Ed's Y2K and Kosovo essay

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999

Answers

There you are ANDY, the boss says this is On Topic. Go for it. :-)

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 19, 1999.

I think this essay is right on the money.

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), April 19, 1999.

You raise some good questions here, Ed.

-- pshannon (pshannon@sangersreview.com), April 19, 1999.

Ed,

I think that there are other connections between Y2K and Kosovo. The Administration and big business have so spun Y2K that they have lulled most people into doing nothing. The congress is now debating whether to reduce Y2K spending. At a time when the entire world should be concentrating on Y2k repairs and preparedness, we are distracted with a bitter civil war. I hate to see what is happening to the refugees. Unfortunately, the Administration's indignation is very selective. They say nothing about the blight of the Kurds and many other peoples. The world needs to pull together right now. War is only compounding the Y2K disaster.

-- Incredulous (ytt000@aol.com), April 19, 1999.

Ed makes clear his essay is not about why or who, it's about what.

What it is is a serious pondering of the Nato governments being woefully out of their respective depths with the Kosovo refugee tragedy, yet claiming they knew there would be a flood of refugees (because they think it's worse than admitting they DIDN'T know, maybe?) Ed's thesis is if the Nato governments can't handle this situation, how in the hell can they handle Y2K problems?

If any of us on this forum thought the US government (or any government) was capable of handling the vast problems that may well result from Y2K, we wouldn't be storing food and supplies; we'd simply plan to let the government take care of us. But we know the US government can't take care of all of us. We also know there are those in the government who, through ignorance or design, are not nearly as forthcoming as they should be about Y2K preparations. (That sentence a classic example of British understatment.) All we can do is keep preparing and making attempts to educate others (without compromising ourselves). And when you feel you have enough stashed or that Y2K won't be so bad, think again about those pictures of exhausted and hungry people at the very end of their tether, and stash some more.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), April 19, 1999.

Ed

Your wife hit the nail on the head - if they saw the refugee problem coming- why was nothing done to alleviate the circumstances before the problem became so severe? If they didn't - talk about ostrich brains - hidden in the sand and as big as your eye - shame on them.

Y2K is the same situation. Either they know it is going to cause many major problems and shame on them for not warning us to get ready. After all, they track storms for days to tell us when and where and how bad. They aren't even being consistant with that!!! Or they are going to try a bandaid on a broken leg and say gee - isn't that what you use on a broken leg? Duh.

I worry that our resources for disaster will be all used up by the time we get to January by the blundering in Kosovo. What will be left to aid ourselves (the non prepared) if we have already given it all away? And if we can't help ourselves, we surely will not be able to help anyone else in the world get back on their feet, and that will make our recovery longer than necessary with more suffering than necessary. You would think with all the world wide media coverage, we would be more world wise. Truly a sad state of affairs.

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.net), April 19, 1999.

Excellent Ed. Thanks for your thoughts, I share them.

The geopolitical field now playing out across the globe as you read this, is the canvas that Y2K and all its portents will be painted on.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 20, 1999.

Very good,Ed. An essay on Kosovo that makes sense ans doesn't rant and actually ties in Y2K. How refreshing for this board.

-- y2klady (no@flames.com), April 20, 1999.

Hats off to Ed and his wife for their insight and an excellent essay. I don't think anyone should expect the government at any level to be there to care and provide for them and it seems to be a typical response of most DWGI's that that is exactly what they expect to happen. I just don't think "they" have a clue.

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 20, 1999.

No one has a good crystal ball. No one can accurately predict the future. The gov (ours and 18 others) has no exit strategy. They had hoped for one (and only one) outcome and it didn't happen that way. So, I still don't buy a connection even a weak one like "If the best strategic planners of the United States and 18 other NATO countries were unable to predict what would happen when they started bombing, why on earth would you believe they'll be able to predict the consequences of Y2K?" No one can say for sure what will happen.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 1999.

Ed 

A lot can be connected by inference anytime you cite the incompetence of politicians and bureaucrats to handle real-life emergencies outside their own normal concerns. Examples abound.

Many Americans (20%?) live in life-threatening or -debilitating conditions already. (Abused children and spouses, ghetto youths, immigrant sweatshop workers, Native Americans on reservations, alcoholics and street-dwellers, etc.) Politicians have not "solved" these problems, and they will not solve the plight of millions more joining them under y2k conditions.

