I have to admit, the crafty little Jewess is really dedicated at her deliberate propaganda efforts!

Dima, Igor
I don't have the arrogance to call you (or anybodyelse) "naiive" or "very young". But I could do it. Why not? It costs nothing and i would feel more inteligent.

My opinion on Kosovo has changed quiet a lot since I'm here.
I say what I feel. If you are not able to read at second degree, you will indeed find me sillier and sillier. Even worst in the future, I'm afraid.
Yes I'm not specialist in the History of the Balkan.
But it doesn't take a scientist to understand that each side has exagerated the crimes of the other while commiting theyr own.

Dima,
Don't be sorry if you completely agree with Igor. It's natural. Myself, I agree with him on many points.

Igor,
I have red the Gervasi's article when you posted the link the first time two months ago.
On my last visit to Emperorclothes I have found many links to the Trepnica mines. I would like to know how much it's valuated. It's seems in the core of the problem still I'm not sure Nato came for that.

By Chorny Volk ( - 149.99.71.49) on Tuesday, July 25, 2000 - 10:06 am:
Kim I would like to say that knowing Russian mentality that we will NEVER, NEVER become Catholics PERIOD.Personally I think the Pope is the AntiChrist.

---

Igor, your personal belief implies that you are a proChrist. Is this the case or is this a jump to to conclusions not following from the premises?

I have heard the Pope described by Catholics as the "Vicar of Christ". This means that the office of the Papacy is as a representative or "General" if you will, serving the King (which Catholics say is Jesus Christ). From what Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants say, the Antichrist is something like the devil, or Satan, incarnate. But according to what all the Christians say, the devil proclaims himself God, or King. Thus, it would seem unfitting for the devil to choose to call himself "Pope", as according to the proud nature of the devil he could not be satisfired with being merely the Pope, and so he would instead proclaim himself King, or God. Does this sound logical to you?

IT'S YOU AGAIN, CONRADSKI PORNOGRAPHIC BRITISH RAT!?
LOL

Fred "when they come the flatten everything" I don't think this is the case as far as the air war in Yugo. Actually I saw the air-war as an example on how not to conduct an air campaign. First off it was a war by commitee. Where every nation had a more or less veto on what to strike and what not to. Numerious times the US air force picked targets to hit just to have other NATO nations say no we don't want that bombed (for political or other reasons) and have the strike called off. Another reason the air war was conducted wrongly. The air force didn't go in , in the first few waves with all its resources. The air strikes were few in the beginning as compaired to later in the war. The thinking by the politicans was well send a message to Milo and he will fold instead of the military objective of going in fast and efective and as quickly as possible accomplish all military target objectives. Instead when the bombing didn't look like it was working they slowly increased it over time. Massive strikes at the beginning of the conflict could have shorted it, instead of a gradual increase of air strikes. Finnaly the resrictions put on the pilots to try to keep them out of harms way by flying so high were in conflict with the stated goals of the air force. Pilots know there job is dangerous, and they know the risks. Of course more than two aircraft would have been lost by an army shouldn't go into a conflict with the goal of zero casualties if it conflicts with the military goals. I am sure if the pilots were allowed to go in low we would have seen so many dummie targets hit.

IGOR:
the serb cafe kim lives in the UK. ireland, is it?

"our" kim lives...um..._not_ in the UK.

it's up to her to tell or not.

A "nice" view from Gonzo. Why not ask "Why going in at all?" in the first place?

Delenn,
Thanks for your last posts and links.
This will weight heavy in the balance.
remain the question: why did nato agressed FRY? For what? A military base? No way. The mines? Hmm, I'm gonna dig it out...

Delenn, I gues by "nice", you think my post was sort of warmongerish. I was posting from a military point of view after the the decision is made to go in. I believe in the Powell Doctrine when it comes to sending the military in. (The idea was followed via the Gulf War.) Bascally the doctrine states if you are going to send in the army. You need stated goals, how to accomplish thoes goals and use over-welming fire power. You don't do what Clinto did and say "hey we are not going to use ground troops. Thats a show of weekness to the other side. Plus once the guys on capitol hill and the white house send the army in they shouldn't tie one arm behind the armys back like in Vietnam and Serbia.

I understood it, Gonzo:o)
"Now let's see if I understand this correctly. President Clinton has ordered our forces to engage an entrenched, politically motivated enemy, backed by the Russians, on their home ground, in a foreign civil war, in difficult terrain, with limited military objectives, with bombing restrictions, boundary and operational restrictions, queasy allies, far across an ocean, with uncertain goals, without prior consultation with Congress, having the potential for escalation, while limiting the forces at his disposal, and while the majority of Americans are opposed to, or are at best uncertain about, the value of the action being worth American lives.

---

So, what was it that Clinton was opposed to during Vietnam?"
-Lt.Gen. Tom Griffin USA (ret.)
* I think, I posted it already before ... . My apologies.

by Fred:
"""Yes I'm not specialist in the History of the Balkan. """

---

I might just add that it doesn't take a specialist to know a bit of Balkan history, just check out some sites, find out what happend prior to the conflict. In your own words, dig into it, Fred!
..in a meanwhile, perhaps those of us who've better knowledge could be of an assistance. Bon chance.

ber-STEEEN:

consider asking we assembled for whom you speak.
i for one am pretty [expletive] tired of your
notion that you speak for moi.
===
BACON:
so what are _you_ 'dedicated' to, anyway? grade
school recess taunts? sucka.
===
jo m. :
i should have chosen yellow lettering, not blue.
hope it was readable.
===
my liege:
gee i love it when a post of mine is followed by
one of yours.
looks like that 'rejexion'/return this morning was
a fluke; nothing followed after it. hoping twas a
fluke, i am.
===
igor:
dunno if you care about baseball, but i believe
the phrase "it aint over 'till it's over"
originated w/'50s ballplayer yogi berra, who
coined quite a few phrases of that sort.

I have never seen that quote, its right on the nose. Thanks.

Fred, my pleasure.
Interesting view for musings.

Gonzo, glad, You like it.