporadic gunfire in the mountains yesterday, as Muslims/Boserbs
     tried to pick off a few who let their guard down after the signing.
    
      Just to get in a peaceful mood.
    
      bb

>    Since this "treaty" has to do with Americans, shouldn't it have to be 
>    approved by the Senate?  We are a part of this treaty, the center of
>    it, even (according to the parties involved).

    There's such a thing as do it first and ask forgiveness later.  A lot
    of peole consider(ed) G.A.T.T. to be a treaty, but Clinton signed on
    without getting Senate approval (by claiming it wasn't a treaty).

    In this case, Americans could be affected, but the treaty is between
    the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.  Clinton can sign on and claim it
    isn't a treaty with the United States and therefore doesn't require
    Senate approval.

    -- Dave

     Copyright 1995 by Conservative Consensus, ISSN 1074-245X.
     QUOTATION AND ELECTRONIC REDISTRIBUTION are permitted
     for private, non-commercial use.  V1XCX59


                 B O S N I A --- T H E   B O T T O M   L I N E

     GERMANY ENDED ITS POSTWAR MILITARY ISOLATION. It will send 4,000
                    Bundeswehr soldiers to help maintain a Bosnian peace
                    settlement. While the troops will be able to operate in
                    Bosnia, they will be based in Croatia. Their mandate
                    forbids them to become involved in any military
                    confrontation. NATO approved of the move, but many
                    Germans remember that during the Second World War,
                    Germany openly supported the Croatian Fascists.

     RUSSIAN TROOPS WILL SERVE IN BOSNIAN "peacekeeping," but not under
                    NATO command. NATO orders will be relayed through a
                    Russian general. "They will be NATO orders but will, so
                    to speak, not be on NATO letterheads," explained a
                    senior US military official, who asked not to be
                    identified. Some 2,000 Russian troops will serve in a
                    US military division in Bosnia, with up to 60,000 NATO
                    and other troops.

     AN ALBANIAN ORGANIZATION urged war in Kosovo to separate from Serbia.
                    "What are you waiting for, Albanians? Why do you not
                    rise up in war?" asked the National Movement for the
                    Liberation of Kosovo, through its newspaper, Clirimi.
                    It continues, "Albanians, who humiliates you beyond the
                    limits of patience? Albanians... who are you waiting
                    for to fight on your behalf? For how long must they
                    continue to kill you, violating your lands and your
                    honor, casting you out onto the highways of the world,
                    and trifling with you?" As we reported in CC 21 March
                    1994, "The bottom line in Bosnia is literally Kosovo."
     _________________________

     ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: Subscriber Joseph Horn furnished these
     observations of the Bosnian peace agreement and the deployment of US
     troops to police it:

       WE ARE ABOUT to embark on a national debacle in Yugoslavia which
       well could result in WWIII. We will deploy in Tuzla, where they have
       suddenly and miraculously "discovered" an unused airstrip we can
       use. We will not be assisted by regular NATO troops, no Brits,
       French. The assisting troops will be Ukrainian. They are poor,
       untrained, given to sabotage and thievery, and are staunch allies of
       the Serbs, who the Ukraine and Russian Republic have been supplying
       directly since the fall of East Germany. Most, if not all of the
       Soviet equipment abandoned in East Germany was shipped directly to
       the Serbs.

       IN THE TUZLA area, every mountain is an Ammo dump, honeycombed with
       tunnels and bunkers. The combatants on all sides in the former
       Yugoslavia are trained mountain units who excel in destroying
       mechanized units such as we are deploying at this very moment. 5
       miles Northeast of Tuzla is a chloride plant, containing 500 tons of
       Chloride crystal and ammonium. When that plant is hit by artillery,
       and the prevailing winter and spring winds from North to South are
       in effect, the kill zone will reach Zagreb, perhaps Belgrade.

       THIS IS AN insane venture, where along with the surrogate armies,
       the sponsor nations will have their armies on the ground as NATO
       functionaries. The possibility of a wider war is increased, if not
       guaranteed by this deployment. Simply dropping the arms embargo
       would have allowed the Bosnians to defend themselves. But they are
       not important. The real reason for this madness is important.

       THIS ENTIRE AFFAIR is clearly and simply no more than a land grab by
       the Russians via their surrogates, the Serbs. The Croates are
       surrogates of the European Council, as the recent placing of a
       German Mayor in Mostar shows. So, why aren't the European
       beneficiaries of this plan sending their own troops in to this
       meatgrinder? Why are American kids required? HUH? WHY?

     IN ATTEMPTING to answer Mr. Horn's question, we would suggest that
     there are by now substantial reconstruction contracts to be let for
     rebuilding Yugoslavia's war-torn infrastructure. Those first on the
     scene stand the best chance of securing the work. France tried this
     earlier, as we reported 27 May 1994: "France has disguised 14
     businessmen as UN soldiers and is seeking contracts for Sarajevo
     reconstruction. Munever Imamovic, Bosnian minister for reconstruction,
     said 'I thought at the time they were a little early.'"

