PNG on Kosovo : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread


My Perspective on Kosovo: 25 March, 1999

2,000 people have died in the Balkans in the last year from the ethnic civil war. NATO is attacking.

2,000,000 people have died in Sudan over the last few years from civil war and starvation caused by the fighting. No one is attacking.

People of all nations fear for their soldier-children who face searingly painful, grotesque, horrifying deaths and dismemberment - the end of their world.

The Serbian men that viciously murder and rape, do so because they have nothing to live for except revenge. Revenge against the families of Croatian men that murdered and raped their families. This has been going back and forth for generations. Generations of revenge.

Do not underestimate the ethnic bond between Russians and Serbs. It is not a superficial, transient bond of political ideology. It is a bond of blood that knows no geo-political borders. NATO is poking at a tired, wounded yet powerful bear. A bear that is searching for a cause to restore it's spirit and glory. A proud bear that has been reduced to a pitiful and broken prowler for scraps after cutting itself into pieces in the quest for the bounty of capitalism and freedom.

Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair, popular media personalities, are poking at a dying bear of a man who had part of one hand torn away by a grenade fighting for his people. The other hand restrains proud, broken Generals of unpaid armies and massive weapons that were once feared by the world. Desperate people do desperate things.

I don't trust the judgement of any of the players in this game. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair should call a time out and see if they can work their personal charm on Mr. Yeltsin to have him broker a deal in the Balkans. Let the dying bear have some of the limelight they constantly seek. The serbs will listen to him. The solution may not be perfect, but I believe less people will die in the final tally.

But that would require statesmanship on the part of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair. A quality these two politicians have yet to reveal they possess.

-- a (a@a.a), March 25, 1999


Good thread my feelings exactly, they need to defuse this powder keg before it's to late. I think that we should offer the Russians big $$ to help this come to a Peaceful resolution with Russia responsible to ensure that milosovich is retired and the kosovos are given protection from serbian aggression by Russia and allowed to return home in peace. I would rather see the $$ Being put to use in a humanitarian way then wasted on war. War is stupid,stupid,stupid Our planet is to fragile to play these games of nuclear chicken. Help peace find a Way. Just say no to war.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k awaremike, March 25, 1999.

I respect PNG and his position here. However, we aren't talking about Croatians and Serbs anymore. This issue has become much larger and much more explosive.

Think about like this. What if Koscovo was Texas? Texas was at one time a territory of Mexico and it was so, for many generations, until we took over. Let's pretend that the U.S. has held Texas for 600 years.

For some reason, America suffers a great civil war that tears the country apart. During this war Mexico takes back Texas.

Now, during this 600 years the population of Texas has shifted and the majority of people are now Americans. One day the Mexican president decides he wants the territory back to the way it was 600 years before and there are far too many Americas living there. Say the ratio is 99% American and 1% Mexican National.

How does this Mexican president get rid of the 99% of those he doesn't want in Texas? He takes away all their freedoms. He replaces their government with Mexican leaders and their police with Mexican police. The Americans are without liberty.

However, this isn't good enough. So, why not try a little more force? So the president decides to shell villages and kill innocent Americans. It's a campaign of fear and death designed to force the 99% of the unwanted population out of their homes and businesses and lives. This is ethnic cleansing.

This is all done regardless of the fact that this territory was held by Americans for over 600 years.

This situation is very complicated. I have very mixed feelings about all of this and deep fears about the escalation of this conflict.

Regarding the Sudan. There is an absolute tragedy that goes back even further. However, it's much more difficult to bomb men with machetes from the air and which leader do you target or reach out to for a peaceful solution? You have to use ground forces for such action.

We're looking at a world full of hurt where mistakes made decades ago with the creation of borders and other issues are coming back to haunt a whole new generation of children. It's a shame and we're going to pay a price for those mistakes. The question is how big a price will we pay? You just have to wonder if there will be future generations after all this. Also, what mistakes of ours they will be paying for some day?

Mike =====================================

-- Michael Taylor (, March 25, 1999.

