Federalist insolence (1)
Philip Neal
From the BBC web site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1100000/1100332.stm
<begin quote>
European Commission President Romano Prodi has said he wants to know the
truth about the effect of Nato weapons on soldiers who served in the
Balkans, and on the civilian population.
<snip>
In an interview with Italian state radio, he said that weapons using
depleted uranium (DU) should be abolished, if they posed any risk to human
health.
<snip>
"The commission must ascertain the truth, concerning not just our soldiers
but also those who were living alongside them, the civilians," said Mr
Prodi.
<end quote>
Some of us remember the assurances given by Tony Blair and Robin Cook
before, during and after the negotiation of the treaty of Nice that the
European Commission would continue to have no competence in matters of
defence. Now Prodi presumes to meddle in questions of military tactics and
refers to NATO soldiers as 'ours': he plainly has not given up his dream of
an EU army.
Is Blair deceiving himself or just deceiving us?
And when will Prodi be sacked without a pension?
Philip Neal
paulo...@my-deja.com
Mr. Prodi is an Italian citizen; we was speaking to Italian state
radio. We mentioned "our" soldiers (or, more likely 'i nostri
soldati'). I must say I don't find anything strange on that. Unless, of
course, there is something wrong in being Italian.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Richard Gregory
>
> From the BBC web site
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1100000/1100332.stm
>
> <begin quote>
>
> European Commission President Romano Prodi has said he wants to know the
> truth about the effect of Nato weapons on soldiers who served in the
> Balkans, and on the civilian population.
>
> <snip>
>
> In an interview with Italian state radio, he said that weapons using
> depleted uranium (DU) should be abolished, if they posed any risk to human
> health.
Perhaps Mr Prodi isn't aware that weapons are specifically designed to
pose a risk to human health. :-D
paulo...@my-deja.com
Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Mr Prodi isn't aware that weapons are specifically designed to
> pose a risk to human health. :-D
>
Yes, but they were supposed to damage your enemies' health, not your
own.
I do not align in conspirational theories, but is there a reason why no
British or American soldiers seem to have their health damaged?
Herman Beun
>I do not align in conspirational theories, but is there a reason why no
>British or American soldiers seem to have their health damaged?
They do: the first stories about Gulf War Syndrome came from Britain
and the US. The difference with other countries is just that the
British and US governments keep denying something is wrong and refuse
doing tests. Ostrich politics, if you ask me.
See also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1101000/1101672.stm
Herman
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herman Beun http://www.bigfoot.com/~hermanb/
Her...@bigfoot.com Brussel, Vlaanderen
-------------------------------------------------------------
European Parliament, ELDR (NL-D66), http://www.vanderlaan.net
-------------------------------------------------------------
*representative democracy is a contradiction in 4 year terms*
-------------------------------------------------------------
jhw
"rosignol" <rosi...@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:rosignol-
>>>>>>> We've been using them for years, with no reports of leukemia
outbreaks
> in soldiers handling them. The Veteran's associations over here would be
> rabid if this turned out to be the case...
>
> I think it more likely to be exposure to a chemical agent that caused
> this, but more investigation is needed before coming to any conclusions.
>
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > In an interview with Italian state radio, he said that weapons using
> > depleted uranium (DU) should be abolished, if they posed any risk to
> > human health.
>
>
> We don't make anyone else use them. If Mr. Prodi thinks he can tell the
> US to *stop* using them, he's being a bit presumptuous.
<>>>>>>>>>>
Mr Prodi went on to say that even if there is no threat to health from
these weapons, we still do not want them to be used.
This is the real issue, problems of health may have been invented as with
gulf war syndrome, but fear has been instilled in people.
John
> --
> If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
> -anon
Feeling better already.
Richard Gregory
>
> Italy is a NATO member, I expect he was referring to Italian troops
> participating in a NATO operation.
Nope. As Commission President he should know better than to speak
on such matters. After all, the US President is not referring
to his/her home state when speaking of "our". The same applies
to Mr Prodi. As recently with H. Fischer in Germany, such persons
should be aware that any statements they make are likely to
be interpreted as coming from the office rather than the person.
H. Fischer had to later state he was speaking "in a personal
capacity".
> > Is Blair deceiving himself or just deceiving us?
>
> I doubt Mr. Blair has anything to do with this. Mr. Prodi's comments
> seem to be motivated by concern for the health of those serving in
> uniform, which is entirely appropriate.
As a private individual yes, in the capacity of EC President
no. It is not within his area of competence.
> > And when will Prodi be sacked without a pension?
>
> I think that would be an overreaction.
IMHO this is a reference to the Commissioners who resigned
in disgrace keeping all the perks of office including full
pension rights.
Aris Katsaris
> In article <t5cgcmr...@corp.supernews.co.uk>, "jhw"
> <Xj...@nildram.co.ukX> wrote:
>
> [zap]
>
> > Mr Prodi went on to say that even if there is no threat to health from
> > these weapons, we still do not want them to be used.
>
>
I don't think that anybody has recently started a war with you, and yet
they *were* used.
Aris Katsaris
paulo...@my-deja.com
Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> rosignol wrote:
> >
>
> > Italy is a NATO member, I expect he was referring to Italian troops
> > participating in a NATO operation.
>
> Nope. As Commission President he should know better than to speak
> on such matters. After all, the US President is not referring
> to his/her home state when speaking of "our". The same applies
> to Mr Prodi. As recently with H. Fischer in Germany, such persons
> should be aware that any statements they make are likely to
> be interpreted as coming from the office rather than the person.
> H. Fischer had to later state he was speaking "in a personal
> capacity".
listening. And that J(oschka), not H.
Richard Gregory
He also had to make a public statement afterwords.
> And that J(oschka), not H.
"H." short for "Herr".
Oh, and it's "that's" not "that".
paulo...@my-deja.com
Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> paulo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A5626...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> > Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> > > rosignol wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Italy is a NATO member, I expect he was referring to Italian
troops
> > > > participating in a NATO operation.
> > >
> > > Nope. As Commission President he should know better than to speak
> > > on such matters. After all, the US President is not referring
> > > to his/her home state when speaking of "our". The same applies
> > > to Mr Prodi. As recently with H. Fischer in Germany, such persons
> > > should be aware that any statements they make are likely to
> > > be interpreted as coming from the office rather than the person.
> > > H. Fischer had to later state he was speaking "in a personal
> > > capacity".
>
> > He said that BEFORE he started speaking; but you probably weren't
> > listening.
>
> He also had to make a public statement afterwords.
He didn't have to make. He made it because it seems some people are
deaf; he said that BEFORE he started speaking. It should be enough.
> > And that J(oschka), not H.
>
> "H." short for "Herr".
So es müss eine neue Abkürzung sein; ich habe gelernt, dass die
Abkürzen "hr." ist. Aber veilleicht Ihne Kenntnis der deutschen Sprache
ist besser als Ihre Kenntnis der europäischen Geschischte?
>
> Oh, and it's "that's" not "that".
Quando o <ironia> M. Gregory </ironia> começar a cometer erros noutras
língua que não a sua, eu começarei a aceitar as suas críticas. Mas só
então.
Cumprimentos,
Paulo Rocha
Till M Ruessmann
<paulo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:93ib40$90b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Almost correct. But considering all the languages which you appar to master
at presumably such a level : you seem to be a sort of linguistic wunderkind
:-)
paulo...@my-deja.com
Almost correct? My German or the fact that "H." is not used as an
abbreviation for "Herr" in German?
And linguistic Wünderkind? I was writing in Polish 'could you please
write easier Polish'. My Dutch is not that good either.
But let me tell an amusing true story. When I was twelve, I had to
start learning a second foreign language at school; I had started with
English at age ten. So, since my school hadn't enough students
requiring German, I had to learn French- and I hated it. I thought "why
should I learn French when English is enough?". Of course, I'll forever
be thankful for whichever minister was responsable for having me learn
French against my will- and I'm not being ironic.
Grüssen,
Till M Ruessmann
<paulo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:93l44k$muj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Gd676.28874$0d.22...@nnrp4.clara.net>,
> "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote:
> >
> > <paulo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:93ib40$90b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3A5A1E...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> > > Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > "H." short for "Herr".
> > >
> > > So es müss eine neue Abkürzung sein; ich habe gelernt, dass die
> > > Abkürzen "hr." ist. Aber veilleicht Ihne Kenntnis der deutschen
> Sprache
> > > ist besser als Ihre Kenntnis der europäischen Geschischte?
> >
> > Almost correct. But considering all the languages which you appar to
> master
> > at presumably such a level : you seem to be a sort of linguistic
> wunderkind
> > :-)
> >
> Almost correct? My German or the fact that "H." is not used as an
> abbreviation for "Herr" in German?
The correct text is:
"So, es muss eine neue Abkürzung sein; ich habe gelernt, dass die
Abkürzung "Hr." ist. Aber vielleicht ist Ihne Kenntnis der deutschen
Sprache besser als Ihre Kenntnis der europäischen Geschichte?"
Just some spellings and a minor misplacement of a verb of a fairly
complicated sentence.
As for Hr. - I have not got the foggiest. I always say Herr, because it is
just one letter more (if counting the period).
> And linguistic Wünderkind? I was writing in Polish 'could you please
> write easier Polish'.
I see. Then I probably cannot impress you with "Den katalavai hellinika" (or
something like this) which is supposed to mean "I do not speak any Greek".
> My Dutch is not that good either.
> But let me tell an amusing true story. When I was twelve, I had to
> start learning a second foreign language at school; I had started with
> English at age ten. So, since my school hadn't enough students
> requiring German, I had to learn French- and I hated it. I thought "why
> should I learn French when English is enough?". Of course, I'll forever
> be thankful for whichever minister was responsable for having me learn
> French against my will- and I'm not being ironic.
I hated French too. Almost as much as English. The latter changed. The
former - moi, je ne parle pas francais du tout.
> Grüssen,
How do you fabricate the umlaut, do you use the Alt key?
Grüsse
> Paulo Rocha
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Guelle, guelle
Till
Richard Gregory
>
> > He also had to make a public statement afterwords.
>
> He didn't have to make. He made it because it seems some people are
> deaf; he said that BEFORE he started speaking. It should be enough.
Yes, he did. There was such an uproar caused by his speech that
it caused some embarassment to the German Government. That was
the reason, not that "some people are deaf". And it plainly WASN'T
enough.
>
> > > And that J(oschka), not H.
> >
> > "H." short for "Herr".
>
> So es müss eine neue Abkürzung sein; ich habe gelernt, dass die
> Abkürzen "hr." ist. Aber veilleicht Ihne Kenntnis der deutschen Sprache
> ist besser als Ihre Kenntnis der europäischen Geschischte?
>
> >
> > Oh, and it's "that's" not "that".
> Quando o <ironia> M. Gregory </ironia> começar a cometer erros noutras
> língua que não a sua, eu começarei a aceitar as suas críticas. Mas só
> então.
> Cumprimentos,
> Paulo Rocha
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
I'm sure I'm very impressed by your reaction to my pointing out a very
minor error in punctuation. After all, the only reason I did so
was your assuming I'd got the chap's name wrong.
I'm glad you found it entertaining.
Herman Beun
<till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote:
>How do you fabricate the umlaut, do you use the Alt key?
In a Windows environment, install the "US International" keyboard
driver. It allows you to use all the accents on your keyboard in the
way they are meant - as accents. For a ö I just hit "o. For a ç I hit
'c, ê becomes ^e, etc.
Another advantage is that there are lots of shortcuts for letters you
don't find on a standard keyboard - which is very handy for
multilinguals since no single keyboard would serve your needs anyway.
E.g. for ø, I hit Ctr-Alt-l (the l is just below the o, which makes it
easy to remember), å is Ctr-Alt-w (w is just above the a), and æ is
Ctr-Alt-z (z just below the a). Ringel-s, ß, is of course Ctr-Alt-s.
Till M Ruessmann
Herman Beun <her...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:r2lt5tgsuib9aus5f...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:32:16 -0000, "Till M Ruessmann"
> <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote:
>
> >How do you fabricate the umlaut, do you use the Alt key?
>
> In a Windows environment, install the "US International" keyboard
> driver. It allows you to use all the accents on your keyboard in the
> way they are meant - as accents. For a ö I just hit "o. For a ç I hit
> 'c, ê becomes ^e, etc.
>
> Another advantage is that there are lots of shortcuts for letters you
> don't find on a standard keyboard - which is very handy for
> multilinguals since no single keyboard would serve your needs anyway.
> E.g. for ø, I hit Ctr-Alt-l (the l is just below the o, which makes it
> easy to remember), å is Ctr-Alt-w (w is just above the a), and æ is
> Ctr-Alt-z (z just below the a). Ringel-s, ß, is of course Ctr-Alt-s.
You saved the bit of the sanity left to me after updating my CV in German. I
have a list of ASCII codes in front of my desk, and everytime I need ß I
have to hit Alt 0223 with the NumLock switched on.
Thanks!
ch...@metric.org.uk
<till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote:
>
>Herman Beun <her...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:r2lt5tgsuib9aus5f...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:32:16 -0000, "Till M Ruessmann"
>> <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote:
>>
>> >How do you fabricate the umlaut, do you use the Alt key?