     PRICE is rarely an object when one is dealing with international loan
     guarantees. We would suggest that the recent move to over DOW 5,000 on
     the US stock market supports our view. (Certainly the euphoria cannot
     be over the US budget agreement, which continues business as usual.)
     Payment is also not an issue: loan guarantees are inevitably
     underwritten by taxpayers.

>    There's such a thing as do it first and ask forgiveness later.  
    
    Not according to the Constitution. 
    
>    A lot of peole consider(ed) G.A.T.T. to be a treaty, but Clinton signed on
>    without getting Senate approval (by claiming it wasn't a treaty).

    There is no way GATT is NOT a treaty.  The fact that it was signed
    without Senate approval should be a screaming  pointer as to the
    irrelevancy of the Constitution these days.
    
>    In this case, Americans could be affected, but the treaty is between
>    the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.  
    
    I disagree.  We are sending 20,000 ground troops, per the TREATY,
    therefore, we are very much a part of this treaty (and the numbers of
    American troops are much higher that this published 20,000).  
    
>    Clinton can sign on and claim it
>    isn't a treaty with the United States and therefore doesn't require
>    Senate approval.

    What Mr. Clinton thinks and claims should be immediately suspect to
    anyone who really cares about the Constitution.  What he claims carries
    no weight if he is wrong, as I believe he is.
    
    
    -steve

> France has disguised 14 businessmen as UN soldiers
    
    But the powder blue pinstripe suits were a dead giveaway.
    

    Clinton benefits/excersises from the politics/procedures that have 
    been created by FDR and those who followed.
    
    Look beyond the smoke and you'll see billc uses the "executive order"
    to do whatever the hell he wants, and they spout it as being legal.
    It is not.
    
    They play with words in a legal dance.  Only congress can declare
    war.  True.  What is war?  Are we going to war?  Not legally I guess.
    It's "peacekeeping" not war, so it's ok then. 
    
    We're asleep at the wheel.

    Where did the executive order come from.  After a quick perusal of the
    Constitution, I can find no such power being granted to the President.
    
    
    -steve

    Congress delegated that authority,  I believe it's in USC 50 somewhere.
    I don't have specifics on hand, I guess I'll have to go find it.
    
    MadMike

    ^he whole Bosnia "treaty" is available for perusal on the web:
    ^
    ^http://www.access-dayton.com/bosnia/peace3.html
    
    Have you accessed this site? I just tried and got:
    
    Fatal Error 500
    
    Can't Access Document: http://www.access-dayton.com/bosnia/peace3.html. 
    
    Reason: Can't locate remote host: www.access-dayton.com. 
    
    

    Oh yea----SNARF

    Steve,
    
    I watched a discussion of this last weekend (BTW I agree with you);
    the consensus was that sliq was getting around going to Congress
    before hand because this is not a declared war for the US, so as 
    someone else pointed out he's using Grace Hopper's philosophy.
    
    I'm a bit foggy at the moment (big Christmas luncheon at DEC-SALE);
    did Bush go to Congress first before committing troops to Desert
    Storm?
    
    Anyhow, this "executive order" business has been used a lot since
    WWII; I'd like to see all Congresscritters collectively gather some
    gumption and slap the next Prez who tries to thwart them upside the
    head (and I would have applied that to Reagan for Granada also).
    
    Frankly, I'll be surprised if this so-called treaty lasts through
    the holidays.  I think the reaction from the American populace will
    get very vocal and hostile FAST if we do start to see daily body counts
    and body bags on the nightly news.
    
    Maybe I'm wrong, but I think public sentiment was much different
    regarding Desert Storm; there was a "sense" that most Americans
    supported that action......I don't sense much support for the
    movement into Bosnia whatsoever.
    

    Of course! It was all about oil.  Why lie?

    "It" applied to Raygun.  Ronny could only send 56 combat troops to
    nicaragua.  He obviously wanted to send more, but congress wouldn't
    let him.
    
    Bush had congressional "approval" to put troops into action in the
    desert.  It wasn't a declared war.  
    
    We all know vietnam was a "conflict".  Korea was a "police action".
    Tell the folks who fought and died those weren't wars.  :^\
    
    MadMike

    
    
    Amen, Sad Sack.

>    "It" applied to Raygun.  Ronny could only send 56 combat troops to
>    nicaragua.  He obviously wanted to send more, but congress wouldn't
>    let him.

    Didn't Congress pass legislation specifically barring Reagan from
    sending more troops into Nicaragua?

    -- Dave

    re: .398
    
    Yeah, just like Congress "delegating" the printing of money to private
    bankers.  We have been sold out all the way around.  
    
    -steve (in a conspiratorial mood today)

re: .399 Yes, I was there. I copied that web page out of my global
history to post it here. However, I can't get there now, either.

