Mon, 17 May 1999 23:31:49 EDT

In a message dated 5/17/1999 10:40:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Z@Gundam.Com

> At 01:48 5/17/1999 -0400, you wrote:
> >It concerns me a great deal that the embassy, of the no. 3 nuclear power
> >of the world and, to say the least, a mildly bad guy, was carelessly
> >destroyed. Not so long ago, embassy and diplomats were untouchables, back
> >in the saner days of the Vietnam War, both the American and Soviet
> >embassies were off-limit, even "accidentally". No matter, accidents do
> >really happen. The trouble is (1) all the Administration can offer is a
> >half-ass "Monica" apology and (2) the whole nation doesn't seem concerned
> >at all. So now the Chinese must be thinking if only they have ICBMs,
> >future accidents can certainly be prevented. Wrapped thinking? Of
> >course! But does it matter?
> It does matter. But I fail to see why the destruction of an embassy to a
> hostile power is such an outrage, compared to, say, a civilian airliner
> that just happens to be flying in contested airspace. KAL 007 was far less
> of an accident than the Chinese embassy, which has extremely bad feng shui.

The civilan airliner is the outrage, not the embassy. Like you say its the
enemy embassy, not ours. The Embassy was a mistake, but this is a millitary
action, not a Sunday stroll to Grandma's. Accidents and death happens, but
they do try to mimimize it, when possiable.

> It concerns me a great deal that America is deemed responsible and held
> accountable for the actions of NATO. Last time I flew with NATO troops, we
> Americans had to use NATO equipment and follow NATO Rules of Engagement
> (ROE) under the command of NATO officers. These officers are as likely to
> be from Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Britain, Iceland (which was where
> I was serving at the time), Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, or
> Portugal as from the U.S. Serving with NATO is even worse than seriving
> with the U.N. Peacekeepers in that regard.
> Nevertheless, America has apologized for NATO's error. If that's not
> enough, then I suggest you take the matter up with the other 11 member
> nations and, most especially, with the actual perpetrators of the deed.
> Just for the record, the authorizing body is not the U.S. Congress or its
> President, but the North Atlantic Council, which is heavily dominated by
> France.
> And China *DOES* have ICBMs, courtesy of the civilian rocket technology
> that we sold them, which it is currently arming with warheads built using
> military technology that it stole from us. China also has a lot in common
> with the Milosevic regime, as I'm sure the Dalai Lama would agree.
> When you point a finger at someone, there's always four fingers pointing
> back at yourself.
> >It concerns me a great deal that the no. 2 nuclear power of the world and,
> >to say the least, until recently a very bad guy, had just had a major
> >political earthquake. A very very bad guy can easily assume power in
> >Moscow if Yeltsin is continually embarassed as a weakling with a war
> >against his ally right at his own doorstep.
> You might also be concerned that Number 2 has already cast its lot with the
> Milosevic crowd and recall its own role in Chechnya.
> And India and Pakistan are still rattling *their* sabers. This idiocy is
> not limited to the old Cold War powers.
> >It concerns me a great deal that NATO have (with little remorse) admitted
> >to killing hundreds of Albanians, and have not yet even tried to estimate
> >if they actually have saved any single Albanians. In the NATO assisted/
> >approved news coverage, you constantly hear from the refugees: "where's
> >NATO?" "what have they done for me?". So even if you take NATO's words at
> >the face value, you must conclude that bombing has been counterproductive.
> >Yet the military continue to pat themselves on the back and this whole
> >nation cheer them on. Heroism is now officially dead.

Its very bad that heroism is dead. Our Government is working for NATO in this
operation. It sickens mean that our attidue is, "Bomb them and its over". Our
Government wants to minize the death of our soliders by Bombing, but Kosovo
can't be solved by leveling the whole place. Ground troops are needed,
because they are digging shelters in the ground from what I've heard.

> So what's *your* solution?
> If Milosevic has his way, the refugees will never be allowed back except as
> slave labor with a short life expectancy. I can guarantee you that not
> many of them know English and none of them know Cantonese. If they can't
> return to their homeland, where then shall they go?

I hope he replies to that. There's no easy, solution, but I'll take a shot at

1. Takeover Kosovo: This is not a good idea, it will tick off some nations
probably, etc. this would be a very negitive option to some. So, this
wouldn't work.

2. Send a Peace Keeping Force: Every member of NATO could pool resources and
create a force to be sent to Kosovo to keep the peace.

3. America could withdraw and leave it to NATO, but America isn't allowed to
do this, is it? I don't know too much about NATO.

4. There's other options, that I can't think of, but there is not "easy" or
"right" way to end it, that would satisfy everyone in NATO and the world in

> >> Generalize in haste, repent at leisure....
> >
> >Sorry, repenting is pretty much out of fashion these days.
> Not much on repenting? Try apologizing, instead.
> >In Gundam (at least 0079), death carries a lot of weight. Amuro seems a
> >lot more troubled about killing compared to NATO pilots who have no
> >trouble sleeping after accidentally bombing refugee camps. "But it's only
> >a few out of thousands of bombs!" "I cannot second-guess my orders."
> How many NATO pilots do you know? Or support personnel, for that matter?
> Do you know anyone who has actually worn a uniform and served in a foreign
> land?
> You know *one* that I can see -- me.
> I'm here to tell you that everyone involved has a fully-operational
> conscience and, for the most part, a solid moral compass. Everyone of them
> has taken an oath to protect and defend, asked themselves the hard
> questions and come up an answer with which they can live. I know. I've
> been there and done that.
> You don't like Clinton or his policies? Fine. Take a number -- there are
> millions of Americans who feel the same way you do. But don't bad-mouth

I don't like Clintion and if I were old enough when Clintion was up for vote
the first and second times, I would not have voted for him. I can understand
people voteing for him the first time, everyone is entitled to a mistake and
you have to go by what the people running for President preach and claim and
hope they don't change when elected, buy why did some of the same people vote
for Clinton TWICE!! I mean your supposed to LEARN from your mistakes, not
MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE?!? And to make it worse, the people that voted
for Clintion twice, turn around and complain about him, Sheesh!

> the men and women under his command who are doing their sworn duty in the
> face of tremendous physical, mental and emotional hardship.

Right, don't complain about the people under his Command. Its treason to go
aganist the President, even if you hate the President and he's dead wrong.
The President is their Boss and they have to obey him. They not only face
tremendous physical, mental, and emotional hardship dur their Tour of Duty,
but also death it the are in a war or millitary action. That's got to be
hard. Our soliders do their best, they don't deserve bad-mouthing, like you

> >Everyone hear the cry for help, everyone know what must be done. If this
> >whole nation lacks the courage (euphemism "political will") to do it, she
> >should at least stop making things worse.

I agree. Eihter help and do what needs to be done, or leave it alone, so as
to not make it worse.

> There are 250 million people in the United States and a minimum 125 million
> and one of them (or a majority of their representatives) have to agree on
> something before anything is done. While a record number of Americans are
> in prison this year and the majority of those who are free are
> understandable more concerned about the new STAR WARS movie, I still don't
> see where you get off lumping us all together and calling us moral cowards,
> especially as you've offered nothing in the way of an alternative.

Great point. I am excited about the new Star Wars movie, too, and there's
nothing wrong with that. The Japanese get excited about their new releases
too. And so does everyother nation that has movie theators, too.

> But before you start in on what *America* should be doing, I'll remind you
> that this is a *NATO* operation and the French (who have no love for the
> Albanians) have just as much say as the U.S. about how this operation is
> conducted.

Right, this is NATO and America is a member of NATO, not NATO's ruling

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue May 18 1999 - 12:36:08 JST