War is a different type of emergency, often self-inflicted, with an active, conscious opponent. The fog of war is well-documented by military historians, if not well-known to military planners.

The inability of bureaucratic government and military managers to foresee the fierce resistance of an "enemy" with a different agenda from their bureaucratic mindset -- and a different set of parameters for "victory"  takes us back to Robert McNamara and the U.S. slide into the quicksand of the Vietnam War, managed for us by the "best and brightest" managerial minds that could be found.

If Bill Clinton isnt about the "brightest" Pres weve had in decades. And by taking incremental steps at each decision point, he may find himself in LBJs position. He may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of impeachment "victory".

The inadvertent expandability and irreversibility of war actions is something that just always seems veiled from the eyes of government planners as they steer us toward the waterfall. And war is certainly more of a known item than y2k.

I was a conscientious objector and Vietnam draft resister at 19. I did not leave the country, or hide in a student deferment. In fact, I mailed back my 2-S card to my draft board with a letter explaining my refusal. They sent me a 1-A. I mailed them the ashes from my private burning ceremony. Later, when I applied for C.O. status (I had to think hard about even that level of cooperation) they turned me down. The draft lottery saved me from facing a 5-year jail term.

Because of my firm stand then, I can face Vietnam vets today knowing I took risks in support of my belief that NO ONE, including them, should have gone off to that war.

I was a pacifist then. That was the war I knew at 19. I knew it was immoral, murderous, and equivalent to a My Lai massacre every day. I also saw it was bad policy. I would have opposed it on either count. Im not sure I opposed it merely because it was "War", so Im not now sure of my credentials as "pacifist". Yet nearly every instance of war Ive seen is thoroughly saturated with greed and/or stupidity. I would think war-as-policy advocates in this century have the tougher case to make.

In practice, the acceptance of war as an option is a SLIPPERY SLOPE that  I believe  no one except pacifists or near-pacifists seriously questions. The bias thus is toward war actions.

I dont believe that a pacifist could be elected U.S. president, or make the real world decisions a president must make. I believe the U.S. should never have come to this role as the worlds cop, but from this current position is where we must decide and make our moves.

I suggest that an enlightened history by any human survivors a century from now would state that the U.S. from its pinnacle of power in the Bush/Clinton 1990s MISSED an historic opportunity to alter the future course for the better by DE-MILITARIZING world affairs.

My point is that at least the availability of a near-pacifist perspective would make it easier to argue the national policy option of "doing nothing" militarily in a provocative situation like Kosovo, and possibly search harder for better outcomes. With that non-military perspective excluded  shunned (as my flamers may soon confirm)  we blunder from "lucky" fiasco (Somalia) to unlucky fiasco. I mean, isnt bombing Belgrade  a European capital  REALLY STUPID? From a realpolitik angle (Henry K, r u watching?) or any other long-term view?

Considering that the U.S. has undertaken "black ops" to overthrow or undermine governments in dozens of countries since WW2, should I even be ranting when they go after someone with overt weapons? I guess Im wondering where these events proved different in the run-up. Did Milosevic hire Fidel Castros (successful so far) bodyguards and cigar-testers?

Since Desert Storm, we have seen the mass consumer market driving SUVs that look to me like military vehicles, and the media glorification of most things military. Exactly the WRONG direction to be going in the post-Cold War era, but understandable as part of a Military-Industrial Complex preservation agenda.

I also suspect that BJC got what I call the Donald Sutherland lecture (from Oliver Stones "JFK"): Dont mess with the Company, the military, the M-I Complex, or we cant assure your safety from "renegade elements". (Hey  I wonder if thats what happened to LBJ too  I mean, he HATED Kennedys guys in the Pentagon, but he still went their way on Vietnam).

Ed has opened the parallel between current crisis and crisis several months ahead. I believe actual y2k events will soon focus our minds more astutely on y2k specifics. In the absence of much "hard" y2k news now, it is worth reviewing our collective experience with government incompetence in general, if only to discard it from our planning screens ASAP.

Sorry for the long post -- I hope it qualifies at least as "provocative thinking" for some here.

I wonder if y2k will prove to be the final  or at least next  big BUMP in the bureaucratic managerial power vision for controlling society. Vietnam was their first "bump in the road," eh? Has Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap (b. 1912- ) survived to witness another Dien Bien Phu for the West? Or as Spanky (Little Rascals) told us many times, "They never learn."

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.com), April 20, 1999.