Dunno why.

Art

    Over the WE, heard that they (US) cound not fly into Tusla (sp) because
    of the weather. Sounds like a recipe for disaster in an emergency...

> Sounds like a recipe for disaster in an emergency...

I have to admit that the same thought crossed my mind.

What the hell are we doing getting involved in something that only leaves
us one means (air, in good weather only, no less) of getting in and out?

>What the hell are we doing getting involved in something that only leaves
>us one means (air, in good weather only, no less) of getting in and out?

I think the problem is getting heavy equipment there.  If we had to get out
quickly, the equipment could by destroyed or abandoned.

    There is a problem with airlifting in heavy equipment, but the bad
    weather has made all flying/landing difficult, and even personnel
    carriers have been rerouted.
    
    

Right, but they need to get the heavy equipment there before most of the people.

    
      Well, I'm patriotic - I'd send all my sons to Bosnia.
    
      The winter sports look invigorating.
    
      bb

How many sons have you, bb?

    
      3, but none so patriotic as I...
    
      bb

A few interesting points came up on the NBC evening news -

   o  Apparently, part of the cargo on the C-130s (?) which had been prevented
      from landing at Tuzla strip until today, was the radar and other
      instrumentation required to be installed in order to make IFR (?)
      landings in any weather possible.

   o  Much heavy equipment, including tanks, etc., is being transported by
      road and rail to the northern Croation borders, from where it will be 
      brought overland south, including the traversal of several river bridges
      about to be constructed by the ACoE.

    I've only listened to radio news lately, but even there it's
    fascinating to see how the Bosnia war news stories are being
    written and reported to attempt to make the war "exciting" or
    "entertaining" to us.  It's like we're supposed to "get into"
    it, to follow it like a miniseries, hanging on every day's report
    from the front.
    
    Interesting spin they're doing, there.  They must figure that if
    it worked for O.J. and "ER", then it might work here too.  I haven't
    been watching channels like CNN; I wonder if they're trying to get
    us all revved up as well.
    
    Chris

    Let's see:
    
    I well placed mortar and the landing radar is out. The transports are
    not FLIR capable...?
    
    The pix over the WE of the army are pathetic. The 'Engineers' (and I
    use that term loosely here) are attempting to put a bridge across this
    river so that the equipment can come in. They have practiced on the
    Rhine. These are NATO trained US troops. The 294th Engineers put up a
    1075 foot Pontoon bridge across the Rhine @ Remergen in 96 hours under
    everything the germans could throw against them in WW2. These guys are still
    playing as we note. To boot, they have all this fancy junk stuck in the
    clay adjacent to the river. 'Engineers' should/must know soil types and
    what and when you can do with them. Saw an 8x8 HEMITT trying to pull
    out a M939 5t dump, both had all wheels spinning. Great benefit that
    central tire pressure control... They looked like keystone cops. And
    remember, these guys/gals were to defend us in northern Germany against
    the Ruskies. 
    
    

Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
From: [email protected] (Dr. Roger M. Firestone)
Subject: Vanna White to the Front!

The following came through the Brown Univ. Alumni mailing list.  The
author is unknown:
 
WORLD NEWS:
 
CLINTON DEPLOYS VOWELS TO BOSNIA
 
Cities of Sjlbvdnzv, Grzny to Be First Recipients
 
Before an emergency joint session of Congress yesterday, President Clinton
announced US plans to deploy over 75,000 vowels to the war-torn region of
Bosnia. The deployment, the largest of its kind in American history, will
provide the region with the critically needed letters A,E,I,O and U, and is
hoped to render countless Bosnian names more pronounceable.
 
"For six years, we have stood by while names like Ygrjvslhv and Tzlynhr
and Glrm have been horribly butchered by millions around the world,"
Clinton said. "Today, the United States must finally stand up and say
'Enough.' It is time the people of Bosnia finally had some vowels in their
incomprehensible words. The US is proud to lead the crusade in this noble
endeavor."
 
The deployment, dubbed Operation Vowel Storm by the State Department, is set
for early next week, with the Adriatic port cities of Sjlbvdnzv and Grzny
slated to be the first recipients. Two C-130 transport planes, each carrying
over 500 24-count boxes of "E's," will fly from Andrews Air Force Base
across the Atlantic and airdrop the letters over the cities.
 
Citizens of Grzny and Sjlbvdnzv eagerly await the arrival of the vowels. "My
God, I do not think we can last another day," Trszg Grzdnjkln, 44, said. "I
have six children and none of them has a name that is understandable to me
or to anyone else. Mr. Clinton, please send my poor, wretched family just
one 'E.' Please."
 
Said Sjlbvdnzv resident Grg Hmphrs, 67: "With just a few key letters, I
could be George Humphries. This is my dream."
 