Clinton is out of his league on this one. Unfortunately foreign dictators are not impressed by his smarmy spin. He bluffed himself into a corner and here we are. This is a real brain teaser, huh! The Serbs will lay low and rope-a-dope him for a couple weeks and that will pretty much be it. Pity the Kosovars, though, as they will not benefit from this light show. I guess if Clinton had at least read about Vietnam he would have known of a recent case study in bombing a nation into submission.

-- Puddintame (, March 25, 1999.

Hey Puddintame...

Isn't it amazing? I think you're right. However, I don't see any leader able to get through this. Heck, even Bob Dole was treated poorly by the Serbs and he says we should be bombing them back to the stoneage. There are no simple solutions to this one.

We're actually bombing parts of Kosovo but we don't want refugee flight. Somehow, if I was there, I'd get my family the hell out of there asap.

The logic in all of this is so very flawed.

Mike ==============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (, March 25, 1999.


the flaw in the logic is the same flaw which ultimately brings down most bullies - the theory that causing someone sufficient pain will ALWAYS get them to cooperate with you...that *is* what the US/NATO is trying to do, you know. The problem is when the bully runs into someone who, for whatever reason, would rather die than cave in. At that point the bully has only one of two choices, either put up some kind of a show of force and then run away, or completely destroy his intended victim.

This is, basicly the same as one of the reasons brandishing a firearm as a threat is so stupid - because if the person you're threatening *still* refuses to cooperate your only two options are to either leave him alone or kill him - you've eliminated every other alternative.

Looks like ol' billy jeff and company get to learn this one the hard way...


-- Arlin H. Adams (, March 25, 1999.

PNG, did you feel the earthquake?
Hope you are OK!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (, March 26, 1999.

This is from the latest headline story at Drudge:

Russia may soon lift an embargo on arms deliveries to Yugoslavia, the speaker of the State Duma lower parliament house, Gennady Seleznyov, said late on Thursday.

Commenting on the situation which emerged following the NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia, Seleznyov said that Russia may soon render military assistance to Yugoslavia.

"I am sure that we shall render such assistance," he told reporters.

"This will not be an easy decision for Russia since we participated in the embargo on arms deliveries to Yugoslavia." But now "we are ready to lift this embargo and deliver weapons to Yugoslavia," he said.

"Russia does not like any one to wipe his feet on her," Seleznyov said.

I post it here because it has to do with my reply to your posts.

PNG I agree that they are a wounded bear. They're showing incredible, incredible restraint. (up to this point)

They have every right & every moral obligation to defend their friend & former Warsaw Pact ally.

I am an American, and I love my country, and I would never speak a treasonous thing against it, but if you look at what's happened, the arch enemy of the Soviet Union has always been NATO, and it's deepest fears have now been validated.

NATO is supposed to be just a defensive alliance claiming to only want to preserve peace. Soviet Union bought it hook line & sinker, split up, and NATO bitch slaps 'em by attacking their neighbor and very close friend.

They have every right to send a thousand planes over the sky of Serbia to protect them from the illegal aggressors NATO. The other former Soviet Block countries (Romania, Macedonia etc.) that are asking the NATO alliance for protection assurances not only do so for fear of Serbs, but for the fear of that Great Bear who is asleep. This is the makings of a TERRIBLE thing and they know it. They know Russia has the capability to grab 'em up again. All those little countries asking for NATO protection & NOT asking Russia are bitch slapping Russia. Russia will feel they are setting themselves up to join the NATO alliance. They're not going to stand for this s@%$. To the world they are looking weak. When President Clinton says on TV (paraphrasing) that this might cause a strain but oh well Russia needs us. These are all insults. The people of Russia are calling for war. Nothing will push hard line Communists back into power faster than this type of parade of insults. The doomsday clock must be a 11:59!

Glad to hear some sane, righteous posts. Keep it up.

-- Kato, (I've hijacked the computer from Deborah) (, March 26, 1999.