...And another thing. "If the best strategic planners of the United States and 18 other NATO countries were unable to predict what would happen when they started bombing, why on earth would you believe they'll be able to predict the consequences of Y2K?"

Let me just put a few different words in this statement, "If the best Y2K experts (like Ed Yourdon) were unable to predict what would happen on 1/1/99 and 4/1/99, why on earth would you believe they'll be able to predict the consequences of Y2K [on 1/1/00]?"

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 1999.

Good essay, ED.

Perhaps Kosovo will serve as a global government eye-opening experience for additional Y2K contingency planning. Lets hope they connect-the-dots.

Here's another question you might want to mull over, with only 256 days to Jan 1, 2000 ...

... If a large portion of the Reservists and National Guard are activated for Kosovo -- understanding their allowed tour-of-duty is 270 days -- this means a good protion will be out of the country and unable to be called upon for State Y2K support.

Who will be called on to assist the unknown, multiple and simultaneous events the government is expecting locally? Will it be the Marine Urban Warriors?

Personally, Id rather have the National Guard, guard, protect and serve the local interests. They have a better, more humanitarian history of doing so.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.

Maria,

I think you've missed the point of the essay.

There is no doubt what so ever that the future is unknown and left to speculation. However, it isn't difficult to look at a situation as complex as the interconnected and interdependent computerized world we live in and imagine that problems that result from failures in that system would be equally complex and interconnected.

Take that situation and combine it with the fact that the government has chosen to keep formal preparations (if any) quiet regarding Y2k. And consider that the government has hired PR people to spin the situation and control panic. This suggests to me that they have looked at the complexity of problems resulting from Y2k and tried to plan for those projected possibilities. Too bad they aren't telling us and only trying to pacify us.

You raise a point regarding a crystal ball, etc., and it's a great point. But, there are people who are paid specifically to project and plan based upon probabilities and possible outcomes. The military is THE place where such planning is fine tuned and it's become an art. Anyone who could possibly believe that refugees would not become a reality as a result of military action is delusional. Why? I would suspect that history shows that refugees are typically a result of a military conflict. Furthermore, given the recent history of the region, it would be likely that refugees would be a certainty. So, for me, the fact that NATO did not prepare for a situation they "knew" would occur and that they gave destabilization including refugees as a reason for intervention raises concerns regarding how shortsighted the may be in other areas. Or, perhaps, the military planners know exactly what to expect and it's the politicians in 18 countries that have been shortsighted.

Y2k is not like any war or disaster ever seen before. There are no firm borders and there is no geopolitical or ethnic or religious or moral right or wrong. There are no experts on Y2k. We only have those that know the complexity of the system they helped to create or perpetuate, those (like me) that wrestle with trying to understand that system, and still more that don't have a clue, don't wanna know, don't care.

So, who will I chose to listen to? The grunt on the front line that sees the enemy and recognizes his strengths and weaknesses or the Politician a half a world away that is getting ready to send the grunt right into an ambush?

People like Ed have helped to provide the recon to help evaluate the situation. You chose to disregard the information and attack the grunt before pushing on into battle, blindly. My choice is to listen to the grunt, plan ahead and hope for the best possible outcome.

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 20, 1999.

Mike,

You stated it Or, perhaps, the military planners know exactly what to expect and it's the politicians in 18 countries that have been shortsighted. Clinton has no military experience and has shown that ignorance on many occasions. One doesnt learn the military by smoking dope and evading the draft. I can honestly say that the military is definitely a you-had-to-be-there kind of experience. The military knows how to fight wars, no doubt about it, but they also carry out the orders. In this case, Clintons orders dont necessarily follow normal military practices but they are obligated to carry them out. Clinton definitely failed military law 101, first and foremost you need an objective.

If this conflict indicates the fallible nature of politicians, Ill agree. But as the questions states, this draws a connection between Kosovo and Y2K. I disagree with that connection. To say that they planned poorly for this conflict, therefore they will plan poorly for Y2K extrapolates beyond logical reasoning. The politicians are not planning for Y2K but they simply give the orders, its the lower echelons that carry out the orders. Im counting on these grunts to understand the system better than the politicians and develop some realistic plans.

Politicians are just that, not necessarily trained in any particular arena. They know little about IT (expect for Al Gore who created the internet ;). For this reason, I wont listen to them (or Ed Yourdon who has the same predictive powers as the politicians) about how to plan for Y2K. I listen to my own research and personal experiences.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 1999.