If the initial airlift is successful, Clinton said the United States will
go ahead with full-scale vowel deployment, with C-130's airdropping
thousands more letters over every area of Bosnia. Other nations are
expected to pitch in as well, including 10,000 British "A's" and 6,500
Canadian "U's." Japan, rich in A's and O's, was asked to participate,
but declined.
 
"With these valuable letters, the people of war-ravaged Bosnia will be
able to make some terrific new words," Clinton said. "It should be very
exciting for them, and much easier for us to read their maps."
 
Linguists praise the US's decision to send the vowels. For decades they
have struggled with the hard consonants and difficult pronunciation of
most Slavic words. "Vowels are crucial to construction of all language,"
Baylor University linguist Noam Frankel said. "Without them, it would be
difficult to utter a single word, much less organize a coherent sentence.
Please, just don't get me started on the moon-man languages they use in
those Eastern European countries."
 
According to Frankel, once the Bosnians have vowels, they will be able to
construct such valuable sentences as: "The potatoes are ready"; "I believe
it will rain"; and "All my children are dead from the war" [And "Oh my God,
there's an axe in my head." ?]
 
The airdrop represents the largest deployment of any letter to a foreign
country since 1984. During the summer of that year, the US shipped 92,000
consonants to Ethiopia, providing cities like Ouaouoaua, Eaoiiuae, and Aao
with vital, lifegiving supplies of L's, S's and T's. The consonant-relief
effort failed, however, when vast quantities of the letters were intercepted
and hoarded by violent, gun-toting warlords.

    Maybe Clinton could arrange a shipment of vowels to Wales?
    
    

Or at least some "Save the Wales" bumper stickers.

    Why does that sound like some UNIX joke?
    
    Bob

    
    Put on a happy face, troops in Bosnia told
    
    Praise Clinton if press asks, guide says
    
    
    Taszar air base, Hungary-U.S. troops are grumbling about a pamphlet
    that advises them to tell any inquiring reporter they have full
    confidence in their commanders, from President Clinton on down.
    
    The pamphlet entitled "Answers You Can Use," was prepared by the Army's
    V Corps and has been distributed to all Army troops in Bosnia to help
    them deal with pesky press inquiries.
    
    One suggested answer is: "U.S. forces are confident in our trained and
    competent leaders.  We have pride in our leadership, from the president
    on down, and full trust in their decision."
    
    The problem is, not all the soldiers feel that way.
    
    "That one [answer] particularly got me," said a colonel who asked not
    to be named.
    
    A femal sergeant with the 4th Aviation Brigade, based at Kaposvar Air
    Field, also took issue with the statement.  "I voted for him last time,
    but not this time," said the sergeant, who also declined to be named.
    
    Some soldiers said they were offended by the attempt to guide their
    responses.
    
    continued....
    
    
    
    from today's Washington Times
    

    I find that sort of stuff most annoying, particularly in an election
    year.

     military SOP.

    
    I'm sure you can give an instance to back that up......

    it is standard procedure for the military to brief itself in sensitive
    or politically charged situations. press responses, conduct, dress,
    etc... then there's the unwritten/unspoken expectation that you will
    do nothing to embarrass or otherwise compromise the military's honor
    or your country less you want to pay for the rest of your hitch.

    
      yep, longstanding US custom.  Lincoln used it in 1864, and tried
     hard to get the Republican vote out in the army, even changing
     battlefield tactics to do so.
    
      Many other democratic and republican incumbents have done the same.
    
      bb

In case anybody's interested, I just started subscribing to OMRI Daily Digest,
which covers eastern Europe and the FSU.  I received this:

Welcome to "Pursuing Balkan Peace," the second in OMRI's series of
special reports on developments in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union. Distributed as a supplement to the OMRI Daily Digest, "Pursuing
Balkan Peace" appears weekly and contains the latest news about
developments in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The OMRI Daily
Digest will continue to include major stories from the region that do
not appear in this supplement. All issues of the Special Reports are
archived on the OMRI WWW server, at
http://www.omri.cz/Publications/SR/SR.html

War crimes ain't what they used to be.  Dusko Vuckovic was sentenced to
seven years in prison on several war crimes charges, including 16 counts
of murder and one count of rape.  Do you think the light sentence had 
anything to do with the venue of the trial?  It was held in Sabac, Serbia.

    
      If you think about it unemotionally, which is very hard to do,
     you will see that "war crimes tribunals" are merely public
     relations shows.  Personally, I'm with Churchill, who thought
     it best to simply shoot the leading Nazis, without trials for
     "crimes" not in any real legal system or jurisdiction.  FDR would
     have gone along, but Stalin insisted on trials.  Easy for him,
     since he viewed ANY judicial system as mere public relations.
    
      In America, Nurenburg was widely criticized as a kangaroo court,
     created ex post facto, merely to lend solemnity to the acts of
     the victors, which were inevitable, trial or no.  Only one SCOTUS
     justice would be a party to this, and even today, many US jurists
     view the whole business as an unsavory sham.  Better that the Italians
     just hung Mussolini on the spot.
    