>>
>> In a Windows environment, install the "US International" keyboard
>> driver. It allows you to use all the accents on your keyboard in the
>> way they are meant - as accents. For a ö I just hit "o. For a ç I hit
>> 'c, ê becomes ^e, etc.
>>
>> Another advantage is that there are lots of shortcuts for letters you
>> don't find on a standard keyboard - which is very handy for
>> multilinguals since no single keyboard would serve your needs anyway.
>> E.g. for ø, I hit Ctr-Alt-l (the l is just below the o, which makes it
>> easy to remember), å is Ctr-Alt-w (w is just above the a), and æ is
>> Ctr-Alt-z (z just below the a). Ringel-s, ß, is of course Ctr-Alt-s.
>
>You saved the bit of the sanity left to me after updating my CV in German. I
>have a list of ASCII codes in front of my desk, and everytime I need ß I
>have to hit Alt 0223 with the NumLock switched on.
Is it possible to buy overlays for keyboards? I've set up my Windows
environment with a language selection in the tray, but without knowing
what keys do what, it's a bit limited! Where can I find the layouts
for French and German keyboards?
Chris
--
Metrication information: http://www.metric.org.uk/
UK legislation, EC Directives, Trading Standards links and more
Pro-metric mailing list now available.
paulo...@my-deja.com
"Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote:
>
> The correct text is:
>
> "So, es muss eine neue Abkürzung sein; ich habe gelernt, dass die
> Abkürzung "Hr." ist. Aber vielleicht ist Ihne Kenntnis der deutschen
> Sprache besser als Ihre Kenntnis der europäischen Geschichte?"
>
> Just some spellings and a minor misplacement of a verb of a fairly
> complicated sentence.
get the verb in the right place. I've learnt German on my own, so I
never had anyone to complain.
> As for Hr. - I have not got the foggiest. I always say Herr, because
it is
> just one letter more (if counting the period).
My Langenscheidt seems to claim that 'hr.' is the only acceptable
abbreviation.
> > And linguistic Wünderkind? I was writing in Polish 'could you please
> > write easier Polish'.
>
> I see. Then I probably cannot impress you with "Den katalavai
hellinika" (or
> something like this) which is supposed to mean "I do not speak any
Greek".
I believe it's "den katalavenu tin ellenika" :-)
I call my Polish 'train station Polish'; I manage to do whatever I want
in a train station in Poland without needing to use another language-
but I can't discuss politics.
> > My Dutch is not that good either.
> > But let me tell an amusing true story. When I was twelve, I had to
> > start learning a second foreign language at school; I had started
with
> > English at age ten. So, since my school hadn't enough students
> > requiring German, I had to learn French- and I hated it. I
thought "why
> > should I learn French when English is enough?". Of course, I'll
forever
> > be thankful for whichever minister was responsable for having me
learn
> > French against my will- and I'm not being ironic.
>
> I hated French too. Almost as much as English. The latter changed. The
> former - moi, je ne parle pas francais du tout.
You should try harder. By my part, I just regret not to speak both
German and Russian as least as well as I speak French.
> How do you fabricate the umlaut, do you use the Alt key?
>
There is a combination to get it in a Portuguese keyboard (it's needed
for Brazilian Portuguese, although not for European Portuguese).
Grüsse,
paulo...@my-deja.com
Richard Gregory <rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> paulo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
>
> > > He also had to make a public statement afterwords.
> >
> > He didn't have to make. He made it because it seems some people are
> > deaf; he said that BEFORE he started speaking. It should be enough.
>
> Yes, he did. There was such an uproar caused by his speech that
> it caused some embarassment to the German Government. That was
> the reason, not that "some people are deaf". And it plainly WASN'T
> enough.
I'm pretty sure that short of jumping into the Spree, there is nothing
that Mr. Fischer can do that will please some people. For me, it was
enough that he said before he started speaking "It is Joschka Fischer,
citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany speaking, not the foreign
minister of the said Republic". For me, he hadn't to make any
declaration after that.
> >
> > > > And that J(oschka), not H.
> > >
> > > "H." short for "Herr".
> >
> > So es müss eine neue Abkürzung sein; ich habe gelernt, dass die
> > Abkürzen "hr." ist. Aber veilleicht Ihne Kenntnis der deutschen
Sprache
> > ist besser als Ihre Kenntnis der europäischen Geschischte?
> >
> > >
> > > Oh, and it's "that's" not "that".
> > Quando o <ironia> M. Gregory </ironia> começar a cometer erros
noutras
> > língua que não a sua, eu começarei a aceitar as suas críticas. Mas
só
> > então.
> > Cumprimentos,
> > Paulo Rocha
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
> I'm sure I'm very impressed by your reaction to my pointing out a very
> minor error in punctuation. After all, the only reason I did so
> was your assuming I'd got the chap's name wrong.
>
> I'm glad you found it entertaining.
>
Yes, I did. I just love to put my German [language, not person] to good
use.
OK, you knew his name. However, since you were writing in English, I
had no reason to think that you were using a unexisting German
abbreviation.
And please, start to correct my errors in English when you start making
mistakes in a language not your own. I can also go through your posters
and find "minor errors in punctuation".
I'll jump to the Spree with Mr. Fischer, if that pleases you.
Regards,
Till M Ruessmann
<paulo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:93npmr$17v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Q6s76.169705$eT4.12...@nnrp3.clara.net>,
> "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote:
> >
> > The correct text is:
> >
> > "So, es muss eine neue Abkürzung sein; ich habe gelernt, dass die
> > Abkürzung "Hr." ist. Aber vielleicht ist Ihne Kenntnis der deutschen
> > Sprache besser als Ihre Kenntnis der europäischen Geschichte?"
> >
> > Just some spellings and a minor misplacement of a verb of a fairly
> > complicated sentence.
> My teacher of Norwegian was always complaining that I never managed to
> get the verb in the right place. I've learnt German on my own, so I
> never had anyone to complain.
>
> > As for Hr. - I have not got the foggiest. I always say Herr, because
> it is
> > just one letter more (if counting the period).
> My Langenscheidt seems to claim that 'hr.' is the only acceptable
> abbreviation.
>
> > > And linguistic Wünderkind? I was writing in Polish 'could you please
> > > write easier Polish'.
> >
> > I see. Then I probably cannot impress you with "Den katalavai
> hellinika" (or
> > something like this) which is supposed to mean "I do not speak any
> Greek".
> I believe it's "den katalavenu tin ellenika" :-)
O piss off!
> I call my Polish 'train station Polish'; I manage to do whatever I want
> in a train station in Poland without needing to use another language-
> but I can't discuss politics.
I never went to Poland in my life (that's because I moved to UK exactly at
the time the wall came down). I probably would behave like the English and
rely on the Polish understanding my German. Apparently German is the lingua
franca in the central and east European countries.
>
> > > My Dutch is not that good either.
> > > But let me tell an amusing true story. When I was twelve, I had to
> > > start learning a second foreign language at school; I had started
> with
> > > English at age ten. So, since my school hadn't enough students
> > > requiring German, I had to learn French- and I hated it. I
> thought "why
> > > should I learn French when English is enough?". Of course, I'll
> forever
> > > be thankful for whichever minister was responsable for having me
> learn
> > > French against my will- and I'm not being ironic.
> >
> > I hated French too. Almost as much as English. The latter changed. The
> > former - moi, je ne parle pas francais du tout.
>
> You should try harder. By my part, I just regret not to speak both
> German and Russian as least as well as I speak French.
I am just not gifted for languages. After ten years in UK I just managed not
to be recognized as German from my accent. Instead they think I am from
Denmark or Netherlands. One has to be modest.
>
> > How do you fabricate the umlaut, do you use the Alt key?
> >
> There is a combination to get it in a Portuguese keyboard (it's needed
> for Brazilian Portuguese, although not for European Portuguese).
See Herman's hint on this.
Ciao
Till
Till M Ruessmann
<ch...@metric.org.uk> wrote in message
news:979323541.5793.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
In Germany or France, I think. More realistically from your keyboard
manufacturer. However I am not sure how such an overlay would work from a
physical point of view. I would not like to type on a plastic overlay.
jonivar skullerud
> I am just not gifted for languages. After ten years in UK I just
> managed not to be recognized as German from my accent. Instead they
> think I am from Denmark or Netherlands. One has to be modest.
I think having an accent has little to do with being gifted for
languages. Almost everyone will have an accent if they learn a
language after the age of 12. Actually, english is my first language
at school and i still have an accent (i heard my voice recorded once
last year, and i would have guessed i was swedish) -- although some
people in Australia thought i was a pom. Of course, my german is
still pretty terrible (though better than my french, not to mention my
russian).
jonivar
--
______ _________________________________________________
/ | |
| jon | jonivar skullerud |
\______ | |
\ | jon...@bigfoot.com |
ivar | | http://www.bigfoot.com/~jonivar/ |
_______/ |_________________________________________________|
Sandy Hill
news:932omp$81$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A54D4...@interalpha.co.uk>,
> >
> I do not align in conspirational theories, but is there a reason why no
> British or American soldiers seem to have their health damaged?
>
>
British soldiers have already died from leukemia since returning from their
tour of duty in the Balkans. Whilst civil servants at the M.O.D. and the
Defence Minister tried their best to rubbish any reports of a link between
cancer and the DU shells, the media (thankfully) made a big deal about it
and wouldn't let go of the issue, and with a General Election coming up in
May, Downing Street has gone on the defensive. Consequently, there's some
kind of investigation now being made - although I wouldn't hold my breath
about hearing anything vaguely resembling the truth coming out. Like
another poster in this thread already mentioned - our govt. are still in
denial that Gulf War Syndrome exists. To accept the existence of
life-threatening or debilitating illnesses affecting our military as a
result of things they were exposed to during combat would mean our govt.
would have to compensate them and provide life-long health care - and
therein lies the problem. Deserving causes such as this will forever have
to fight the govt to prove their case because the govt don't want to be
saddled with the related financial costs. As far as the British govt are
concerned, our military should be seen but not heard. It has to be said
that when it comes to looking after their own people's interests, the
current British Govt place greater store on throwing taxpayers money at the
thousands of illegal immigrants landing on our shores every month than in
giving it to people like British soldiers who did their duty and are now
paying with their lives. Our govt is a disgrace.
Sandy Hill
'Always shoot for the moon. Even if you miss you'll land amongst the
stars.'
Till M Ruessmann
> <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote:
>
> >How do you fabricate the umlaut, do you use the Alt key?
>
> In a Windows environment, install the "US International" keyboard
> driver. It allows you to use all the accents on your keyboard in the
> way they are meant - as accents. For a ö I just hit "o. For a ç I hit
> 'c, ê becomes ^e, etc.
>
> Another advantage is that there are lots of shortcuts for letters you
> don't find on a standard keyboard - which is very handy for
> multilinguals since no single keyboard would serve your needs anyway.
> E.g. for ø, I hit Ctr-Alt-l (the l is just below the o, which makes it
> easy to remember), å is Ctr-Alt-w (w is just above the a), and æ is
> Ctr-Alt-z (z just below the a). Ringel-s, ß, is of course Ctr-Alt-s.
Alas, I have to type Alt-0128 for ?, no short cut for this one.
jonivar skullerud
> Alas, I have to type Alt-0128 for ?, no short cut for this one.
On my screen this shows up as Alt-0128 for ?. Well, i have found ? on
all keyboards i have encountered so far ...
jonivar
(maybe this is something about no questions being allowed...)
--
______ _________________________________________________
/ | jonivar skullerud jon...@bigfoot.com |
| jon | http://www.bigfoot.com/~jonivar/ |
\______ | |
\ | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those |
ivar | | who falsely believe they are free. -Goethe |
_______/ |_________________________________________________|
Till M Ruessmann
jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:83snmje...@theopc5.desy.de...
> "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
>
> > Alas, I have to type Alt-0128 for ?, no short cut for this one.
>
> On my screen this shows up as Alt-0128 for ?. Well, i have found ? on
> all keyboards i have encountered so far ...
Bloody computer. I was looking for an easy key for the Euro symbol, not this
Alt-combination, that results in an Euro when I type it, but which results
in a ? after the posting.
phil hunt
>I do not align in conspirational theories, but is there a reason why no
>British or American soldiers seem to have their health damaged?
According to todays _Times_, 500 British soldiers who fought in
the Gulf War have died. I'm not sure if this is unexpectedly high,
but it seems to me that it might be, since the soldiers sent out
there were healthy young men/women.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ]*****
"An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your
silly little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation
of a paperclip to look at instead." -- Windows2007 error message
Nils Zonneveld
On the Macintosh you have to hit a very esoteric combination of keys
(alt-shift-2) to get the € symbol, but at least it works.
Nils
--
"Misschien is niets geheel waar, en zelfs dat niet"
Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekker) - Idee 1
jonivar skullerud
> Till M Ruessmann wrote:
> >
> > jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:83snmje...@theopc5.desy.de...
> > > "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Alas, I have to type Alt-0128 for ?, no short cut for this one.
> > >
> > > On my screen this shows up as Alt-0128 for ?. Well, i have found ? on
> > > all keyboards i have encountered so far ...
> >
> > Bloody computer. I was looking for an easy key for the Euro symbol, not this
> > Alt-combination, that results in an Euro when I type it, but which results
> > in a ? after the posting.