Marias comments ...

... If this conflict indicates the fallible nature of politicians, Ill agree.

... The politicians are not planning for Y2K but they simply give the orders, its the lower echelons that carry out the orders.

... Im counting on these grunts to understand the system better than the politicians and develop some realistic plans.

[So, despite the infallible political leaders giving orders you expect the grunts to develop realistic plans. Sounds, good Maria.

But if you shift your same logic to say that because Clinton is the leader, and the military takes his orders, hence we have a Kosovo mess, why can that NOT be extrapolated to the potential Y2K mess?]

Marias additional comments ...

... The military knows how to fight wars, no doubt about it, but they also carry out the orders.

... Clintons orders dont necessarily follow normal military practices but they are obligated to carry them out. Clinton definitely failed military law 101, first and foremost you need an objective.

... Clinton has no military experience and has shown that ignorance on many occasions.

[Why can we not assume then, Maria, that he will continue to show ignorance and not follow normal military or other practices, all the while supported, or not, by infallible political leaders, not defining a clear Y2K objective?

I would extrapolate that Y2K concerns could also be messed up by these same groups. Its partly WHY we are concerned about Y2K inaction and hidden actions.]

Marias end comment ...

.. I listen to my own research and personal experiences.

[So do we, Maria.]

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.

Diane, Y2K does have a clear objective unlike Kosovo.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 1999.

"Diane, Y2K does have a clear objective unlike Kosovo."

Maria, I guess my view the world is 180: off of yours. My view is quite the opposite and much closer to Diane's.

Y2k is a complete unknown and the chaos that results is left to absolute speculation. What puzzles me is that you made this point earlier when you said that no one could predict the outcome. I agree. It is the unknown future of Y2k that provides me comfort one day and terror the next. I see Y2k as a dynamic, morphing monster that has no paticular shape and certainly no agenda.

NATO's actions in Kosovo do have clear objectives. I listen to the briefings everyday from the State Dept., the Pentagon and NATO and the objectives are clear. The conflict would have been over long ago if Milosevic would simply withdraw his forces from the Kosovo theater and allow "peacekeeper" to go in.

The point was that the refugee problem was not something that was accounted for immediately. If I am correct in my reading of the essay, it was the shortsightedness on that issue that was being questioned.

However, I appreciate your perspective : )

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 20, 1999.

Yes we do agree on the nonexistence of a good crystal ball on this issue.

But we disagree on the similarity between Kosovo and Y2K. You use the term shortsightedness and I use the term objective. I think they may mean the same thing. The statement (or any portion of it) "The conflict would have been over long ago if Milosevic would simply withdraw his forces from the Kosovo theater and allow "peacekeeper" to go in" is not a military objective. In a military objective you have to consider ways to achieve a desired outcome. Yeah, we got the part on outcome but not the means. The objective also has to include the "what if" and the next steps to obtaining the objective of a withdraw of Kosovo forces. I posted, "They had hoped for one (and only one) outcome and it didn't happen that way." For a clear objective, they needed to consider other possibilites to achieve the outcome. This represents both shortsightedness and unclear objectives. Their shortsightedness was that they didn't finish the military planning process. Also this thinking came from the politicians; Kosovo is not a war yet when the military ("grunts") act in the day-day planning and follow "normal" processes.

Y2K on the other hand is not like the Kosovo attack. The objectives are so clear, we can conduct this IT project in our sleep. And we are fixing it, spending billions of $. We are thinking about contingency planning and "what if" scenarios. We don't need the politicians to get the job done. They don't need to tell us what to do; we know our systems better than they do. They don't need to state any objectives, they don't need to develop our plans, they don't need to test our systems. It's not Kosovo; we're not the military following unclear NATO objectives. So back to the original question, why should we believe the politician's predictions on Y2K? I go back to my crystal ball: I don't believe anyone's (including Ed's) prediction on Y2K.

As Diane said to my comment on I rely on my own research and personal experiences "So do we, Maria"

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 1999.

Maria, Y2K also has a clear DEADLINE unlike Kosovo.

With an IT industry reputation well-known for "slippage." And the problem is global, national, regional and local ... in addition to being exponentially more complex, not to mention "political" dynamite.

But, you know that already.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 20, 1999.