      The current round strikes me the same way, except that since
     there are as yet no victors, the trials are even more political,
     and bear even less resemblance to any real justice system.
    
      bb

Nuremburg dug up lots of documentation.

    be that as it may, i think public closure was the
    thing people were after when the war was finally over.
    some sort of official proceeding to name names and 
    bear witness to the crimes committed.

    
    .431
    
    Interesting US perspective.  In Europe, the opinion was that
    Kellog-Briand set clear precedent for the trials.  I'm unaware that
    Churchill dissented to the trials, but he did make a gaffe about
    the culpability of some defendants (which he corrected later).
    Initially Churchill wanted all defendants to be tried where their
    crimes were located, but it was the US that pressed for Nuremberg
    because of the significance of that location.  
    
    There were extensive preliminary hearings about the legality of the
    proceedings before a single Nazi was brought to trial and all the
    Allies participated in this process.    The US went on to try Japanese
    war criminals and then hels a SEPARATE set of trials at Nuremburg,
    trying minor criminals.   The other Allies did not participate,
    believing that there was not sufficient precedent to carry on the
    prosecution of anyone other than those responsible for instigating the
    war and the crimes associated with it.  The US-only trials indicted
    many, many more industrialists, party officials and lower rank officers.
    
    Whatever the participation and the outcome, the trials established
    important legal precedents in international law, such as the "only
    obeyting orders" defence and the important precedent of culpability for
    aggressive war crimes. (Accepted by UNO.)
    
    Colin
    
    
    (I believe Musso was shot in the chest and hung by the ankles.  His
    last words were [so it's said] "Shoot me in the chest".)
    
     

I believe Colin's right about Mussolini.  Wasn't there an item in the news
several months ago about the guy who actually shot him?

    
      Yes, Benito wuz shot, then hung upside down, and otherwise
     used as a mode of expression.
    
      The discussions at Tehran, which triggered Nuremburg, were the
     scene of much bickering among the successful allied leaders, and
     the extent of the legal trappings surrounding the execution of
     axis VIPs was a secondary matter.  FDR died, and Churchill was
     defeated in the elections, before the trials began.  Truman and
     Attlee were much more amenable to trials than their predecessors.
    
      In the US, Kellogg-Briand was considered a standing joke, outlawing
     the waging of "aggressive" war.  Many Americans still view this
     as sanctimonious drivel.  Consider the Gulf War.  If the US wins,
     Saddam is guilty of crimes for attempting to seize the independent
     Kuwaiti nation.  But if the US loses, Bush is guilty of crimes for
     attempting to seize the Iraqi province of Kuwait.
    
      I agree that Nurmberg sets a precedent.  It is a precedent for
     pagentry and pontification while executing those you defeat,
     particularly if they deserve it.
    
      bb

    .431
    
    You might want to check a few other claims:
    
     Stalin did not pressure for the trials, the US did.
    
    According to the Ethical Spectacle:
    
    "In the planning and discussion regarding war crimes done prior to the
    Allied victory, Churchill and the British consistently took the
    position that Nazi leaders, once identified, should simply be shot
    without benefit of trial. The American view, however, prevailed, that
    an evidentiary hearing, presided over by impartial judges, was called
    for."
    
    Whatever Churchill said, he was not party to the final decision, having
    been replaced by Attlee before Potsdam - Atlee could have reneged on
    anything  signed by Churchill, but chose to support the US view for
    trials. (Good thing too - Churchill's solution would make us no better
    than the Nazis.)
    
     In any case the US and Britain desperately wanted the Soviets to
     declare war on Japan.  Even if Stalin had been the sole proponent
     of trials, it's likely that he would have got his way as he did
     with everything else at Yalta. 
    
    Given this, and the fact that the US went solo on the later trials, it's
    difficult to see the US as a reluctant participant, but as being the
    champion of war crimes trials.  And thank goodness one nation chose
    that course.  The Bosnia situation is not over yet.
    
    
    Colin
                                     
    

    The US did not prosecute some pretty signficant Japanese war criminals
    such as the ones who conducted cold weather experiments on allied
    prisioners many of whom died. The US did take the data though. It was
    done very scientifically.
    
    

    .438
    
    Those actions were covered by existing international conventions
    (Hague, Geneva).  A more appropriate example would be the decision not
    to indict the Japanese emperor.  I don't know why the US chose not to
    prosecute under the POW conventions.

just for the record, the U.S. objective was to free Kuwait and return
it to its countrymen, not seize it. there's a big difference in the
example you're trying to use between the U.S.'s actions and Saddam's.

    A few notes back, quite a few actually. Someone asked the question as
    to why people where dragging the American flag through the mud, and
    showing it riddled with bullet holes. Let me offer an insight as to why
    they do this. Let me note first that these are not the opinions that I
    share, but those which I have heard from many people with whom I have
    spoken with.
    