As usual PNG has voiced my thoughts (far more articulately), people are so caught up here with the media hype, revenge against the Serbs (who are the current "baddies"), it is short-termism of the most dangerous kind, really The Brits have no real understanding of E European politics, yet they're prepared to "bomb righteously" someone asked in the UK parliament, what happens if the bombing fails to achieve its objective (if there is one), no answer was forthcoming from Mr Blair, the discussion then centred on how many troops would be required to invade, several figures were bandied about, I think it increased to over 100,000

really the order to bomb was just a knee-jerk reaction to TV coverage of Serb atrocities

no mention was made in the parliamentary debate of the Russian reaction, this only had insignificant coverage in the London Times

-- dick of the dale (, March 26, 1999.

Michael: cogent, but there may be a more immediate analog: present-day Texas (or New Mexico), with a growing population of Hispanics, finds itself targeted for secession, ala La Raza. The U.S. balks, refuses to let the Hispanic peoples have their own schools and autonomous governments. The UN begins airstrikes against American military bases until we sign a brokered 'peace' agreement mandating that Texas become an independent, Hispanic state. This, in fact, is what La Raza calls for. My point is that when issues of sovereignty become subservient to external power monopolies, all bets are off. The U.S. military, rather than acting to defend the United States, has now become an instrument of intimidation in the hands of the managerial class who are railroading us into a global governance/monetary authority. Needless to say, such a global authority will not be a representative democracy. It will be totalitarian in design, and totalist in action, although masquerading behind lots of gloss about 'humanity' and 'unity,' 'planet and people.'

-- Spidey (, March 26, 1999.

Thank you PNG, Arlin, Spidey and all for saying what needed to be said. I couldn't agree more. This movement to world government, to me, seems the beginning of the end. The United States would do well to keep the pledge of defending our borders and quit being Nosy Parker or Nanny to the world.

It seems we have enough trouble just getting ready for, and dealing with, the Y2K Crises without jumping into more. Notice that MSNBC hasn't been prone to put up a Y2K Crises! headline. Oh, I forgot, Y2K isn't sexy like Crises in the White House (sex and baloney) or Crises In Kosovo (jets and bombs).

-- gilda jessie (, March 26, 1999.

I read that back in 1990 when we were about to begin Desert Storm that President Bush was on the phone to Moscow keeping Gorbachev informed of what was happening. This was largely as a courtesy but it still gave the impression of Russia's importance. This time nobody informed Russia of squat. This shows the world that Russia is not a superpower anymore. Everyone probably knew this on some level but it is really a slap in the face of the proud Russians. I am not counting on Russia letting NATO bomb Yugoslavia into oblivion. The bear is certainly not dead.

-- Sharon (, March 26, 1999.

I read what Mike Taylor had to say, thought about it, thought it sounded pretty sharp, knew I didn't agree with the jist of it, went off and had a smoke, thought some more about what i thought, worked out my reply, scrolled down the thread, only to see that bloody Spidey had already stolen my thunder!, (though I don't know what a la raza is, and my version had the "UN" Russian pacific fleet blasting some maquiladores because of Mexican army's mistreatment of the Chiapas.) Maybe I oughta start a one man Spidey-cult-of-personality to rival the PNG Army...Spidey does get it just right pretty often.

On the general topic of this thread, folks, THIS is the real New World Order: not old school buses with "UN" painted on the side, not godless atheist illuminatis meditating under UN headquarters, not blue hats in black choppers practising their futuristic Dominoes dial-a-drug operations...

New World order is a catchphrase for the US military being the self-ordained policeman of the world. "World policeman" is a phrase we'd all be familiar with, and it raises consternation only amongst the clueiest 2 or 3%. But how does "World State" sound? It's gotta more malevolent ring to it, don'cha'think? Now this "American" world state doesn't have any special allegiance to the American people, although part of its purpose is certainly to keep the American people fat and docile and content and productive, especially so as to keep that military/economic machine humming along just nicely. But this world state is distinctly transnational in its outlook, its main purpose being the smooth? operation of transnational capitalism. US is just where its might is concentrated. And while the transnational corporation is largely an American invention, it has its more fundamental roots in the transnational banking guild initiated in Europe by you-know-who and his five sons.