>
> On the Macintosh you have to hit a very esoteric combination of keys
> (alt-shift-2) to get the € symbol, but at least it works.
At least there it did show up to me as \200, and i assume those of you
with euro-compatible software can read it.
Problem is, the euro symbol is not part of the iso8859-1 standard
character set; i dont even know if it is yet part of any standard.
Therefore, if you use it, you can only be guaranteed that it will be
understood by those with identical software to yours.
My advice is: do not use the euro symbol in articles posted to
usenet. And that advice has nothing to do with my opinion on the
single currency.
jonivar
Till M Ruessmann
> Nils Zonneveld <ni...@casema.net> writes:
>
> > Till M Ruessmann wrote:
> > >
> > > jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > > news:83snmje...@theopc5.desy.de...
> > > > "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Alas, I have to type Alt-0128 for ?, no short cut for this one.
> > > >
> > > > On my screen this shows up as Alt-0128 for ?. Well, i have found ?
on
> > > > all keyboards i have encountered so far ...
> > >
> > > Bloody computer. I was looking for an easy key for the Euro symbol,
not this
> > > Alt-combination, that results in an Euro when I type it, but which
results
> > > in a ? after the posting.
> >
> > On the Macintosh you have to hit a very esoteric combination of keys
>
> At least there it did show up to me as \200, and i assume those of you
> with euro-compatible software can read it.
>
> Problem is, the euro symbol is not part of the iso8859-1 standard
> character set; i dont even know if it is yet part of any standard.
> Therefore, if you use it, you can only be guaranteed that it will be
> understood by those with identical software to yours.
>
> My advice is: do not use the euro symbol in articles posted to
> usenet.
I have reolved to that as well.
> And that advice has nothing to do with my opinion on the
> single currency.
I am surprised that nobody has caught onto this by now.
K.D.Ba...@lboro.ac.uk
jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> [...]
>My advice is: do not use the euro symbol in articles posted to
>usenet. And that advice has nothing to do with my opinion on the
>single currency.
I would extend that to any currency symbol - always use
the ISO code ( GBP, EUR, BEF etc ) to remove the possiblity of
odd characters being displayed to others.
--
Cheers, Keith. elm/lynx staffi
Till M Ruessmann
Nils Zonneveld <ni...@casema.net> wrote in message
news:3A64C9BE...@casema.net...
>
>
> Till M Ruessmann wrote:
> >
> > jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:83snmje...@theopc5.desy.de...
> > > "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Alas, I have to type Alt-0128 for ?, no short cut for this one.
> > >
> > > On my screen this shows up as Alt-0128 for ?. Well, i have found ? on
> > > all keyboards i have encountered so far ...
> >
> > Bloody computer. I was looking for an easy key for the Euro symbol, not
this
> > Alt-combination, that results in an Euro when I type it, but which
results
> > in a ? after the posting.
>
> On the Macintosh you have to hit a very esoteric combination of keys
Obviously it does not work either.
Nils Zonneveld
Mmm, here I get a perfect Ä (EUR) over here, maybe its time for you for
an update (certainly there should be one for windoze/outlook). Let's
see.... what have we got more....... well I guess they could scrap the É
(NLG, Gulden, Florijn), since our beloved guilder is going to disapear
after centuries being a stable and trustworthy currency.
Groeten,
jonivar skullerud
> Mmm, here I get a perfect Ä (EUR) over here, maybe its time for you for
> an update (certainly there should be one for windoze/outlook). Let's
> see.... what have we got more....... well I guess they could scrap the É
> (NLG, Gulden, Florijn), since our beloved guilder is going to disapear
> after centuries being a stable and trustworthy currency.
I somehow doubt that Till has the \203 (fl) key on his keyboard
either. It is also not a part of the iso8859-1 standard. The pound
symbol, however, is.
jonivar
Till M Ruessmann
> Nils Zonneveld <ni...@casema.net> writes:
>
> > Mmm, here I get a perfect ? (EUR) over here, maybe its time for you for
> > an update (certainly there should be one for windoze/outlook). Let's
> > (NLG, Gulden, Florijn), since our beloved guilder is going to disapear
> > after centuries being a stable and trustworthy currency.
>
> I somehow doubt that Till has the \203 (fl) key on his keyboard
> either. It is also not a part of the iso8859-1 standard. The pound
> symbol, however, is.
It is on my keyboard, but it prints #. That's because I have the US
International Driver loaded. Anyway I shall replace my keyboard with a
German one, the GBP sign will become obsolete before long anyway. That's a
joke, of course.
Till M Ruessmann
>
>
> Till M Ruessmann wrote:
> >
> > Nils Zonneveld <ni...@casema.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A64C9BE...@casema.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Till M Ruessmann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:83snmje...@theopc5.desy.de...
> > > > > "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alas, I have to type Alt-0128 for ?, no short cut for this one.
> > > > >
> > > > > On my screen this shows up as Alt-0128 for ?. Well, i have found
? on
> > > > > all keyboards i have encountered so far ...
> > > >
> > > > Bloody computer. I was looking for an easy key for the Euro symbol,
not
> > this
> > > > Alt-combination, that results in an Euro when I type it, but which
> > results
> > > > in a ? after the posting.
> > >
> > > On the Macintosh you have to hit a very esoteric combination of keys
> > > (alt-shift-2) to get the ? symbol, but at least it works.
> >
> > Obviously it does not work either.
>
>
> an update (certainly there should be one for windoze/outlook). Let's
> (NLG, Gulden, Florijn), since our beloved guilder is going to disapear
> after centuries being a stable and trustworthy currency.
It's already gone, as has the GBP. DM is still working.
Nils Zonneveld
Till M Ruessmann wrote:
> It's already gone, as has the GBP. DM is still working.
You accidentally switched GBP for DM :-)
Till M Ruessmann
>
>
> Till M Ruessmann wrote:
>
> > It's already gone, as has the GBP. DM is still working.
>
Touché
Sid Cochran
news:936ugk$o22$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
>
> rosignol <rosi...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> news:rosignol-C4DCC5...@news.nwlink.com...
> > In article <t5cgcmr...@corp.supernews.co.uk>, "jhw"
> > <Xj...@nildram.co.ukX> wrote:
> >
> > [zap]
> >
> > > Mr Prodi went on to say that even if there is no threat to health
from
> > > these weapons, we still do not want them to be used.
> >
> >
> > Okay. Nobody start a war with us, and they won't. ;)
>
> I don't think that anybody has recently started a war with you, and yet
> they *were* used.
>
> Aris Katsaris
>
Fine. We were told that it was necessary 'for the sake of civilization,'
or some such that the US intervene in Kosovo. We were also told
that our people wouldn't be needed there for more than a year (though
that may have been our Administration's spin, not the imported kind).
If you don't like the way the US wages peace-making, "for the sake
of the common civilization," perhaps we should go back, re-install
Mr. Milosevic, and let you remove him by Continental technical
means. Or we should all let the Serbs remove him for internal
political reasons, of which they had plenty, since that seems to be
how he left office anyway.
That would certainly have had a beneficial effect on our domestic
accounts.
Regards,
Sid Cochran
Tyler, Texas
>
>
Ricardo G Alves
>
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:936ugk$o22$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
> >
> > rosignol <rosi...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> > news:rosignol-C4DCC5...@news.nwlink.com...
> > > In article <t5cgcmr...@corp.supernews.co.uk>, "jhw"
> > > <Xj...@nildram.co.ukX> wrote:
> > >
> > > [zap]
> > >
> > > > Mr Prodi went on to say that even if there is no threat to health
> from
> > > > these weapons, we still do not want them to be used.
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay. Nobody start a war with us, and they won't. ;)
> >
> > I don't think that anybody has recently started a war with you, and yet
> > they *were* used.
> >
> > Aris Katsaris
> >
> Fine. We were told that it was necessary 'for the sake of civilization,'
> or some such that the US intervene in Kosovo.
Most wars are fought "in the name of civilization". All
colonial wars. Nazis against Soviet Russia. Vietnam. Etc.
> We were also told
> that our people wouldn't be needed there for more than a year (though
> that may have been our Administration's spin, not the imported kind).
Were you told that the narco-mafia that NATO supported lost the
elections in Kosovo to a group which advocated a pacifist strategy
both before and during NATO愀 war? By a mere 70% against 20% or so...
> If you don't like the way the US wages peace-making, "for the sake
> of the common civilization," perhaps we should go back, re-install
> Mr. Milosevic, and let you remove him by Continental technical
> means. Or we should all let the Serbs remove him for internal
> political reasons, of which they had plenty, since that seems to be
> how he left office anyway.
That is the point. The Serbs eventually removed him of their own
free will expressed in elections and demonstrations. So, what was
the point of all that "humanitarian bombing"? Poisoning the relations
between Serbs and Albanians even more than they were? Killing
thousands of civilians? Wrecking the economy of Serbia? Spreading
depleted uranium around? Try new weaponry? Celebrate NATO愀
anniversary?
> That would certainly have had a beneficial effect on our domestic
> accounts.
Are you so sure? Were not USA companies interested in having
new business opportunities in a "free-market" Serbia?
Regards,
Ricardo Alves
Lisbon, Portugal
Aris Katsaris
Sid Cochran <squi...@ballistic.com> wrote in message
news:crX96.30611$lV5.4...@news2.giganews.com...
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:936ugk$o22$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
> >
> > rosignol <rosi...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
> > news:rosignol-C4DCC5...@news.nwlink.com...
> > > In article <t5cgcmr...@corp.supernews.co.uk>, "jhw"
> > > <Xj...@nildram.co.ukX> wrote:
> > >
> > > [zap]
> > >
> > > > Mr Prodi went on to say that even if there is no threat to health
> from
> > > > these weapons, we still do not want them to be used.
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay. Nobody start a war with us, and they won't. ;)
> >
> > I don't think that anybody has recently started a war with you, and yet
> > they *were* used.
> >
> > Aris Katsaris
> >
> Fine. We were told that it was necessary 'for the sake of civilization,'
> or some such that the US intervene in Kosovo. We were also told
> that our people wouldn't be needed there for more than a year (though
> that may have been our Administration's spin, not the imported kind).
You were *told*? If by "we", you mean the United Stated, then check the
facts again. Neither the United Nations nor the EU ever asked you to
bomb Kosovo. You exported the desire to bomb Kosovo, you didn't
import it.
> If you don't like the way the US wages peace-making, "for the sake
> of the common civilization," perhaps we should go back, re-install
> Mr. Milosevic, and let you remove him by Continental technical
> means.
You never removed Milosevic, therefore I really have no idea what
the hell you are babbling about.
Aris Katsaris
pochas
<kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
Here's a clue. We've learned that European militaristic dictators (like
Milosevic and Hitler) cause wars which eventually get to the point where
we have to send millions of troops. We think its worth inconveniencing a
few hatemongers to put a stop to it while still on a small scale. And
yes, it was the Yugoslavs that got rid of Milosevic, to their everlasting
credit.
By the way, are the Communists still running Greece?
Aris Katsaris
pochas <poc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:pochas-2001...@cb43342-a.baycty1.mi.home.com...
> In article <94cvl6$q1h$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>, "Aris Katsaris"
> <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> > Sid Cochran <squi...@ballistic.com> wrote in message
> > news:crX96.30611$lV5.4...@news2.giganews.com...
> > > of the common civilization," perhaps we should go back, re-install
> > > Mr. Milosevic, and let you remove him by Continental technical
> > > means.
> >
> > You never removed Milosevic, therefore I really have no idea what
> > the hell you are babbling about.
> >
> > Aris Katsaris
>
> Here's a clue. We've learned that European militaristic dictators (like
> Milosevic and Hitler) cause wars which eventually get to the point where
> we have to send millions of troops.
You've given me one example, Hitler, who had an army and support
dozens times that of Milosevic. In Kosovo, Milosevic didn't even invade
another country. He simply oppressed the local population, a crime which
is indeed terrible, but not significantly different to what Turkey does to
the
Kurds using American weaponry to do it with. Or what Croatia did against
the Serbs for that matter. Yeah, Milosevic is an evil creep. But he wasn't
a significantly dangerous evil creep.
So, don't tell me that the future of Europe was in stake.
> We think its worth inconveniencing a
> few hatemongers to put a stop to it while still on a small scale. And
> yes, it was the Yugoslavs that got rid of Milosevic, to their everlasting
> credit.
>
> By the way, are the Communists still running Greece?
They got a 5% in the last elections. They've never passed a percentage
of 5-6% percent as far as I remember. Greece was never under communist
control. The 7-year dictatorship that we experienced between 1967-1974
was not a communistic one but an America-supported anti-communist
one.
Aris Katsaris
Till M Ruessmann
Ricardo G Alves <ricard...@net.sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:3A69CCED...@net.sapo.pt...
That's a mute point to discuss as you will never know whether the bombing
campaign in conjunction with the embargo resulted in this political
solution.
I find your position rather biased: there were atrocities committed by
Serbians that resulted in this intervention. Just consider the trials in Den
Hague.
>
> Are you so sure? Were not USA companies interested in having
> new business opportunities in a "free-market" Serbia?