    The reason people do not like Amercians is that in almost every
    significant battle that has taken place since WW2 the Americans have been
    involved with in some way or another. 
    
    Vietnam
    Cuba
    Angola (they still are)
    Mozambique
    Gulf
    Somalia
    The Former Yugoslavia.
    
    The impression is they have no idea of the local politics, too many
    opinions. Just look at this note for starters. A lot of opinions. Look
    at .5 "The US will never send in troops". People do not like having
    internal politics interfered with, and least of all by the Americans. 
    
    Now I know a lot of you folks in the US will be annoyed at hearing
    this but there are a lot of people around the world who are sick and tired
    of having you involved in everything. 
    It is not as if you always have the best solutions, (Somalia, Angola
    and the Former Yugoslavia).
    
    Like I said, not necessarily my opinions. I think it is good that there
    are people out there concerned with the spread of evil, and corruption
    in the world. But why should it always be America? 
                                                      

   .441  we'll all be flogging ourselves a little later, if that
	 helps any.  right gang?


	 <contrite look>

    Like I said, not my opinion. But instead the shared opinion of many
    people I have spoken to.
    
    Is not flogging a little outdated?  :-)

    Self-flagellation is never outdated.  
    
    

Of course, when it comes to asking for a little financial aid, 
that doesn't seem to be a problem.

daryll

    
      On Saddam - of course, I agree with you.  But for the sake of
     at least appearing objective, consider Hussein's claim that
     Kuwait was and is an artificial country created out of Iraq by
     the British.  From that (specious) point of view, it was the
     US-led coalition that was waging a war of aggression.
    
      Similarly, consider Goering or Doenitz.  They were charged with
     "crimes against humanity" and "crimes against peace".  Now it
     is impossible to deny that Nazi Germany committed crimes against
     humanity in some philosophical sense.  But there was precious
     little in the way of legal precedent or written law, or even a
     working definition, in existence for such a charge.  And anyway,
     although both of them knew of, and applauded, the slaughter of
     the victims, there is little doubt that neither of them were in
     that line of work.  Doenitz ran the Navy, Goering the Luftwaffe
     (and he had party duties).  It just wasn't their department, in
     terms of command.  So they were both executed, respectively, for
     submarining ships, and bombing cities.  The exact same things their
     judges had done.  In a technical sense, Goering was correct that
     he was innocent of the charges, unless the allies were going to
     plead guilty also.  The Soviets shared in the invasion of Poland,
     and it was the British, not the Germans, who declared war in 1939.
     The Germans had, in fact, offered the British peace.
    
      Not that any of this matters.  The correct judgement would be
     "Not Technically Guilty, But Shoot Him Anyway".  As to the Japanese,
     there were both practical and geopolitical reasons to keep the lid
     on any extensive pursuit of those who had committed atrocities.
     Rightly, in my view, the MacArthur occupation administration put
     a much higher priority on reconstruction.
    
      bb

    nit,
    Goering committed suidice before he could be executed.

>    <<< Note 31.445 by SALEM::DODA "A little too smart for a big dumb town"
>    >>>
>
>    Of course, when it comes to asking for a little financial aid,
>    that doesn't seem to be a problem.
>
>    daryll
    
    Instead of dishing out financial aid, the US should pay back there debts to
    the World Bank. At least then it, (the World Bank) could do what it was
    setup to do. OFFER FINANCIAL AID.
    
    We were not discussing financial aid anyway!! 
    
    This is a genuine question, because I would like to have the answer to
    repeat to people who ask me the question. Be it retorical or not.
    Why is it that the US has to get involved in everyone elses internal
    affairs? 

   from, Why the Allies Won, by Richard Overy, 1995, ISBN 0-393-03925-0

   excerpt from chapter 9, Evil Things, Excellent Things : The Moral Contest

   