Anyhow, banking and mega-corporate purposes merge quite nicely - the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few...and the continuation of such a system that will ensure the continuation of that power for the ordained successors of those few. Now quite often the critics of NWO (For want of a less inflamatory nick-name) accuse such an arrangement of being "socialistic". Well, it certainly does confound many of the supposed benefits of a democratic free-market set-up, but it still is essentially a system orchestrated for the benefit of the very rich and powerful, and especially the EStablished rich and powerful, as against those innovators who might accrue resources and support by upturning the applecart. Possibly the only election promise kept by that well-known NWO/TLC/CFR/illumuinati/Stonecutter stooge WJC, is that he will make more American millionaires than there has ever been. Now this is hardly Marx'n Engels 101. Anyhow, NWO is shaping up to be totalistic if it feels the need, and I guess this is where half the meaning of "socialism" is properly applied. And this is the properly scary bit.

New World Order is not a hell of a lot different from the Old world order, depending on where you draw the lines. And as if the Old World Order had a lot to recommend it?!

AAAaaaahhhh, I tire of NWO ranting..'m never gonna get to my point. I had a point??? oh yeah. What the hell are these f!@%$#ng idiots doing over there???? I find it hard to see any way they'll benefit from bombing that joint. Have they started to believe their own PR Bullshit?? Maybe, like the old song says, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

-- humptydumpty (, March 26, 1999.

Clinton blustering about "moral responsibility..."

I think I'm going to barf.

The latest CNN/Gallup poll of 500 says that most (ie., 65%+) Americans approve and think it's a good idea and that Prez is handling the situation well...

Now it's time for dry heaves.

-- coprolith (, March 26, 1999.

The Iraqies send oil by pipeline north into Turkey. I assume that the pipeline crosses the Bosporus. From there toward Europe, the pipline's terminus, it would appear to need cross the current war torn territories.

Is there a connection between Big Oil and the present NATO war re the Iraqi oil?

-- Mitchell Barnes (, March 26, 1999.


Good post. I had not heard NWO described in those terms. Learning, learning, learning.

-- Sharon (, March 26, 1999.

Humpty: thanks. If 'National Socialists' were nazis, what are 'World Socialists'--'Wazis?' And Kato, too, hits a nerve about the 'shame' factor vis-a-vis Russia. I couldna nary believe me eyes yesterday when I saw the N.Y. Times headline: 'Russian reaction tempered by need for food.' What a slap in the face! Lord knows the Russian people have had enough to suffer through the past 80 years, we don't need to goad them! When George Kennan framed his famous containment article in Foreign Affairs in 1947, I don't imagine he ever envisioned a day when the West had won the ideological conflict, failed to disarm the Russians, and then proceeded to mock them. What kind of over-confident pinheads do we have working in our State Dept. nowadays? This is a strategic plan for nuclear suicide. And HOW will this effect our U.S./Chinese/Russian Y2K nuclear early-warning fixes? Can't help.

-- Spidey (, March 26, 1999.

Spidey, Humpty, great posts!

Thanks for helping me to understand these issues further. I can't help but think that this situation is so complicated and so many interests are involved that nothing can be solved through this action and in fact this action only further deepens the crisis. However, when there is no easy solution what can be done? Sometimes, I suppose, you have to bite the bullet and go for broke.

What if this action is even more than an effort to push the Serbs out of Kosovo? What if this is also an effort to see just what the current Soviet capabilities are? Perhaps even a push toward making them use weapons they've been developing secretly before they had intended? As in before Y2k? Also, this action could tie up the Russian military for some time and make them use what I assume might be a short supply of spare parts, etc. Could these be possibilities?

Could we be pushing this now to avoid a further and more intense ground action later if our smart weapons are affected by Y2k glitches?

Mike ========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (, March 26, 1999.

Man, you guys are way ahead of me, one of these occasionally threads that beat anything else anywhere on the Net. Notice Mitchell's point about big oil wasn't picked up, but I'll bet it's a big deal in the war rooms.