The company that was most interested in cruise-missiling Yugoslavia was
probably General Dynamics :-) Your theory is pretty much in line with the
conspiracy theory that Rockefeller supported Stalin because he anticipated
the later conflicts between USSR and Germany (and USA thereafter).
jonivar skullerud
> I find your position rather biased: there were atrocities committed by
> Serbians that resulted in this intervention. Just consider the trials in Den
> Hague.
However, it appears that the Racak massacre which was the single
incident that did the most to trigger the war (i prefer to call a
spade a spade, and a war a war, not "intervention" or "crisis")
actually never occurred. It seems to have been a propaganda stunt by
the UÇK with support from the old CIA man William Walker (with El
Salvadorean blood on his hands).
Till M Ruessmann
> However, it appears that the Racak massacre which was the single
> incident that did the most to trigger the war (i prefer to call a
> spade a spade, and a war a war, not "intervention" or "crisis")
> actually never occurred. It seems to have been a propaganda stunt by
> the UĒK with support from the old CIA man William Walker (with El
> Salvadorean blood on his hands).
I fully agree that the whole campaign was more about influencing the media.
Much evidence was fabricated to make the Croatians the goodies, and the
Serbian the bad guys. Perhaps Milosevic's biggest problem was that he is a
communist who dared to challenge the West, and that Principe was a Serbian.
Tudjman did not have either image problems.
But what else should the West have done? There were years and years of
negotiations, broken promises etc., and the conflct needed to be resolved
one way or the other. I think the West did not have any choice when
supporting the Muslims with military actions - otherwise the Western bias
against Muslims (see Iraq, Israel, ...) would have been too evident.
Finally one should not loose out of sight that the Serbian government is now
considering to co-operate with Den Hague on a trial against Milosovic (but
in dubio pro reo).
pochas
<kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
Except for Albanians and Bosnians.
>
> So, don't tell me that the future of Europe was in stake.
Well, a border war between Austria-Hungary and Bosnia-Herzegovina was
partly responsable for World War I, wasn't it? When we tour Europe we like
to leave the rifles at home.
>
> > We think its worth inconveniencing a
> > few hatemongers to put a stop to it while still on a small scale. And
> > yes, it was the Yugoslavs that got rid of Milosevic, to their everlasting
> > credit.
> >
> > By the way, are the Communists still running Greece?
>
> They got a 5% in the last elections. They've never passed a percentage
> of 5-6% percent as far as I remember. Greece was never under communist
> control. The 7-year dictatorship that we experienced between 1967-1974
> was not a communistic one but an America-supported anti-communist
> one.
Ok, we supported the junta because they opposed the Communists. And the
Greeks are still fulminating about that 30 years later, in addition to harboring
the Communists. I also understand the Greeks animosity toward the Albanians.
And, of course, the Turks... Sort of a lifestyle, is it?
Sid Cochran
evil
creep, he and his underling, Arkan, and their buddies in the Free Serbian
Republic
in Bosnia <insert crrect name HERE!> were apparently nasty enough in Bosnia
to show that they did need to be curbed.
As for General Dynamics wanting to press forward with a 'little war' in
Serbia,
I rather doubt it. They didn't have orders for more Tomahawks or 'smart
bombs'--which seem to have been our weapon of choice in the war--and
at the time there was no appropriation to buy more of their wares. I
suggest
that if you want an American villain in the enterprise, you consider
Madeline
Albright, the Secretary of State, and Mr. Clinton. Ms. Albright issued an
ultimatum to Mr. Milosevic, and when he didn't comply with it, she felt she
had to send in troops, to show what big balls she had. And President
Clinton signed off on the deal, so he deserves a share of the blame. I'll
not resent that--I didn't vote for him either time, nor for Mr. Gore.
> >
> > > We think its worth inconveniencing a
> > > few hatemongers to put a stop to it while still on a small scale.
And
> > > yes, it was the Yugoslavs that got rid of Milosevic, to their
everlasting
> > > credit.
> > >
> > > By the way, are the Communists still running Greece?
> >
> > They got a 5% in the last elections. They've never passed a percentage
> > of 5-6% percent as far as I remember. Greece was never under communist
> > control. The 7-year dictatorship that we experienced between 1967-1974
> > was not a communistic one but an America-supported anti-communist
> > one.
>
> Ok, we supported the junta because they opposed the Communists. And the
> Greeks are still fulminating about that 30 years later, in addition to
harboring
> the Communists. I also understand the Greeks animosity toward the
Albanians.
> And, of course, the Turks... Sort of a lifestyle, is it?
Regards,
Sid Cochran
Tyler, Texas
Aris Katsaris
> In article <94etbt$7is$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>, "Aris Katsaris"
> <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
> >
> > You've given me one example, Hitler, who had an army and support
> > dozens times that of Milosevic. In Kosovo, Milosevic didn't even invade
> > another country. He simply oppressed the local population, a crime which
> > is indeed terrible, but not significantly different to what Turkey does
to
> > the
> > Kurds using American weaponry to do it with. Or what Croatia did against
> > the Serbs for that matter. Yeah, Milosevic is an evil creep. But he
wasn't
> > a significantly dangerous evil creep.
>
> Except for Albanians and Bosnians.
Bosnia was a done deal - the Serbs were clearly on the wrong there but the
Kosovo bombings changed nothing where Bosnia was concerned. As for
Albanians they were being expelled, not massacred and as I said that was
a local conflict no more evil than what the Turks are doing to the Kurds or
what Croatia did to the Serbs.
> > So, don't tell me that the future of Europe was in stake.
>
> Well, a border war between Austria-Hungary and Bosnia-Herzegovina was
> partly responsable for World War I, wasn't it? When we tour Europe we
like
> to leave the rifles at home.
Since nowadays there was no border war between Austria (or Hungary) and
any other country, and in fact there was no war between two different
countries
but instead an internal conflict your point is meaningless.
> > > By the way, are the Communists still running Greece?
> >
> > They got a 5% in the last elections. They've never passed a percentage
> > of 5-6% percent as far as I remember. Greece was never under communist
> > control. The 7-year dictatorship that we experienced between 1967-1974
> > was not a communistic one but an America-supported anti-communist
> > one.
>
> Ok, we supported the junta because they opposed the Communists.
In short you helped a party of military dictators *enslave* us, just because
you feared the (non-existent) possibility that the Communists would enslave
us instead. That makes a lot of sense.
> And the
> Greeks are still fulminating about that 30 years later,
The wound of Cyprus is still open, and that would not have happened if
it was not for the junta. When the hundred thousand people can return
home, then it will be easier for Greece to forgive you.
> in addition to harboring
> the Communists.
"Harbouring"? There's a little something called "freedom of speech" here.
For everyone, including communists. I know that McCarthy abolished it
in the US and the junta abolished it here as well.
But hey, after the junta we put it right back. From what I gather from
your posts, you never did.
>I also understand the Greeks animosity toward the Albanians.
Not from me, buddy. From some racist creeps, yeah. But not from
me.
> And, of course, the Turks... Sort of a lifestyle, is it?
Haven't you heard? We and the Turks are best buddies now. ;-) It's
a bumpy ride ofcourse because we are not hypocrites enough to
ignore issues like the Armenian Genocide (which the US refused to
recognise, but France to its credit did recognise), the oppresion of
the Kurdish population, and ofcourse Cyprus.
But the most enlightened among us only blame the non-democratic
Turkish state, not the people it rules over.
Aris Katsaris
pochas
<kats...@otenet.gr> wrote:
> pochas <poc...@home.com> wrote in message
[snip]
Aris:
> Yeah, Milosevic is an evil creep. But he
> wasn't
> > > a significantly dangerous evil creep.
> >
> > Except for Albanians and Bosnians.
>
> Bosnia was a done deal - the Serbs were clearly on the wrong there but the
> Kosovo bombings changed nothing where Bosnia was concerned. As for
> Albanians they were being expelled, not massacred
I can still see the aerial photos of the graves. :-(
Anyhow, expelling people is not nice.
> and as I said that was
> a local conflict no more evil than what the Turks are doing to the Kurds or
> what Croatia did to the Serbs.
>
Evil doesn't excuse evil. We keep hearing that the Kurds are trying to carve
a homeland for themselves out of Turkey.
[snip]
> Haven't you heard? We and the Turks are best buddies now. ;-) It's
> a bumpy ride ofcourse because we are not hypocrites enough to
> ignore issues like the Armenian Genocide (which the US refused to
> recognise, but France to its credit did recognise), the oppresion of
> the Kurdish population, and ofcourse Cyprus.
>
> But the most enlightened among us only blame the non-democratic
> Turkish state, not the people it rules over.
>
Glad to hear the Greeks and Turks are now getting along so well. Hopefully
issues like the Kurds and Cypress will eventually be settled without more
bloodshed.
Charles P.
Malte Lewan Neelsen
> "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
> > I find your position rather biased: there were atrocities committed by
> > Serbians that resulted in this intervention. Just consider the trials in
> > Den Hague.
>
> However, it appears that the Racak massacre which was the single
> incident that did the most to trigger the war (i prefer to call a
> spade a spade, and a war a war, not "intervention" or "crisis")
"I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our
social spheres have been widely different." Gwendolen in _The Importance
of Being Earnest_ (http://www.musclememory.com/fogarty/spade.html).
Anyway, 500 people died in the bombings. To me, it's at least no
traditional war. OTOH, is any war nowadays? Source Swedish tele-text:
SVT Text sida 134 den 7. Februari 2000
"500 civila dog i Natos bombkrig"
Västalliansen Natos bombkrig för att tvinga Serbien att släppa greppet
om Kosovo krävde omkring 500 civila dödsoffer. Det hävdar
människorättsorganisationen Human Rights Watch (HRW).
Siffrorna är lägre än vad som tidigare angivits. Jugoslaviska
myndigheter har hävdat att 1 200-5 000 civila dödades.
Efter studier på plats anser sig HRW ha belagt 90 tillfällen då civila
dödades, minst 489 och högst 528. Nato har erkänt 20-30 sådana
tillfällen.
HRW anser också att Nato tog för lite hänsyn till civilbefolkningen."
> actually never occurred. It seems to have been a propaganda stunt by
> the UÇK with support from the old CIA man William Walker (with El
> Salvadorean blood on his hands).
Interesting. I didn't know that there now are those who now question the
very existance of the Racak massacre. Anyway, according to Nato and the
Hague tribunal, the number of Kosovo victims killed by the Serbian
military before Nato started bombing was between 2000 and 3000, not
10000, as previously stated by Nato. Source Swedish tele-text:
SVT Text sida 133 den 18. Augusti 2000
Nato: Vi överdrev antalet dödsoffer
Nato medger nu att man kraftigt kan ha överskattat antalet civila
kosovoalbaner som dödades av serbiska styrkor innan Belgrad anfölls i
mars i fjol, enligt brittiska The Guardian.
Tidningen citerar Nato och Haagtribunalen som uppger att antalet
offer för de serbiska angreppen förmodligen var mellan 2 000 och 3
000.
Inför luftangreppen mot Serbien talade Nato om cirka 10 000 offer. En
Natotalesman vidhåller att det var rätt att inleda anfallet, då det
förekom ett "urskillningslöst dödande".
Malte Lewan Neelsen
Scania, EU
jonivar skullerud
> jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
> > > I find your position rather biased: there were atrocities committed by
> > > Serbians that resulted in this intervention. Just consider the trials in
> > > Den Hague.
> >
> > However, it appears that the Racak massacre which was the single
> > incident that did the most to trigger the war (i prefer to call a
> > spade a spade, and a war a war, not "intervention" or "crisis")
>
> "I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our
> social spheres have been widely different." Gwendolen in _The Importance
> of Being Earnest_ (http://www.musclememory.com/fogarty/spade.html).
> Anyway, 500 people died in the bombings. To me, it's at least no
> traditional war. OTOH, is any war nowadays? Source Swedish tele-text:
What, you define a traditional war according to how many CIVILIANS
died? In a traditional war, not a single civilian is supposed to
die. Any civilian casualties, where they could be foreseen and
therefore avoided, constitute a breach of the rules of WARfare.
And then you go on to quote
> SVT Text sida 134 den 7. Februari 2000
>
> "500 civila dog i Natos bombkrig"
>
> Västalliansen Natos bombkrig
Here we are. bombkrig == bombing war.
If you want to deny that a war is a war, at least be a bit more clever
in the sources you cite.
> > actually never occurred. It seems to have been a propaganda stunt by
> > the UĒK with support from the old CIA man William Walker (with El
> > Salvadorean blood on his hands).
>
> Interesting. I didn't know that there now are those who now question
> the very existance of the Racak massacre.
There were three forensic reports make after that incident. One by a
yugoslav team, one by a belarussian team, and one by a finnish team.
The yugoslav and belarussian reports came out a couple of weeks after
the incident, concluding that the massacre was a hoax. The finnish
report was kept secret on the orders of Walker. It was published a
couple of weeks ago. It also concluded that there was no massacre.
It is published in Forensic Science International.
Malte Lewan Neelsen
> c...@df.lth.se (Malte Lewan Neelsen) writes:
> > jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > However, it appears that the Racak massacre which was the single
> > > incident that did the most to trigger the war (i prefer to call a
> > > spade a spade, and a war a war, not "intervention" or "crisis")
> >
> > "I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our
> > social spheres have been widely different." Gwendolen in _The Importance
> > of Being Earnest_ (http://www.musclememory.com/fogarty/spade.html).