     The Allies' moral coalition lived on after the war.  The remaining
   Nazi Party leaders and military chiefs, together with a host of lesser
   officials, soldiers and businessmen, were taken into custody to await
   trial as war criminals.  The decision to indict the leaders of the Nazi
   state was taken late in the war.  Up to the last months the predominant
   view was in favor of summary execution by military firing squad, an idea
   proposed by the British.  To their surprise, Stalin strongly opposed
   the suggestion, on the grounds that the Allies would be accused of being
   afraid to give their enemies a fair trial.  Roosevelt did not reject the
   idea of treating German leaders harshly, even of finishing the job
   swiftly in 'kangaroo courts'.  But his successor as President, Harry
   Truman, was horrified by the suggestion that a liberal state should be
   engaged in lawless killing.  In May 1945, he insisted that war criminals
   should be brought before an international tribunal, to answer for their
   crimes at the bar of world opinion.
     This was easier said than done.  There were arguments about who was,
   and who was not, a war criminal.  There was widespread unease at the
   absence of any precedent in international law - bar the exile of
   Napoleon to St. Helena - for formally imposing the victors'
   justice on the vanquished.  There was the vexed question of what
   precisely the leading war criminals could be accused of.  The decision
   to indict them for 'Crimes against Peace' and 'Crimes against Humanity'
   was regarded in some quarters as a mockery as long as Soviet judges sat
   on the bench, while its legal propriety was clearly questionable.  The
   trials finally opened at Nuremburg, spiritual home of the Nazi movement,
   on November 20, 1945.  The opening statement by the American Justice
   Robert H. Jackson, indicated the wider moral purpose of the trials,
   which was nothing less than to set on record, for all the world to see,
   the contrast between 'imperilled civilization' and the evil cause she
   had fought : 'Against their opponents...the Nazis directed such a
   campaign of arrogance, brutality, and annihilation as the world has not
   witnessed since the pre-Christian era...'
     The tribunal took nine months to demonstrate the justness of the Allied
   cause.  The Soviet judges treated the occasion like a Stalinist show
   trial, bullying and hectoring the defendants.  At a dinner in honour of
   the Soviet deputy Foreign Minister, Andrei Vishinsky, who had been
   Stalin's chief prosecutor during the Moscow show trials of 1936-8,
   Vishinsky proposed a toast to the defendants : 'May their paths lead
   straight from the courthouse to the grave !'  The trials gave more
   opportunity than their instigators could ever have intended for the
   chief war criminals to argue their side of the case.  The prisoners
   reacted to their moral indictment in different ways.  Some showed no
   remorse.  Goering stood by everything he had done and tried to force
   the other prisoners to do the same.  Speer on the other hand admitted
   his guilt and that of all those beguiled by the system, a confession
   that probably saved his life.  In fact most of them, when brought
   unavoidably face to face with what they or their companions had done,
   were shocked by the realisation.

    Why?  
    
    1. We are asked.
    2. We are demanded to.
    3. We feel some responsibility for global and regional stability and
       have the means to provide the support especially in the wake of
       the failed euro-inspired colonialism that has led to just about
       every major non-WW conflict this century.  Why this is so boggles my
       mind.  Then again, it's not too hard to understand given the
       arroagance displayed by some of our "allies".   
    4. Last and more sinister in nature, as the last remaining military
       superpower, we can project our influence to protect our financial
       interests.  Latter day imperialism?  Perhaps.  Who would have
       complained loudest if we hadn't gotten involved in the Gulf War?    
    
    Brian	

>    nit,
>    Goering committed suidice before he could be executed.

Suidice!  What a crappy way to go.

>    nit,
>    Goering committed suidice before he could be executed.

Just a case of one control freak getting the upper hand over a bunch of
other control freaks.

AFAIC, he ended up dead, pretty much on schedule, which is at least what
they SAID they wanted.

    Nit:  Doenitz got ten years in Spandau.
    
    This in spite of the fact that he was also Hitler's chosen successor
    and actually led the Reich in the closing months of the war.
    
    His crimes were nothing to do with the holocaust, but arose from his
    direct orders to his U-boat fleet which resulted in the deaths of
    non-combatant sailors in the merchant marine.  In fact, many hundreds of
    US Navy sailors were killed long before the US entered the war, because of
    Doenitz' operational orders to sink all merchant shipping from any
    nation that seemed to be heading to Allied ports.
    
    

>    Nit:  Doenitz got ten years in Spandau.


Wasn't he one of the "Monkees"?

    Spandau Ballet.

    
      Doenitz was indeed guilty of ordering U-boats to sink "neutral"
     (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) US ships carrying bombs over to you Brits,
     so you could drop them on Doenitz at night.
    
      If you had lost WWII, do you suppose the latter would've reaped
     a similar result ?  "War Crimes" are a slippery slope.  "War is
     barbarism, and there is no help for it." - Union General William
     Tecumseh Sherman.
    
      As to the current Bosnian enterprise, it is perceived in Serbia,
     and more importantly, in Russia, as a public relations campaign
     directed against all Slavic peoples.  Although the atrocities
     were real enough, there is something to this Slavic reaction,
     particularly when the "judges" are secretly arming their Moslem
     opponents, then lying about it when caught.
    
      bb

    Perhaps that's why Doenitz was not hanged as you initially claimed.
    (So far you're batting 0 for three on several major war criminals.
    Perhaps your cynicism arises out of your obvious confusion about the
    outcomes of the trials?)
    
    If we had lost WWII I would not even have expected a pretence of
    any show of legality from the regime that perpetrated the holocaust.
    But then, I repeat the point that this is what makes us different
    from them.
    
    Your cynicism mey be more than a little premature in this case.
    So far you've predicted that many US troops will be killed in the
    Balkans, and that it would make no difference to the fighting there.
    After the fact, you've lost far less men than in any other recent
    commitment, US actions have managed to stop the fighting and talk od
    elections is in the offing.  The leaders responsible for the atrocities
    are desparately trying to shuffle themselves into sham political
    positions in which they have no power, but will be protected from
    prosecution.  Whatever you think about the process, they obviously
    fear it.
    