The politicians aren't so incompetent at what they do, which is to get elected. They know the following about Kosovo: (1) There isn't exactly overwhelming popular support for this action; (2) Most Americans have a very limited understanding of Yugoslavian issues or history; (3) Most American's don't really know what our military goals are there; and (4) Votors understand American casualties very well indeed.

This leaves the choice pretty clear: if you have to choose between low casualties and achieving military goals, you choose the low casualties. No doubt about it. The military knew this perfectly well, and surely got exactly they results they expected. Their hands were tied.

How, how has Big Ed missed the obvious political realities here, and come up with his hilarious "military planners are stupid, therefore government y2k planners must be just as stupid" theory? Well, it might not be realistic and it might not be logical, but Big Ed has this agenda, see...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 20, 1999.

FLINT ALERT! FLINT ALERT! The Flint who gets nervous when he starts thinking Y2K will be more than a bump has been overcome again by the polly Flint. STAY TUNED FOR MORE DETAILS AS THEY EMERGE ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 20, 1999.

MESSENGER ATTACK! Oh, it's only Big Dog, doing his best to address the issues. Back to sleep.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 20, 1999.

Diane glad to see you agree that Y2K isn't so connected to Kosovo ("Maria, Y2K also has a clear DEADLINE unlike Kosovo"). Unfortunately you're right about that. *Sigh* (as you would say). Too bad they didn't think of an exit strategy.

You also stated, "despite the infallible political leaders giving orders you expect the grunts to develop realistic plans. Sounds, good Maria. But if you shift your same logic to say that because Clinton is the leader, and the military takes his orders, hence we have a Kosovo mess, why can that NOT be extrapolated to the potential Y2K mess?" Because we are not the military. Again Diane you missed my point that the military is a "you-had-to-be-there" kind of experience and you cannot extrapolate that to Y2K. You haven't trained for combat, have you? I have. There is no way I can explain that to you. There is no way anyone can explain that to Clinton. The actors is "saving private ryan" have more experience in the military than Clinton. *Sigh* Once Clinton gives the orders, they must be followed just like a machine put in motion. The military wasn't consulted on this; it's NATO planning (or lack thereof).

If Ed had said that he didn't trust politicians in any situation, therefore politicians can't be trusted in Y2K matters, I could agree with that. But to say "he screwed up on Kosovo, so he's going to screw up with Y2K", is not valid, no matter how you twist it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 20, 1999.

i thought ed's essay was great. i bet he has suspicions about some other connections, but is too professional to give in to wild speculation. i have my own wild theories, which are actually different from any i've seen so far on this board, and they are strictly for fun. i refuse to be serious about the whole bizarre situation.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), April 20, 1999.

I notice Meerkat (No Spam) is conspicuous by his absence on this thread.

Thanks Ed - great piece, as usual!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 21, 1999.

I would like to thank Maria, Flint, and all the other polly trolls too numerous to mention...oh what the hell, Y2K Pro, Mutha, Paul Davis, Decker, CJS, RMS, Dan T.P.M., Doomslayer, and yes, even you Norm, for keeping me sane these past few months. Without the drivel that you spout, with its rambling, confused, and intellectually bankrupt arguments, I may have succumbed long ago to the mass media and government brainwashing that all was well. You guys probably don't realize it, but your very presence seems to be reaffirming what most of us GIs have believed all along - that we get it, and you guys don't.

Thanks again!

-- a (a@a.a), April 21, 1999.

This article is the clearest I've seen on what is going on with Kosovo. It explains why Republicans like Kirkpatrick, Kissinger, etc are fully behind victory in this war.

We are in the millennial endgame as revealed in Martin's "Keys of this Blood". Q: Do they realize that the endgame must be ended by 2000?

Russia's ability to attack the U.S. has been fully documented on newsmax.com. Failure to prepare is foolishness. Psalm 2 and 91. ============================

NATO's Real Target: Russia

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

By Samuel L. Blumenfeld ) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

You don't have to be a paranoid Russian nationalist to understand NATO's geopolitical strategy. All you have to do is read the "NATO Review" of Spring 1999 which I found sitting on a magazine shelf in my local public library. In it are the communiques released by NATO regarding its new Strategic Concept, mandated by the Heads of State and Government at their summit meeting in Madrid in July 1997. The Review states that the Alliance is now "ready and with a full range of capabilities to enhance security and stability for countries in the Euro-Atlantic area in the 21st century, including through cooperation and partnership." While NATO has been expanded to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, nations close to the Russian border, the key concept in NATO's expanded mandate is that of "partnerships" which offer military and political cooperation with nations far beyond the North Atlantic treaty area. Indeed, NATO is busy solidifying its partnerships with Ukraine, which borders Russia, and the nations of the Southern Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, once part of the Soviet Union. We read in the Review: "Increased regional cooperation is gaining momentum, and we fully support the Alliance's work with Partners to develop a political-military framework for NATO-led Partnership for Peace operations, which is intended to be finalised, in tandem with the Strategic Concept, in time for the Washington Summit."