> > Anyway, 500 people died in the bombings. To me, it's at least no
> > traditional war. OTOH, is any war nowadays? Source Swedish tele-text:
>
> What, you define a traditional war according to how many CIVILIANS
> died? In a traditional war, not a single civilian is supposed to
> die. Any civilian casualties, where they could be foreseen and
> therefore avoided, constitute a breach of the rules of WARfare.
That's one reason why it wasn't a traditional war. It was something
particular, a 'bombing war' for example. Simply calling it a 'war' gives
me other associations.
Anyway, I'm not terribly interested in these definitions and
associations (they do have some interest though). I mostly wanted to use
the Wilde quote. ;-)
> And then you go on to quote
>
> > SVT Text sida 134 den 7. Februari 2000
> >
> > "500 civila dog i Natos bombkrig"
> >
> > Västalliansen Natos bombkrig
>
> Here we are. bombkrig == bombing war.
>
> If you want to deny that a war is a war, at least be a bit more clever
> in the sources you cite.
I repeat: "To me, it's at least no traditional war. OTOH, is any war
nowadays?"
Malte Lewan Neelsen
jonivar skullerud
> jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > What, you define a traditional war according to how many CIVILIANS
> > died? In a traditional war, not a single civilian is supposed to
> > die. Any civilian casualties, where they could be foreseen and
> > therefore avoided, constitute a breach of the rules of WARfare.
> That's one reason why it wasn't a traditional war. It was something
> particular, a 'bombing war' for example. Simply calling it a 'war' gives
> me other associations.
Which associations? Why are those associations wrong?
I mean, if you are in favour of organised bombing and shooting, you
should have the guts to call it for what it is.
> Anyway, I'm not terribly interested in these definitions and
> associations (they do have some interest though). I mostly wanted to use
> the Wilde quote. ;-)
[...]
> I repeat: "To me, it's at least no traditional war. OTOH, is any war
> nowadays?"
The straight answer to that is -- no. Is that progress? Methinks
not.
Malte Lewan Neelsen
> c...@df.lth.se (Malte Lewan Neelsen) writes:
> > jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > What, you define a traditional war according to how many CIVILIANS
> > > died? In a traditional war, not a single civilian is supposed to
> > > die. Any civilian casualties, where they could be foreseen and
> > > therefore avoided, constitute a breach of the rules of WARfare.
>
> > That's one reason why it wasn't a traditional war. It was something
> > particular, a 'bombing war' for example. Simply calling it a 'war' gives
> > me other associations.
>
> Which associations? Why are those associations wrong?
>
> I mean, if you are in favour of organised bombing and shooting, you
> should have the guts to call it for what it is.
Perhaps you have a point. It's all getting complicated for me now. :-)
jonivar skullerud
> jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:83puhgi...@theopc5.desy.de...
>
> > However, it appears that the Racak massacre which was the single
> > incident that did the most to trigger the war (i prefer to call a
> > spade a spade, and a war a war, not "intervention" or "crisis")
> > actually never occurred. It seems to have been a propaganda stunt by
> > the UÇK with support from the old CIA man William Walker (with El
> > Salvadorean blood on his hands).
>
> I fully agree that the whole campaign was more about influencing the media.
> Much evidence was fabricated to make the Croatians the goodies, and the
> Serbian the bad guys. Perhaps Milosevic's biggest problem was that he is a
> communist who dared to challenge the West, and that Principe was a Serbian.
> Tudjman did not have either image problems.
>
> But what else should the West have done?
When? Where?
Above, i was talking about Kosov@. You appear to be talking about
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Two different kettles of fish.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, on balance, i think it was correct at the
time to intervene militarily (and i say that as a pacifist) and even
to fight a war -- although it is typical that non-military options
based on support for civil society are hardly ever considered. When
"something must be done" that "something" is always sending in the
troops. Though by the time "something must be done" it is often too
late to do those other things.
Anyway, in Kosov@ USA deliberately engineered a war, after having
(with the rest of "the West") done exactly nothing for 10 years with a
problem everyone knew about. The right thing to do in the
circumstances of early 1999 was imho the same as they had been doing
for 10 years. Sometimes doing nothing is preferable to "doing
something".
Till M Ruessmann
> "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
>
> > jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:83puhgi...@theopc5.desy.de...
> >
> > > However, it appears that the Racak massacre which was the single
> > > incident that did the most to trigger the war (i prefer to call a
> > > spade a spade, and a war a war, not "intervention" or "crisis")
> > > actually never occurred. It seems to have been a propaganda stunt by
> > > Salvadorean blood on his hands).
> >
> > I fully agree that the whole campaign was more about influencing the
media.
> > Much evidence was fabricated to make the Croatians the goodies, and the
> > Serbian the bad guys. Perhaps Milosevic's biggest problem was that he is
a
> > communist who dared to challenge the West, and that Principe was a
Serbian.
> > Tudjman did not have either image problems.
> >
> > But what else should the West have done?
>
> When? Where?
>
> Above, i was talking about Kosov@. You appear to be talking about
> Bosnia and Herzegovina. Two different kettles of fish.
More like two fish of the same kettle
>
> In Bosnia and Herzegovina, on balance, i think it was correct at the
> time to intervene militarily (and i say that as a pacifist) and even
> to fight a war -- although it is typical that non-military options
> based on support for civil society are hardly ever considered. When
> "something must be done" that "something" is always sending in the
> troops. Though by the time "something must be done" it is often too
> late to do those other things.
What is support for civil society? What is civil society?
There were non-military options that the west had been pursuing, such as
embargo against Serbia, and non-stop negotiations LONG before the Kosovo
campaign actually started.
>
> Anyway, in Kosov@ USA deliberately engineered a war, after having
> (with the rest of "the West") done exactly nothing for 10 years with a
> problem everyone knew about. The right thing to do in the
> circumstances of early 1999 was imho the same as they had been doing
> for 10 years. Sometimes doing nothing is preferable to "doing
> something".
So military invention was ok in Bos Herz but not in Kosovo?
jonivar skullerud
> > Above, i was talking about Kosov@. You appear to be talking about
> > Bosnia and Herzegovina. Two different kettles of fish.
>
> More like two fish of the same kettle
The point is, the situations were not exactly the same. And you have
to consider the situation in each particular concrete situation.
Otherwise, i could just have pulled out the old pacifist line that a
war is never just and that there are always alternatives. Which i
maintain is true in the abstract, when you see it sub speciae
aeternis, but not true at each particular point in space and time.
> > In Bosnia and Herzegovina, on balance, i think it was correct at the
> > time to intervene militarily (and i say that as a pacifist) and even
> > to fight a war -- although it is typical that non-military options
> > based on support for civil society are hardly ever considered. When
> > "something must be done" that "something" is always sending in the
> > troops. Though by the time "something must be done" it is often too
> > late to do those other things.
>
> What is support for civil society? What is civil society?
I was being a bit glib and cryptic there perhaps. I take civil
society to mean the politically and socially active people,
acting independently of government and other power structures.
Support for civil society in this case would mean bypassing the
"leaders", supporting groups working against war and militarism and
for reconciliation, and supporting concrete project for promoting
friendship among ordinary people.
I am not saying that this would necessarily have been a storming
success. But it was not even tried to any serious extent. There was
no support given to the anti-war groups in Serbia, for instance. And
deserters were refused asylum in western countries.
> There were non-military options that the west had been pursuing, such as
> embargo against Serbia, and non-stop negotiations LONG before the Kosovo
> campaign actually started.
The point is that all these options were top-down, based on an image
that the "leaders" lead and the people follow like a flock of sheep.
This is a serious flaw in traditional diplomacy and foreign policy,
that it treats the people as mere appendages to their "leaders".
> So military invention was ok in Bos Herz but not in Kosovo?
In short, in the concrete situations that pertained, yes imho.
Aris Katsaris
Till M Ruessmann <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote in message
news:g6Vd6.14329$wq.20...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> > (with the rest of "the West") done exactly nothing for 10 years with a
> > problem everyone knew about. The right thing to do in the
> > circumstances of early 1999 was imho the same as they had been doing
> > for 10 years. Sometimes doing nothing is preferable to "doing
> > something".
>
> So military invention was ok in Bos Herz but not in Kosovo?
That's pretty much my own opinion also. The situations were different -
for starters the massacres in Bosnia were real. The only reason Kosovo
was bombed was because the Serbs were already labelled as "evil ones"
because of their earlier deeds in Bosnia.
Aris Katsaris
Ricardo G Alves
>
> "jonivar skullerud" <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:83vgqwi...@theopc5.desy.de...
> > "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
> >
> > > jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > > news:83puhgi...@theopc5.desy.de...
> > >
> > > > However, it appears that the Racak massacre which was the single
> > > > incident that did the most to trigger the war (i prefer to call a
> > > > spade a spade, and a war a war, not "intervention" or "crisis")
> > > > actually never occurred. It seems to have been a propaganda stunt by
> > > > Salvadorean blood on his hands).
> > >
> > > I fully agree that the whole campaign was more about influencing the
> media.
> > > Much evidence was fabricated to make the Croatians the goodies, and the
> > > Serbian the bad guys. Perhaps Milosevic's biggest problem was that he is
> a
> > > communist who dared to challenge the West, and that Principe was a
> Serbian.
> > > Tudjman did not have either image problems.
> > >
> > > But what else should the West have done?
> >
> > When? Where?
> >
> > Above, i was talking about Kosov@. You appear to be talking about
> > Bosnia and Herzegovina. Two different kettles of fish.
>
> More like two fish of the same kettle
Two quite different situations, wheter you look at it from the point
of view of international law, scale of fighting, or general principles
involved.
> > In Bosnia and Herzegovina, on balance, i think it was correct at the
> > time to intervene militarily (and i say that as a pacifist) and even
> > to fight a war -- although it is typical that non-military options
> > based on support for civil society are hardly ever considered. When
> > "something must be done" that "something" is always sending in the
> > troops. Though by the time "something must be done" it is often too
> > late to do those other things.
>
> What is support for civil society? What is civil society?
The main party in Kosova, since the early nineties, had always been
the LDK, led by Ibrahim Rugova. The later stayed commited to a pacifist
line troughout the nineties, refusing to collaborate with the national
institutions of Yugoslavia while building their own (hospitals,
universities,...), promoting parallel elections, but stoping short of
armed
struggle for independence. This line had its limitations. It has been
argued
that if albanian kosovars had voted in 1995, Milosevic would have lost
the
presidential election. Also, the Western powers kept their
ears closed to this people, for the simple reason that while being
peaceful,
they were not a problem. However, it avoided the bloodshed one saw
further
north. In 1996, the KLA enters the scene and starts atacking both
yugoslav
police and civilians, a provocation tactic which is no different from
what ETA
does inside the spanish State. Of course, yugoslav regular troops
retaliated
in kind. In 1997, generalised finantial scandals in Albania led to
insurrection.
Many civilians assault army barracks and arm themselves. The state is
not in
control for weeks. Rumours abound that the KLA has profited and it is
now
training in Albania proper and crossing the border to Kosova with its
new
found guns. Indeed, fighting eventually escalates in 1998 and culminates
in
the dubious "Raczak massacre" of January 1999, but never achieving the
scale
of places like Colombia or Kurdistan (I will not mention East Timor,
since that sort of kills the conversation). We know what followed.
A last note to remember that the first free elections in Kosovo showed
overwhelming support for Rugova´s LDK (more than 70%), while the
political
UÇK had a meagre 20-odd percent. In the meantime, Rugova´s number 2 man
has
been shot in circumstances which point to the UÇK.
> There were non-military options that the west had been pursuing, such as
> embargo against Serbia, and non-stop negotiations LONG before the Kosovo
> campaign actually started.
Actually, just a few days before the war started there were hundreds
of OSCE monitors in the ground. Their presence alone was keeping the
serb paramilitaries in a short leash. Once they retreated (March 24?)
the serbs started expelling kosovars in great numbers, thus giving the
final pretext for total war.
Those observers should have stayed there. That would have been the
right decision. A war could have been avoided. The mass expulsions also.
(...)
R. Alves
Malte Lewan Neelsen
> c...@df.lth.se (Malte Lewan Neelsen) writes:
> > Interesting. I didn't know that there now are those who now question
> > the very existance of the Racak massacre.
>
> There were three forensic reports make after that incident. One by a
> yugoslav team, one by a belarussian team, and one by a finnish team.
> The yugoslav and belarussian reports came out a couple of weeks after
> the incident, concluding that the massacre was a hoax. The finnish
> report was kept secret on the orders of Walker. It was published a
> couple of weeks ago. It also concluded that there was no massacre.
> It is published in Forensic Science International.
That seems to in no way be the only accepted version of what happened,
not even today Feb 2nd. A very recent, great scandal is that Sreten
Lukic, new minister in the Yugoslav government, is believed to be
responsible for the Racak massacre. The Racak massacre is also still a
part of the accusations against Slobodan Milosevic. He is said to be
intercepted on the phone when he ordered this massacre, which your
sources claim never took place. Source, the Scanian newspaper
Helsingborgs Dagblad:
Helsingborgs Dagblad 2 februari 2001
Utrikes
Jugoslavisk minister vållar stort rabalder
BELGRAD. Chefen för de serbiska polisstyrkorna under kriget i Kosovo
utnämndes i veckan till biträdande inrikesminister i Belgrad, vilket har
väckt pinsam uppmärksamhet.