    Yes, I agree that the process of war crimes trials is full of massive
    holes, but than so is any legal system and we don't stop applying one
    because it is only partly successful.

>      As to the current Bosnian enterprise, it is perceived in Serbia,
>     and more importantly, in Russia, as a public relations campaign
>     directed against all Slavic peoples.

Aren't all parties involved Slavs?  Yes, I realize that preception doesn't
necessarily match reality.

    
      Gerald, I'd have real trouble telling who's a slav.  They all
     sure have enough superfluous consonants.
    
      Actually, Colin, the Germans were almost as good at show trials
     as the Russians at home, or the Allies at Nuremburg.  A propaganda
     trial of Winston Churchill would have been choreographed by Goebbels,
     I presume.
    
      OK, OK - Benito was shot without trial, then the corpse hung up for
     the photograph I saw, not hung without trial as I mistakenly said.
     And Goering, though convicted of "crimes against peace" and
     sentenced to death as I said, did manage to commit suicide first.
     I'll check, but I presume you are correct that Doenitz's sentence
     after being convicted of the same charge was somehow reduced to
     imprisonment.  I admit that the actual fate of these guys matters
     very little to me, since it seems more like a case of "rubbing the
     German people's noses in it" as Eisenhower put it.  Ike herded all
     the Germans he could through the death camps to see the remains, just
     so they would understand the cause of the obvious hatred of many
     other peoples.
    
      I'm not necessarily opposed to holding "triumphs", marching your
     defeated foes around in chains.  Public relations pageants have
     their place, and Uncle Joe was nobody's fool.  World War II was
     extraordinary, and I can see Gerald and Bonnie's point that the
     so-called trials yielded historical research data, some sort of
     closure for the world's miserable people, and anyways, the bad
     guys mostly got bumped, call it legal if you like.  Perhaps all
     executions should be public, for similar reasons.
    
      I can't find a note where I predicted large US casualties in the
     Balkans.  On the contrary, in 31.211 almost a year ago, I predicted
     small casualties, to no purpose ultimately.  That still looks like
     the most likely scenario.  After winning the election, President
     Sliq will declare victory and start withdrawing the troops.  Bosnia-
     Herzegovina as a country will exist as long as powerful foreign
     armed forces hold it up, but no longer.  As the the War Crimes
     Tribunals, it seems possible that these are being used as political
     chips rather than mere sanctimony.  If the war were really over,
     the concern would be with the future, with reconstruction, with
     reconciliation.  McArthur knew very well (as Grant knew in 1865)
     that trials over war crimes would be negative in any constructive
     sense.  Best to get any inquiry over quickly and quietly.
    
      bb

    The reason the US (NOT the Russians, as you keep trying to bend it)
    pressed for Nuremberg trials was because it was where the Nazi
    Nuremberg Laws were enacted.  These laws effectively stripped Jews of
    all rights as citizens, cutting them off from the judicial process. 
    The VERY point that the US was trying to make was to reinforce rule of
    law as a pillar of democracy.  Sure, it was symbolic but it was also
    intended to convey the US post-war position to its allies and former
    allies.  Symbolism was not necessarily bad in those times, but it does
    not equate to "show trial" in the Stalinist sense.
    
    If this was a Romanesque triumph, then it's pretty clear the Allies also
    had the guy on the chariot whispering "remember, you are a man not a
    god". Had it been nothing more than a show trial, Doenitz and Speer
    probably would have been hanged.  As it was, the court carefully
    considered evidence that showed they had limited roles and they were
    sentenced accordingly.  It also shows in the very limited number of
    cases tried under joint authority, and also in the continued commitment
    by many nations to extradite war criminals even a half century after
    the end of the war.
    
    It's interesting in that although the Nazis committed atrocities
    against civilian populations, they tiptoed carefully around the Geneva
    Convention.  For example, they never used mass gas attacks on troops,
    as Phosgene and other gases were outlawed after WWI.  It was known by the
    Allies that the Germans had the capability to produce chmical weapons
    and the Allies stockpiled Phosgene in preparation to retaliate if
    the Nazis used it first.  (A disaster at Bari in Italy revealed that
    the Allies had thousands of tons of Phosgene shells and bombs.)
    
    This implies that even the Nazis were oddly inclined to obey some
    international rules of law where they were clearly defined.  In the
    case of the holocaust, the Nazis were simply the first case, thereby
    setting the precedent for crimes against humanity.   I'm not suggesting
    that the precedent has made much practical difference in cases like
    Bosnia.  Few of the participants in crimes there probably though about
    the potential for being tried for war crimes.  However, it certainly
    made it much harder for imperialist countries such as Britain to
    wage dark and dirty little wars in Aden, Palestine, and Borneo under
    the guise of keeping the empire together.
    
    
    Colin