My (over?)confidence about domestic conditions next year is based largely on belief that our gov needs the folks on the farm to be fat, docile and happy (or as happy as possible) while international stuff proceeds (according to plan or accident, what's the diff in the end)? Home-front moral or, at least, acquiescence is going to be critical.

I notice this is the first "police action" since 'Nam where I would consider actively protesting, which says something, no? If ground troops are sent (and I hear on the QT that we're gearing up), watch out below.

It is plausible that DeeCee planners are purposelly poking and probing the Bear, but Clinton is so reactive and improvisational that I doubt any serious plan is involved. Could be wrong.

A key point always remains that events can/do outrun plans or improvisation. The real meaning of this week SO FAR is that Clinton chose to recklessly roll the dice. Now we're waiting to see if it comes up seven (whatever that would mean) or snake-eyes.

-- BigDog (, March 26, 1999.

I agree with most here. But I also have kicked around a little thought in my mind. War is business. Hate to admit it, but it is. Seeing that Russia is in such bad shape, could we have possibly done this to kick-start their economy? Could we be doing it because we know that there is no way that we can help them next year due to our own problems? Russia will not just give the Serbs everything. They will expect something in return, either money or food. Just something which I pondered about as I was falling asleep last night.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 26, 1999.

Just heard on CNN that two Yugoslavian MIG 29s' were shot down IN Bosnia. The gist is that they were going to attack NATO forces in that country. This is getting to be very, very, very dangerous.

The two pilots were captured.

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (, March 26, 1999.

Big Dog: I'll go out on a limb and predict we WILL be sending troops into Yugoslavia to fight. There are 10,000 NATO troops in Macedonia right now (the majority U.S.), supposedly waiting to be used as peacekeepers when Milosevic signs away Kosovo. We'll hear more reports of cross-border provocation, and the NATO commander Wesley Clark is already (March 26) signaling that bombs won't be enough. How long the softening up campaign will go on is anybody's guess.

-- Spidey (, March 26, 1999.

Well, well. Aren't there a lot of wise persons here today. All the government people are stupid and all the people who make posts on this forum know exactly what should be done. The internet has made us wise. There couldn't be any snobs or elitists here could there be? Nope, anonymous web visitors are always the most trustworthy people. The people who use real names and have to take responsibility for what they say don't count for anything . . .


-- Rick (, March 26, 1999.


I can understand your opinion. With that said, IMHO this is an event that has the potential to effect us all. It sounds like people are just coping, thinking it through, forming opinions, and having a discussion. Is it wrong?

-- Deborah (, March 26, 1999.

Hi Rick,

just a thought but it might be a good idea for you to try hanging out for a while and getting a handle on the backgrounds of the people commenting here, rather than simply posting a flame. Personally as a retired intel analyst of the military variety, and someone who always posts under my real name (and email address) I'd be interested to know what your background is and why, other than ego, you felt qualified to post that flame?

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (, March 26, 1999.

There are no retired intelligence officers.

-- @ (a@a.a), March 26, 1999.

Anonomous posted this link on another thread:


Here are some excerpts to back the point I made yesterday on this thread: Now many Russians resent being sidelined and ignored as a second-rate power whose concerns weigh little in American decisions. Russians are acutely aware of their internal problems - wage nonpayment, collapsing industry, an economic free fall - and many take this week's attack as indication of the depth of Western contempt for their struggling society. (cut) Across Russia, thousands have responded to calls to defend Yugoslavia against what they fear is a coming invasion by the United States and its NATO allies, according to Zhirinovsky's Moscow headquarters. The news of the bombing was received with the outrage one might associate with an attack on the motherland. "I am sick and tired of the American president's obnoxiousness," said Pavel Zelyunko, 18, a law student and youth activist in the Liberal Democratic Party. "They shouldn't humiliate us. If they attacked Yugoslavia without getting official permission, they could do it to us." (cut) "It's in our genes to fight. If Zhirinovsky tells us to fight, we will go fight anywhere in the world. And Yugoslavia is in our vital interests." (cut) "We will go with pleasure to fight there," said a 20-year-old police officer who gave his name only as Vitaly. "It's because of our patriotic feeling, and we are ready to defend our brothers." (cut) I wish I wasn't right. It's too scary for me to comprehend. This is going to go down as the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history.