Sreten Lukic var general i poliskåren och kommenderade operationer i
Kosovo från 1998 till krigets slut i juni 1999.
Han tros ha ansvar för massakern i Racak i januari 1999, som bidrog
starkt till Natos insats, och för den etniska rensningen därpå, under
Natos bombningar.
- Även här i Belgrad kommer utnämningen att väcka opposition, säger
Dejan Anastasijevic i den politiska tidskriften Vreme i Belgrad.
Serbiska styrkor angrep byn Racak den 15 januari 1999 sedan fyra
serbiska poliser hade dödats i bakhåll, troligen av den albanska
UCK-gerillan.
Dagen därpå påträffades 45 mördade albaner i och utanför Racak. Chefen
för Osses observatörsstyrka William Walker lade skulden på serbiska
styrkor.
Den brittiska tidningen Observer tecknade i en artikel i juli 1999 en
bakgrund till massakern. Där framgick att Lukic planerade
straffexpeditionen mot Racak.
Senare skrev Observer att dokument som visar att general Lukic var
inblandad i ett annat massmord påträffades när serberna drog sig ur
provinsen. Drygt 80 albanska flyktingar dödades under ett bombangrepp av
Nato - de användes av serberna som levande sköldar.
Racakmassakern ingår i anklagelsematerialet mot serbledaren Slobodan
Milosevic. Enligt Washington Post avlyssnades telefonsamtal från högsta
politiska nivå i Belgrad till Kosovo med uppmaning till massaker efter
bakhållet i Racak.
Milosevic står anklagad vid tribunalen i Haag tillsammans med fyra
medarbetare. Åtalspunkt nr 98 lyder: Styrkor från federala republiken
Jugoslavien och Serbien dödade cirka 45 albaner i och runt Racak 15
januari 1999.
Lukic har inte utpekats offentligt av tribunalen i Haag.
Efter massakern i Racak stod han i nära kontakt med den man i
Jugoslaviens regering som hade ansvar för Kosovo, Nikola Sainovic. De
diskuterade i telefonsamtal som avlyssnades av västliga
underrättelseorganisationer hur de skulle dölja vilka som bar ansvar för
massakern.
Sainovic och Lukic planerade i detalj hur de skulle få det att se ut som
om de döda råkat falla offer för en strid mellan säkerhetsstyrkorna och
den albanska gerillan. TT
Till M Ruessmann
> > More like two fish of the same kettle
>
> Two quite different situations, wheter you look at it from the point
> of view of international law, scale of fighting, or general principles
> involved.
Well, yes, from a certain level onwards everything will be different. I
argue from the point of view that Yugoslavia was made up of nationalistic
countries trying to break away, whilst Milosoviç, the faithful heir to Tito,
trying to reverse this trend - see Croatia, Bosnia-H and Kosovo. The
principal question is the same: should the West have interfered or not. I
cannot see much difference in any of these situations.
IMO the crisis in Kosovo escalated into a NATO campaign because nobody was
prepared to put UN prevention forces into Kosovo after the experience of the
UN in Bosnia-H, and more importantly, because of Belgrade's intransigence.
jonivar skullerud
> "Ricardo G Alves" <ricard...@net.sapo.pt> wrote in message
> news:3A78BCF8...@net.sapo.pt...
> > Two quite different situations, wheter you look at it from the point
> > of view of international law, scale of fighting, or general principles
> > involved.
>
> Well, yes, from a certain level onwards everything will be different. I
> argue from the point of view that Yugoslavia was made up of nationalistic
> countries trying to break away, whilst Milosoviç, the faithful heir to Tito,
> trying to reverse this trend - see Croatia, Bosnia-H and Kosovo.
Miloshevich was in no way a faithful heir to Tito. One of Titos main
projects was to curb (or circumscribe) serbian power -- to make sure
that Serbia did not have a dominant role in the federation. To that
end, the republic of Macedonia was created, and the autonomous regions
of Kosovo and Vojvodina were carved out of serbian territory.
The main project of Miloshevich was, of course, the exact opposite.
Till M Ruessmann
> "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
>
> > "Ricardo G Alves" <ricard...@net.sapo.pt> wrote in message
> > news:3A78BCF8...@net.sapo.pt...
> > > Two quite different situations, wheter you look at it from the point
> > > of view of international law, scale of fighting, or general principles
> > > involved.
> >
> > Well, yes, from a certain level onwards everything will be different. I
> > argue from the point of view that Yugoslavia was made up of
nationalistic
> > countries trying to break away, whilst Milosoviç, the faithful heir to
Tito,
> > trying to reverse this trend - see Croatia, Bosnia-H and Kosovo.
>
> Miloshevich was in no way a faithful heir to Tito. One of Titos main
> projects was to curb (or circumscribe) serbian power -- to make sure
> that Serbia did not have a dominant role in the federation. To that
> end, the republic of Macedonia was created, and the autonomous regions
> of Kosovo and Vojvodina were carved out of serbian territory.
>
> The main project of Miloshevich was, of course, the exact opposite.
>
Can't you spot sarcasm?
jonivar skullerud
> Can't you spot sarcasm?
Usually, i can. In this case it escaped me.
The problem was that what you wrote -- apart from "the true heir to
Tito" -- seemed pretty much in tune with opinions you have expressed
previously. Please correct me.
Till M Ruessmann
> "Till M Ruessmann" <till.ru...@number-two.com> writes:
>
> > Can't you spot sarcasm?
>
> Usually, i can. In this case it escaped me.
Sorrey about this. PERHAPS I SHOULD USE UPPERCASE WHEN BEING SARCASTIC.
>
> The problem was that what you wrote -- apart from "the true heir to
> Tito" -- seemed pretty much in tune with opinions you have expressed
> previously. Please correct me.
Probably you have not read what I wrote. Please correct me.
Aris Katsaris
>
> "Ricardo G Alves" <ricard...@net.sapo.pt> wrote in message
> news:3A78BCF8...@net.sapo.pt...
>
> > > More like two fish of the same kettle
> >
> > Two quite different situations, wheter you look at it from the point
> > of view of international law, scale of fighting, or general principles
> > involved.
>
> Well, yes, from a certain level onwards everything will be different. I
> argue from the point of view that Yugoslavia was made up of nationalistic
> countries trying to break away, whilst Milosoviç, the faithful heir to
Tito,
> trying to reverse this trend - see Croatia, Bosnia-H and Kosovo. The
> principal question is the same: should the West have interfered or not. I
> cannot see much difference in any of these situations.
I believe that under Yugoslavian constitution Croatia, Bosnia and the other
republics had every right to break away if they so wanted to. Kosovo was
simply a semi-autonomous region and didn't have such a right. The "right"
of the Kosovars to break away from Serbia was not greater than the
right of the Bosnian-Serbs to break away from the rest of Bosnia.
Ofcourse another major difference is that much less of a massacre was
taking place in Kosovo.
Aris Katsaris
Till M Ruessmann
But should this really matter given that Miloseviç tried to distract from
his domestic problems by playing the nationalistic card again and again?
Firstly Croatia, then B-H, then Kosovo, and then next Montenegro? Was there
any chance that Milosoviç would have had the authority to find a peaceful
solution in the part of Yugoslavia that always was the most troublesome part
of Yugoslavia?
>
> Ofcourse another major difference is that much less of a massacre was
> taking place in Kosovo.
No wonder, given that the West took a firmer stance.
Don't get me wrong: I am not blaming Serbia for being more nationalistic
than the other parts of Yugoslavia (and Albania for that matter). But if
Milosoviç wanted to embrace other ethnic groups than he should not have made
so much noise about Greater Serbia.
Aris Katsaris
>
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:95k82l$spq$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
> >
> > Till M Ruessmann <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote in message
> > news:Kraf6.21315$wq.33...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> > >
No, Milosevic wouldn't have found a peaceful solution. But ofcourse NATO
didn't
find a peaceful solution either. Why should I tolerate the death of
innocents by
NATO and not tolerate the death of innocents by Milosevic? Especially since
I
don't have that much evidence that the number of deaths in the latter would
be
significantly higher than in the former?
> > Ofcourse another major difference is that much less of a massacre was
> > taking place in Kosovo.
>
> No wonder, given that the West took a firmer stance.
>
> Don't get me wrong: I am not blaming Serbia for being more nationalistic
> than the other parts of Yugoslavia (and Albania for that matter). But if
> Milosoviç wanted to embrace other ethnic groups than he should not have
made
> so much noise about Greater Serbia.
Milosevic is clearly a Bad Man (TM). But the Greater Albania envisioned by
UCK
isn't that much better. That's the problems with supporting one side of a
civil war
simply because they are the losers: When they win in the end they can end up
being
as bad or worse. Now it's the Serbs and other minorities that have being
driven
out of Kosovo by the Albanians.
Aris Katsaris
Till M Ruessmann
>
>
> No, Milosevic wouldn't have found a peaceful solution. But ofcourse NATO
> didn't
> find a peaceful solution either.
What? AFAIK the West had been trying to find peaceful solutions for YU for
years, to no avail.
>Why should I tolerate the death of
> innocents by
> NATO and not tolerate the death of innocents by Milosevic? Especially
since
> I
> don't have that much evidence that the number of deaths in the latter
would
> be
> significantly higher than in the former?
Well, then the only other solution I can see is that the West shouldn't have
done anything and just look on rather powerless how Milosoviç continues with
his nationalistic policies and distract from his domestic problems.
>
> Milosevic is clearly a Bad Man (TM). But the Greater Albania envisioned by
> UCK
> isn't that much better. That's the problems with supporting one side of a
> civil war
> simply because they are the losers: When they win in the end they can end
up
> being
> as bad or worse. Now it's the Serbs and other minorities that have being
> driven
> out of Kosovo by the Albanians.
These are dirty and unpleasant problems. But you will never know whether the
other way round would have been any better.
It comes without saying that the peace-keeping forces must act as neutral
and just as possible, and, more importantly, address the real problems.
Aris Katsaris
>
> "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> news:95n1lb$g4p$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
> >
> > No, Milosevic wouldn't have found a peaceful solution. But ofcourse NATO
> > didn't
> > find a peaceful solution either.
>
> What? AFAIK the West had been trying to find peaceful solutions for YU for
> years, to no avail.
Trying? Well, that's a point of view. I'm not certain they tried that hard
in Kosovo.
But one way or another they didn't managed to find one, did they?
I find the West to have acted where it shouldn't have acted and not to have
acted
where it should have... They delayed too much to act in Bosnia. Then they
overcompensated in Kosovo.
> >Why should I tolerate the death of
> > innocents by
> > NATO and not tolerate the death of innocents by Milosevic? Especially
> since
> > I
> > don't have that much evidence that the number of deaths in the latter
> would
> > be
> > significantly higher than in the former?
>
> Well, then the only other solution I can see is that the West shouldn't
have
> done anything and just look on rather powerless how Milosoviç continues
with
> his nationalistic policies and distract from his domestic problems.
But the UCK also has nationalistic policies: The Greater Albania. I have
no reason to believe they're morally superior to Milosevic.
> > Milosevic is clearly a Bad Man (TM). But the Greater Albania envisioned
by
> > UCK
> > isn't that much better. That's the problems with supporting one side of
a
> > civil war
> > simply because they are the losers: When they win in the end they can
end
> up
> > being
> > as bad or worse. Now it's the Serbs and other minorities that have being
> > driven
> > out of Kosovo by the Albanians.
>
> These are dirty and unpleasant problems. But you will never know whether
the
> other way round would have been any better.
I suppose I can't. But we can clearly see that the fighting has not been
stopped,
they have only been briefly postponed. Which would mean to me that the
bombings failed.
Aris Katsaris
jonivar skullerud
> jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > c...@df.lth.se (Malte Lewan Neelsen) writes:
> > > Interesting. I didn't know that there now are those who now question
> > > the very existance of the Racak massacre.
> >
> > There were three forensic reports make after that incident. One by a
> > yugoslav team, one by a belarussian team, and one by a finnish team.
> > The yugoslav and belarussian reports came out a couple of weeks after
> > the incident, concluding that the massacre was a hoax. The finnish
> > report was kept secret on the orders of Walker. It was published a
> > couple of weeks ago. It also concluded that there was no massacre.
> > It is published in Forensic Science International.
>
> That seems to in no way be the only accepted version of what happened,
> not even today Feb 2nd. A very recent, great scandal is that Sreten
> Lukic, new minister in the Yugoslav government, is believed to be
> responsible for the Racak massacre. The Racak massacre is also still a
> part of the accusations against Slobodan Milosevic. He is said to be
> intercepted on the phone when he ordered this massacre, which your
> sources claim never took place. Source, the Scanian newspaper
> Helsingborgs Dagblad:
So, do they dispute the forensic reports?
No, they merely ignore them.
Malte Lewan Neelsen
> c...@df.lth.se (Malte Lewan Neelsen) writes:
> > jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > c...@df.lth.se (Malte Lewan Neelsen) writes:
> > > > Interesting. I didn't know that there now are those who now question
> > > > the very existance of the Racak massacre.