Anyone who plays chess -- and the Russians are masters at the game -- can see what NATO is doing creating military-political partnerships around a weakened and unstable Russia. NATO has to prove to its partners that it has the muscle and the will to impose its hegemony over a possible adversary, such as a Russia taken over by rabid nationalists or communists or spinning into chaos. Russia still has an arsenal of nuclear missiles, making it potentially a very dangerous country. That is why victory over Yugoslavia is absolutely essential if NATO is to represent the strength and resolve of the western powers. Russia will be a much tougher nut to crack than Yugoslavia, and if NATO cannot crush small, defenseless Yugoslavia, what chance will it have of crushing Russia?

Russia is the target because it is the world's largest country with the world's largest untapped natural resources. Its present weakness presents the west with a rare opportunity to impose its control over that vast country, which will have to be broken up into smaller more manageable states. All of this may take World War III to accomplish, but that's what world wars are supposed to do: remake the map of the world.

NATO is the military arm of the Council on Foreign Relations internationalists. It does not represent the will of the American people or even the United Nations. That is why it circumvented both Congress and the United Nations Security Council. Russia and China sit on the Security Council, and they would have vetoed the assault on Yugoslavia. Congress, of course, is no great problem. It has long abdicated its role as the body that declares war. In fact, Congress has not declared war since 1941 when it declared war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. And the Senate has not even confirmed the new treaty obligations inherent in NATO's Strategic Concept.

What we actually have now is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional rule by the CFR elite and their minions in the Clinton administration. They will lead us into World War III because it is only in the extreme conditions of an all-out war that vast and permanent political changes can be made nationally and internationally. Bombing Belgrade was the first salvo in this new world war which in the end may lead to the dismemberment of the world's largest nation. And NATO expects to do it with the help of the Moslems within the Russian federation, which is another reason why it backs the Moslem Albanians over the Christian Serbs.

The NATO Review tells us: "Stability in the Southern Caucasus is of great interest to Alliance member countries and to NATO as a whole, as demonstrated by Secretary General Javier Solana's visits to the region in 1997 and again last autumn. ... Azerbaijan has intensified its cooperation with NATO over the last few years and developed a Partnership course at the Military Academy in Baku. The country will also host a meeting of the Atlantic Policy Advisory Group with partner countries in May 1999."

No wonder the Russians are worried. But NATO has been clever enough to create a NATO-Russia permanent Joint Council (PJC) to encourage cooperation in such fields as civil emergency planning and defense-related environmental projects. This agreement reminds us of the Hitler-Stalin pact, which was meant to lull Russia into believing that Hitler had no ill intentions against the Soviet Union. It also reminds us that Napoleon tried to conquer Russia and failed, and Hitler tried and failed.

As Malachi Martin observed in his book, The Keys of This Blood, the Transnational-Internationalists are in an all-out, no holds barred struggle for world hegemony, and that once that hegemony is achieved, "our way of life as individuals and as citizens of nations; our families and jobs; our trade and commerce and money; our educational systems and our religions and our cultures; even the badges of our national identity, which most of us have always taken for granted -- all will have been powerfully and radically altered forever."

For those who think that the civilized gentlemen and ladies of the CFR and the State Department, who ordered bombs to be dropped on Yugoslavia, are incapable of getting us involved in a world conflagration, I can only draw attention to the civilized trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace who, in 1908, discussed what it would take to change the thinking and attitudes of a nation, and they decided that it was war. What followed were two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, and a host of smaller wars. Yesterday's peaceniks have become today's rabid warmongers. Go figure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Samuel L. Blumenfeld is author of "Is Public Education Necessary?" and seven other books on education. His books are available on Amazon.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), April 21, 1999.

a, I am so very glad "...for keeping me sane these past few months." I can't imagine what your posts would be if you were any more unintelligible than you already are. And if you're this close to the edge, let me suggest you find a good psychologist and fast!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 21, 1999.