-- Kato (, March 27, 1999.

spidey said >> "And HOW will this effect our U.S./Chinese/Russian Y2K nuclear early-warning fixes?"

found this at: http:// kosorus.htm

"The Russian Interfax reports that Moscow has also suspended cooperation with the U.S. on tackling the so-called year 2000 bug, or Y2K."

-- andrea (, March 27, 1999.


Nice catch!

-- Deborah (, March 27, 1999.

The United States is using a rocket launcher to kill grasshoppers.

It is not going to work. Serbia is not Vietnam. I was reading up on the German war today. The Germans, as we all know, had forty divisions. The Serbs had somewhat less conventional troops, but it was compensated for by the fact that every (barring Cetniks) man, woman and child in the region supported them.

Tito's Serbs had a very high casualty tolerance. They were happy to die for their country. The Germans had slightly lower morale. Do you think that the average American private (NOT saying he isn't brave) is going to eagerly fight to the last man in these mountains? Do you think that the Americans are going to go in there, accustomed to victory and NOT be shocked when this turns out to be worse than Vietnam?

If this remains an air war, NATO is safe. (Unless Russia joins, in which case it becomes a completely different matter and the odds shift radically.) But it will not remain an air war. As someone else said, there are already 10,000 UN peacekeepers in the country. Most of those are American. Pulling them out will look embarrassing. So they will have to stay. And they will come under attack. The Serbs are probably sending units in that direction now; it takes time to get around the mountains (one would assume) when you can't fly and you're carrying weapons and ammo. The US knee-jerk reaction would be to bring in more force. And it escalates.

On second thoughts, this is NOT Vietnam. Both sides have the benefit of the Vietnam experience. I don't think the Serbs are going to allow the US to safely fly helicopters ANYWHERE, and I don't think they're going to fall for a trap like Khe Sanh again (Base set provocatively up north, Vietnamese attack, and are cut to mincemeat by American firepower.) On the other hand, the United States will be seen as yet another lot of foreign invaders like the Germans fifty years ago. The US has also not learned from Vietnam by the simple fact that they are there now.


-- Leo (, March 27, 1999.

Rick: what does being a 'snob' or 'elitist' have to do with thinking about foreign policy? Your lampooning the peasants who dare to think of such lofty matters is entirely typical of the prevailing mindset in America the past fifty years: only 'experts' should discuss foreign policy. The 'people' should keep their mouths shut. This is not the way it used to be in this country: an active, vigorous debate was thought to be healthy. Not so today, huh? We the People should just keep watching our sitcoms and drinking our Buds, and leave the difficult cogitation to our betters. In fact, the real 'elitists' are the members of the managerial class, the American nomenklatura, who disregard the wishes and aspirations, beliefs and feelings of the populace and enforce the policies THEY think best for us. It is precisely this 'policy disconnected from politics' that has been the cause of such massive distrust of our government. We have an impeached President, a proven pathological liar, who orders the bombing of a sovereign nation, using an inconsistent pretext, and you wonder that people are upset? You should do yourself a favor, and go read Mark Twain's writings about the U.S./Phillipines War (easily found on the web). Was Twain a 'snob,' and 'elitist?'

-- Spidey (, March 27, 1999.

As usual another very good analysis from PNG.

The policy in E Europe is only a result of complete ignorance and double standards, it would be "politically incorrect" to intervene in Africa on racial grounds. In fact as far as Blair and Clinton are concerned there are no problems in Africa (except those due to "imperialism".

-- dick of the dale (, April 01, 1999.

The following questions were asked on another thread:

Can you say PLOESTI?

Can you see hills (Carpathians)?

It's about OIL and Romania is JUST over the HILLS!!


-- Chuck, a night driver (, April 01, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