> > >
> > > There were three forensic reports make after that incident. One by a
> > > yugoslav team, one by a belarussian team, and one by a finnish team.
> > > The yugoslav and belarussian reports came out a couple of weeks after
> > > the incident, concluding that the massacre was a hoax. The finnish
> > > report was kept secret on the orders of Walker. It was published a
> > > couple of weeks ago. It also concluded that there was no massacre.
> > > It is published in Forensic Science International.
> >
> > That seems to in no way be the only accepted version of what happened,
> > not even today Feb 2nd. A very recent, great scandal is that Sreten
> > Lukic, new minister in the Yugoslav government, is believed to be
> > responsible for the Racak massacre. The Racak massacre is also still a
> > part of the accusations against Slobodan Milosevic. He is said to be
> > intercepted on the phone when he ordered this massacre, which your
> > sources claim never took place. Source, the Scanian newspaper
> > Helsingborgs Dagblad:
>
> So, do they dispute the forensic reports?
> No, they merely ignore them.
How do you know?
All we know is that the forensic reports _for some reason_ didn't make
enough impression for the opinions/thinking described above to be
different from what they are. That's my only point. I don't know more.
Do you?
Malte Lewan Neelsen
> I find the West to have acted where it shouldn't have acted and not to
> have acted where it should have... They delayed too much to act in Bosnia.
> Then they overcompensated in Kosovo.
How exactly did they overcompensate? By waiting for Serbian troops to
leave Kosovo before stopping the bombings?
Aris Katsaris
Malte Lewan Neelsen <c...@df.lth.se> wrote in message
news:1eohajk.rveeac2v2nswN%c...@df.lth.se...
By taking the UCK to be "good guys" simply because the UCK was against
Milosevic.
And by the murderous intentional *targeting* of civilians when they bombed
that tv station.
Aris Katsaris
Till M Ruessmann
>
> Till M Ruessmann <till.ru...@number-two.com> wrote in message
> news:43Qf6.29690$wq.41...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> >
> > "Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
> > news:95n1lb$g4p$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
> > >
> > > No, Milosevic wouldn't have found a peaceful solution. But ofcourse
NATO
> > > didn't
> > > find a peaceful solution either.
> >
> > What? AFAIK the West had been trying to find peaceful solutions for YU
for
> > years, to no avail.
>
> Trying? Well, that's a point of view. I'm not certain they tried that hard
> in Kosovo.
No, I meant all the years before Kosovo. So when Kosovo became acute the
West did not accept to play Milosoviç's games as long as they were prepared
to do beforehand.
> But one way or another they didn't managed to find one, did they?
Well, there were attempts to encourage the opposition in Yugoslavia because
it was seen that Milosoviç was not prepared to compromise. Alas the
opposition in Belgrade was pretty divided. Bud in total - yes, you are right
the West did not manage (however they did manage for the recent election in
YU - there was massive support for the opposition).
>
> I find the West to have acted where it shouldn't have acted and not to
have
> acted
> where it should have... They delayed too much to act in Bosnia. Then they
> overcompensated in Kosovo.
Certainly. I also wished that the peace initiative by J Fischer would have
been taken more seriously by the other countries (France, UK and USA). In
addition there were motivations for the campaign (such as NATO credibility,
USA domestic issues etc.) that had nothing to do with the original mission.
>
> > >Why should I tolerate the death of
> > > innocents by
> > > NATO and not tolerate the death of innocents by Milosevic? Especially
> > since
> > > I
> > > don't have that much evidence that the number of deaths in the latter
> > would
> > > be
> > > significantly higher than in the former?
> >
> > Well, then the only other solution I can see is that the West shouldn't
> have
> > done anything and just look on rather powerless how Milosoviç continues
> with
> > his nationalistic policies and distract from his domestic problems.
>
> But the UCK also has nationalistic policies: The Greater Albania. I have
> no reason to believe they're morally superior to Milosevic.
Fully agreed, they are scoundrels, too.
>
> > > Milosevic is clearly a Bad Man (TM). But the Greater Albania
envisioned
> by
> > > UCK
> > > isn't that much better. That's the problems with supporting one side
of
> a
> > > civil war
> > > simply because they are the losers: When they win in the end they can
> end
> > up
> > > being
> > > as bad or worse. Now it's the Serbs and other minorities that have
being
> > > driven
> > > out of Kosovo by the Albanians.
> >
> > These are dirty and unpleasant problems. But you will never know whether
> the
> > other way round would have been any better.
>
> I suppose I can't. But we can clearly see that the fighting has not been
> stopped,
> they have only been briefly postponed. Which would mean to me that the
> bombings failed.
Yes, this is possible. But this is and will always be the dilemma: should
the West look on and watch the carnage, or should they interfer and be
blamed if they get it wrong. There does not seem to be an easy formula, in
particular nowadays with the television as the great manipulator. But what
disconcerts me most is how the UN was abused by all YU parties in
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
jonivar skullerud
No, i do not have a secret channel into the minds of the people
involved. I can only guess.
I know that powers-that-be hardly ever admit that they were wrong.
Facts that contradict the official version are often not reported.
The powers-that-be know the facts, but ignore them or even blatantly
deny them as long as they think they can get away with it. Often they
will also resort to diversionary tactics. Witness the line taken by
officials in the UK and USA against Dennis Halliday and Hans von
Sponeck.
I happen to think that most people are honest, people with good
intentions. I happen to think that most people in power are not.
Herman Beun
wrote:
>I happen to think that most people are honest, people with good
>intentions. I happen to think that most people in power are not.
Hm, I feel almost tempted to say the exact opposite (and if it hadn't
been you, I would probably have said: "Bollocks").
Why would politicians (as I translate your "people in power" now,
although I almost know for sure that you also mean captains of
industry and the like) be less honest and have less good intentions
than other people? People are people!
_If_ there is any difference in this respect between politicians and
other people, my impression is that the average politician is better
informed, more idealistic and even more aware of the moral
implications of his decisions than the average voter. As he should be
of course (and maybe isn't sufficiently), considering the impact of
his decisions.
I think quite a few "real people" apply double standards when they
complain about the dishonesty and moral inferiority of politicians
(they should complain of course, but I think someone should point out
the nuances now and then).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herman Beun http://www.bigfoot.com/~hermanb/
Her...@bigfoot.com Brussel, Vlaanderen
-------------------------------------------------------------
European Parliament, ELDR (NL-D66), http://www.vanderlaan.net
-------------------------------------------------------------
*representative democracy is a contradiction in 4 year terms*
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nils Zonneveld
Herman Beun wrote:
>
> On 14 Feb 2001 20:39:41 +0100, jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I happen to think that most people are honest, people with good
> >intentions. I happen to think that most people in power are not.
>
> Hm, I feel almost tempted to say the exact opposite (and if it hadn't
> been you, I would probably have said: "Bollocks").
>
> Why would politicians (as I translate your "people in power" now,
> although I almost know for sure that you also mean captains of
> industry and the like) be less honest and have less good intentions
> than other people? People are people!
>
> _If_ there is any difference in this respect between politicians and
> other people, my impression is that the average politician is better
> informed, more idealistic and even more aware of the moral
> implications of his decisions than the average voter. As he should be
> of course (and maybe isn't sufficiently), considering the impact of
> his decisions.
>
> I think quite a few "real people" apply double standards when they
> complain about the dishonesty and moral inferiority of politicians
> (they should complain of course, but I think someone should point out
> the nuances now and then).
>
Most politicians are full of good intentions and, as we all know, the
road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's sad but true, I think
the less ambitious politicians are, the better for society.
Regards,
Nils
Till M Ruessmann
"Herman Beun" <her...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:g3bn8t8vdp3ud4bk2...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Feb 2001 20:39:41 +0100, jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I happen to think that most people are honest, people with good
> >intentions. I happen to think that most people in power are not.
>
> Hm, I feel almost tempted to say the exact opposite (and if it hadn't
> been you, I would probably have said: "Bollocks").
>
> Why would politicians (as I translate your "people in power" now,
> although I almost know for sure that you also mean captains of
> industry and the like) be less honest and have less good intentions
> than other people? People are people
But somebody must be guilty of the evil of this world! :-)
Nils Zonneveld
Till M Ruessmann wrote:
> But somebody must be guilty of the evil of this world! :-)
It's in the small print in the application for political party membership:
"by becoming politically involved, you hereby volunteer to function as scapegoat".
Nils
Herman Beun
wrote:
>Most politicians are full of good intentions and, as we all know, the
>road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's sad but true, I think
>the less ambitious politicians are, the better for society.
Borrelpraat.
More likely, there would be lots of complaints instead that "politics
should do something about it". Anything but taking some responsibility
themselves of course. Sad wankers, voters.
Till M Ruessmann
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:57:16 +0100, Nils Zonneveld <ni...@casema.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Most politicians are full of good intentions and, as we all know, the
> >road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's sad but true, I think
> >the less ambitious politicians are, the better for society.
>
> Borrelpraat.
>
> More likely, there would be lots of complaints instead that "politics
> should do something about it". Anything but taking some responsibility
> themselves of course. Sad wankers, voters.
ISTR that wankers do take responsibility themselves.
Till M Ruessmann
"Nils Zonneveld" <ni...@casema.net> wrote in message
news:3A8BF315...@casema.net...
That's life. You take responsibility; so you take the shit, too.
Nils Zonneveld
Herman Beun wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:57:16 +0100, Nils Zonneveld <ni...@casema.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Most politicians are full of good intentions and, as we all know, the
> >road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's sad but true, I think
> >the less ambitious politicians are, the better for society.
>
> Borrelpraat.
Goedkoop argument
> Sad wankers, voters.
>
So this is your true stand on democracy?
Nils
rosignol
<ni...@casema.net> wrote:
[zap]
> Most politicians are full of good intentions and, as we all know, the
> road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's sad but true, I think
> the less ambitious politicians are, the better for society.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nils
It's an expression over here that someone "...gets elected to do good, and
ends up doing well".
Power corrupts.
Nils Zonneveld
That's another way to put it. But you're right. As a politician you are
elected to a public office and as such you have to endure and handle in
a professional way all kinds criticism: constructive criticism or unjust
or uninformed remarks and even wild accusations, how unjust it might
be, it's part of the responsibility that comes with the job.
Nils
Nils Zonneveld
That was not exactly my point. Maybe it's naive, but I'm willing to
believe in the integrity of most politicians. The politicians full of
ideology and ambition to make the wordl a bit better are the people that
are dangerous to put in power. Much too often you see the effects of
their policies work out just wrong way around, or that the
implementation of of their ideas, which are in them selves very noble
and just, have many unwanted side effects.
A good example is the Euro. A very ambitious project that will bring a
lot of opportunities for the people and companies of europe and forces
the politcal structure of the EU more to a 'federation'. If you look at
the development of the US dollar as unity currency for the US, you see
an evolution, not so much politcal presure in a matter of a few years,
from many regional currencies into one currency. But in th case of the
Euro there were politicians with a burning ambition to realize the
European currency within their life time. Due to their idealism they
succeeded in creating the single currency much too early. Not because
they are wicked, but because they are driven by their ambitions and good
intensions which make them blind for reality.
Nils
Nils Zonneveld
That was not exactly my point. Maybe it's naive, but I'm willing to
believe in the integrity of most politicians. The politicians that are
full of ideology and ambition to better the world are the people that
are dangerous to put in power. Much too often you see the effects of
their policies work out just the wrong way around, or that the
implementation of their ideas, which are in them selves very noble and
just, have many unwanted side effects.
A good example is the Euro. A very ambitious project that will bring a
lot of opportunities for europe and will improve trade and the internal
strength of europe. The single currency will force the individual member
states to move towards a stronger federal structure of policy making (to
some politicians this is also a realization of an ideological dream).
If you look at the development of the US dollar as unity currency for
the US, you see an evolution over decades and decades. Opposed to the
blitzkrieg like way the Euro is implemented. In the case of the Euro
there were politicians with a burning ambition to realize the European
single currency within their life time. Due to their idealism they
succeeded in creating the single currency much too early. Not because
they are wicked, but because they are driven by their ambitions and good
intentions which make them blind for reality.
Nils
Herman Beun
wrote:
>So this is your true stand on democracy?
No. Read what I wrote in my reply to Jon Ivar.
Nils Zonneveld
Herman Beun wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 03:44:52 +0100, Nils Zonneveld <ni...@casema.net>
> wrote:
>
> >So this is your true stand on democracy?
>
> No. Read what I wrote in my reply to Jon Ivar.
I did, and I'm still under the impression that in your opinion
politicians are superior to those who are not involved in the political
system and that the last category only serves as dumb 'voting cattle'.
Nils
Herman Beun
wrote:
>> No. Read what I wrote in my reply to Jon Ivar.
>
>I did, and I'm still under the impression that in your opinion
>politicians are superior to those who are not involved in the political
>system and that the last category only serves as dumb 'voting cattle'.
Read it again then.
My point is not that voters _serve_ as voting cattle, but that they
_behave_ as voting cattle.
Nils Zonneveld
Herman Beun wrote:
>
> My point is not that voters _serve_ as voting cattle, but that they
> _behave_ as voting cattle.
>
And whose fault is that? The voters or the system? People behave the way
they do (apathy) because it's the most probable answer to the
bureaucratic, complex and undemocratic institutions where the EU seems
to consist off.
Nils
Herman Beun
wrote:
>> My point is not that voters _serve_ as voting cattle, but that they
>> _behave_ as voting cattle.
>
>And whose fault is that? The voters or the system?
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Good question indeed - with a
chicken-or-egg answer. The bottom line is that while there may be
reasons why the electorate as a whole is apathetic (e.g. because the
political system encourages that), this is _never_ an _excuse_ for
individuals to behave this way.
If voters criticising the (un-)democratic set-up of the EU would
behave like European truckers did last summer on fuel prices, the EU
would definitely not look like it does.
But even leaving road blockades aside, voters bear much more
responsibility for the EU's highly undemocratic structure than they
seem to acknowledge. The European treaties were made by national
governments and ratified by national parliaments who are directly
responsible to the public. Treaties by their very nature require
unanimity, so each national parliament could have vetoed them on its
own - but none did. Note that this has no relation whatsoever with the
democratic gap in the EU structure; it is purely the national
democracy some of us here seem to love so much which failed here. Why
so, I wonder, if it is inherently superior?
>People behave the way they do (apathy) because it's the
>most probable answer to the bureaucratic, complex and
>undemocratic institutions where the EU seems
>to consist off.
And the other way round: politicians, both on the national and on the
EU level, neglect EU politics because neither voters nor newspapers
are interested in it. Seen rationally, occupying yourself with the EU
is a complete waste of time for a politician.
De Volkskrant, one of the best Dutch newspapers, has two
correspondents in Brussels and six in The Hague. For most lobby
organisations, it is the other way round. Both act rationally: lobby
organisations want to spend most resources where the most important
decisions are made. Newspapers spend their resources on news their
readers want to read about.
As you see it is a vicious circle. Politicians and newspapers neglect
the EU and do not take responsibility because voters are not
interested in it, voters are not interested and do not take
responsibility because they don't hear about the EU as often as they
should.
This circle can only be broken if _all_ parties accept that they are
responsible, voters included. Taking an unjustified moral highground
does not bring us any further. Voting for reform-minded politicians
does.
peter_a_davidson
I think you are correct Nils, your analysis is a much more likely
scenario.
There is an interesting moral dilemma here.
If European voters had (generally) acted in a truculent (sorry about
the pun) manner toward the headlong dash (I don't think 50 years is a
quite a headlong dash but I can see the validity of the comparison
with the USA) for closer integration, the Eurosceptic/Europhobic camp
would claim victory and might just be able to push individual nations
in Europe down a completely different pathway in history.
For my money, the problem lies in the inherent foundation of the EU.
Currently, real political power still resides within the mechanisms
and institutions of the member (Nation) states. The fact that all
Treaties advancing the process of integration must be ratified
individually by the parliaments of the member (Nation) states is very
tangible evidence of these circumstances.
The public gets what the public wants is an oft-heard refrain and I
have to (sadly) admit that it is well founded. Ordinary people are
(generally speaking) not interested in the application/exercise of
political power until or unless it has some direct effect upon them.
In the main (and one can only generalise in this discussion) this
means policy areas such as:
Healthcare - e.g. people are interested in the state of their local
hospital/doctors practice.
Education - e.g. people are interested in the state of their local
school(s)/college(s)
Law and Order - e.g. people are concerned about crime levels in their
locality and whether or not the officers of law and order (locally)
are effective in tackling crime.
Local environmental issues - e.g. the state of the immediate
environment in which they live/reside.
Ordinary people (again I generalise) are not normally interested in
topics such as:
Treaties, convergence criteria, trade agreements, defence policy etc.
etc.
They aren't interested because it doesn't affect them directly. When
it does i.e. a local factory is threatened with closure for some
reason controlled by National politicians, you can be sure they become
interested, but otherwise they just think "let me get on with my
normal everyday life - all politicians are the same, they say one
thing in public and do the complete opposite in private"
This is all pretty obvious stuff - yes. However what shocks me so much
is the fact that ordinary people so readily accept (certainly here in
the UK) a state of affairs where funding for the basic provisions
outlined above, e.g. healthcare, education, local law and order etc.
etc. is largely controlled by National political institutions.
Power = money and it is the control of revenue raising and the
competency to spend such revenues that is the key driver in any
political process. Without money (and remember just who's money it is)
politicians can achieve absolutely zero.
What is required is exactly the kind of visionary (statesmanlike)
qualities that are being derided within this thread. Somebody, and
preferably it should be a caucus (or grouping) of influential people
(not just politicians but also captains of industry, even dare I say
it - senior clergy, popular everyday individuals such as writers,
musicians (of many kinds), academics, etc. etc.) across the whole of
the EU, to stand up and declare that integration has reached a cross
roads and that we (Europeans) must begin scrutinising, in an objective
and serious manner, all levels of the political institutions serving
us - this process must not be influenced by the mythical "National
self-interest" factor.
I think that the advent of the € (Euro) has at least begun a process
of focusing minds in this direction. Powerful individuals are
beginning to accept that there must be a corresponding political
integration to control the evolving economic integration initiated
(and which cannot now be reversed) by the € (Euro).
That process of contemplation is having a profound effect. If certain
govt. activities are quite naturally moving in an upward direction
toward supra-national bodies - i.e. Brussels, because of the Treaties
already concluded, how can the resulting disadvantages, i.e. increased
remoteness, be counterbalanced.
My answer would be of course to promote, across the whole of the EU, a
long-term strategy of devolving political power to more immediate,
i.e. Regional, institutions in those policy areas where ordinary
people want more control/more say/more influence.
The vital element in such a potential process must be that devolution
is not a sham but a real transfer of political power (from National
tiers of govt.). That means giving revenue raising and spending powers
to Regional Assemblies so they become accountable to their respective
electorates.
Where does this leave the institutions currently representing member
(Nation) states in the long-term?
Where indeed?
Peter A Davidson Alderley Edge N.W. England
jonivar skullerud
> On 14 Feb 2001 20:39:41 +0100, jonivar skullerud <jon...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I happen to think that most people are honest, people with good
> >intentions. I happen to think that most people in power are not.
>
> Hm, I feel almost tempted to say the exact opposite (and if it hadn't
> been you, I would probably have said: "Bollocks").
>
> Why would politicians (as I translate your "people in power" now,
> although I almost know for sure that you also mean captains of
> industry and the like) be less honest and have less good intentions
> than other people? People are people!
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Yes, that is a glib phrase which does not prove anything by itself.
But i think it contains a very large portion of truth.
First, i should emphasise that not only (as you admit) do i not just
mean politicians, but i do not mean all politicians either -- only
those in power or close to it (which often includes "the official
opposition" and similar entities). As you must surely be aware of,
being surrounded by hundreds of such specimens every day, not all
politicians are in power.
There are several processes which lead to people in power being in
general more dishonest that most people not in power. Firstly,
honesty and integrity -- at least when combined with open-mindedness
rather than ideological obsession -- are usually disadvantages when it
comes to gaining power. That goes not only for politics, but for
business and media as well. The best strategy is being scheming and
cynical.
Secondly, if you come into power, even with the very best of
intentions, your first priority is holding on to that power. For the
more cynical type, power itself will be sufficient justification for
this policy. The more well-intentioned type will see the need to
cling to power in order to implement those things he or she wants to
implement, and not let the opposition in to ruin it. Slowly but
surely, the need to cling to power will undermine the other positive
aims. (Business people of course rarely have any such positive aims
in the first place.)
Thirdly, there is the issue of prestige, which is even more important
to public personae than to average people. Backing down, admitting
you were wrong, can be difficult enough for any of us, but for a
politician (or leader of a big corporation, or media owner or editor)
to do so in the full blaze of publicity is even worse. The way the
media operates does not make it any easier. Therefore, people in
power become even more prone than we all are to rationalising and
always trying to justify their actions and statements and never
allowing a chink in the armour. This gradually builds up to an ever
more elaborate web of deceit and ever more self-righteous denunciation
of those who question you. Or, to put it another way, digging
yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. And perhaps the worst thing
is that the first people they manage to fool are themselves. They are
fully and wholly committed to their lies. I assume that Tony Blair is
thoroughly convinced that his evil, wicked acts against the people of
Iraq are thoroughly justified and indeed the only proper and moral
thing to do. I also assume that he has deluded himself into fully
believing that privatisation is the only proper way for air traffic
control and the London Underground, and that any other course of
action would be and absolute disaster. And that everyone who
disagrees with him must be ill-informed or ideologically driven.
I also assume that Stalin was fully convinced that his policies were
the only proper ones, and that he could not ever give one inch to his
enemies, who were always out to destroy him and everything he had
achieved.
Finally, there is the issue of socialisation -- you basically tend to
think like the people around you, even if you started out thinking for
yourself. Combined with the three mechanisms above, that is a recipe
for endemic dishonesty.
> _If_ there is any difference in this respect between politicians and
> other people, my impression is that the average politician is better
> informed, more idealistic and even more aware of the moral
> implications of his decisions than the average voter. As he should be
> of course (and maybe isn't sufficiently), considering the impact of
> his decisions.
Idealism, of course, can go both ways. And i think it does. Either
it turns to a fanatical moral crusade, be it for bombing Iraq, for
pushing through ever closer european integration, for the glory of
socialism, for basic christian values, or what have you. Or it
recedes to a pragmatism which never lets principles intervene.
I also am not really sure that politicians are really so well
informed. At least they very often just parrot the party line without
ever thinking about it, even on very important issues where the onus
should really be on every single elected representative to know the
basic facts. European Union matters is indeed a case in point.
True, the average voter is usually even less informed. But that is
not something to crow about.
In any case, that was not my point.
> I think quite a few "real people" apply double standards when they
> complain about the dishonesty and moral inferiority of politicians
> (they should complain of course, but I think someone should point out
> the nuances now and then).
I should say -- perhaps i should have said it at the outset -- that my
statement was *partly* a personal statement about my own psychology so
to speak. In particular, my tendency to think the best about most
people may be a weakness. Although i prefer that to always being
suspicious, bearing grudges and talking about how evil they are.
Cynicism towards people in power otoh is imho a good general rule.
Richard Gregory
>
> The vital element in such a potential process must be that devolution
> is not a sham but a real transfer of political power (from National
> tiers of govt.). That means giving revenue raising and spending powers
> to Regional Assemblies so they become accountable to their respective
> electorates.
>
> Where does this leave the institutions currently representing member
> (Nation) states in the long-term?
>
> Where indeed?
Of course, one problem is that Regions may not control budgets large
enough to fund things like healthcare - by that I mean they can't
raise sufficient revenue to do certain things. So that means you still
need something on a national level to provide from a larger pool
of funding, or even from something like an EU level. EG your local
hospital needs to build a fully equipped specialist neurological
unit - which would be difficult to justify from the local cases needing
it and impossible to fund from Regional resources.
And then, we're right back at the problem of large remote bodies
having control over things like healthcare.
The opposite problem is that Regions will be large enough for people to
raise exactly the sort of complaints against the Assemblies that
you raise against the Nation States. After all, what does Region
South-West know about the problems in my city?
And would you advocate the movements of powers back down from EU level?
It doesn't seem unreasonable that Nations or even Regions should decide
their own standards of food quality for example.
Malte Lewan Neelsen
> Peter, A, Davidson wrote:
> > The vital element in such a potential process must be that devolution
> > is not a sham but a real transfer of political power (from National
> > tiers of govt.). That means giving revenue raising and spending powers
> > to Regional Assemblies so they become accountable to their respective
> > electorates.
> >
> > Where does this leave the institutions currently representing member
> > (Nation) states in the long-term?
> >
> > Where indeed?
>
> Of course, one problem is that Regions may not control budgets large
> enough to fund things like healthcare -
They usually do. Regions traditionally are occupied with healthcare,
also in centralised countries where they don't do much else like in
Denmark and Sweden.
> The opposite problem is that Regions will be large enough for people to
> raise exactly the sort of complaints against the Assemblies that
> you raise against the Nation States. After all, what does Region
> South-West know about the problems in my city?
The simple answer is "More." At least if we talk about regions where
distances are 'commutable' distances. So most people have some sense of
problems and discussions in the other cities. Because people from the
neighboring cities aren't just tourists but share the same regional
living space in some way. There are daytrips made and some common local
media etc.
Malte Lewan Neelsen
I read an article that says that the head of the Serbian state
television is detained in Serbia because they think that he might have
known that Nato would bomb that station and that still he ordered the
employees to be at work. In that case, Nato couldn't have known. It
couldn't have been an intentional targeting of civilians.
Source, Scanian newspaper Metro Skåne Feb 14th 2001:
Milosevics TV-chef häktades
Metro Skåne 2001-02-14
JUGOSLAVIEN Förre chefen för den statliga serbiska televisionen RTS,
Dragoljub Milanovic, häktades i går. Han hade dessförinnan förhörts av
en domare om huruvida han i förväg visste att Nato skulle bomba hans
TV-station under flygkriget 1999. 16 av Milanovics medarbetare dödades.
Anklagelsen föranleds av att anhöriga till dem som omkom vid
bombningen av TV-stationen menar att han och andra chefer beordrade
anställda att infinna sig på arbetet och därmed gjorde dem till "levande
måltavlor". (TT)