To Stop War. (rather change it to I WANT TO EXPERIENCE WAR)

What a low down thing to do! Adriana is a person in big distrees. She has the guts to express that, and all you can do is kick her below the belt. This attitude, which seems to be symptomatic for all the Slob Milo lovers on this board is definately sickening. How the hell can you call yourself STOP WAR, when the only thing you do is ingnite the flame of war?

I can clearly see you are either schooled by Milosevic/Karadic/Mladic,or you have led a very sheltered life with nothing of consequence happening up to now.

Well, mr WAR, this is the real world, with real people in it. I hope one day you will wake up, and start looking at the consequences of your deeds. You are not on daddy's lap anymore here, and certainly not in Kindergarten!

Zoja

PS About those names, Mr WAR, when do you have the guts to go on this board with your real name. Stop war is a rediculous nick for you anyway. Be a man, or better yet, what are you anyway? With such a big mouth about others, please have the courage to show us all the good example.

TO ADRIANA

Please don't pay attention to types like MR (stop) WAR. He is only out to hurt you, and anybody else who does not share his opinion. Don't let types like that get you down. I know your predicament and how much it can affect you. I hope you have the strenth to ignore those dictator loving people and stand up for yourself!

Good Luck, we pray for you.

Zoja and Emina

TO I LOVE WAR

Probably you would love to make love to Clinton.
Don't blame innococents for your obscure sex fantasies.

Emina

To Sergey

You write:
'But look again at what your friends Guido and Jack
write and even draw for this board. All those bombs falling
on Serbia. Boooom . Kab-lam. What's the aim? None other than
to show their sick personality.'

These cynical and harsh responses are the result of the constant harrassing being done by certain people on this board who love to contradict every serious discussin with screaming, shouting, turning everything 180 degrees around, and believe that is truth. Guido, Jack, Emina, Ddc, Rosie and myself (sorry if I forgot someone who tried the same!) all tried in the past weeks numerous times to introduce serious topics, only to be bombarded by Orwellian Newspeak.

In the end it got so bad that my sis got the answer " get raped". Apart from that we were liars, cheats, etc. Even spelling mistakes were attaqued, and all the time absolutely nothing was said about the subject itself.

If stuff like that goes on long enough in the end you will stick your middle finger up, in writing, ofcourse. So, I can understand the reactions of Guido and Jack very well, even did some of it myself for the smae reasons.

I am very glad to notice you are one of the people who REALLY wants to have a decent discussion on this board, and I thank you for doing so!

'They enjoy the disaster immensely.
They are not interested in stopping it. They say the world
must do as Albright pleases.'

Albright was trying to stop the war in the Balkans, starting in 1990 whith the mass killing of a major resistance group in Bosnia protesting against war lovers getting into power), long before she agreed with bombs. She even took the trouble of learning Serbo Croatian in order to be a better negoceating partner. she even took the trouble talking to Milo and looney shrink Karadic, long after it became clear they took part in ethnic cleansing (=genocide='entlosung der (Jude)frage').

I don't like these bombs either, but sometimes there is nothing more you can do. These wars were ignited by people only out to get aboslute power. they want to rule a land as the person handling a marionet, and in my opinion that is wrong, anywhere in the world.

'Only don't forget , you are backing up the screaming
side.'

The screaming side I mean is the people I already quoted before, the ones who shout 'get raped' and stuff.

Sergey, can you tell me what the situation is like in your country about having freedom to express your opinion? What are the press laws like, and what resorces do you have, apart from the few who have Internet ofcourse! This is really meant as a serious question, and absolutely not to piss you or anybody else off.

Hope my answers were a bit clear. Please, keep on posting your views. Even if we don't agree it's good exchanging views with you!

Zoja

To Sergey

Well, you can joke and smile, so....there is a sense of humour there :-)))
Zoja

To: JAWS and THE RIOT CREW

Hello to My Big Brother, and friends in Christ,
Praying that you are safe, and that you are all well...May God keep you in the shelter of his arms and cover you as a Mother Dove her babies.
I pray God to keep his angels around you, protecting you, ministering to you and warring for you.

Blessing for the Day:
The Wilderness doesn't mean we're out of God's will, just detoured on a new path of unseen faith,
Where the Holy Spirit can be the shown in the most awesome display of his power, even in the midst of tragedies.

For in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. Is. 35:6

I Love you Big Brother, and love in Jesus to your friends..yall are in our prayers.

((((( Great big hugs from Me and Jesus))))))))))
your little bratty sister,
MLA

"ZPKA"

"Once a target audience believes in something, based, say, on the statement of a credible leader or leaders, backed by trusted institutions, it is difficult to dislodge that
belief even though massive and overwhelming evidence is produced. And when a leader, supported by various institutions, creates belief based on a direct lie in a
confused situation, where refutative evidence is difficult to produce (or cannot be heard in the clutter of blood-lust and zeal), then it can reasonably be expected that
the truth may never prevail. Or it may emerge so late as to be of little value. In some instances, it takes the passage of considerable time, perhaps generations, before
societies can accept that certain historically-held beliefs were false, and based solely on lies."

http://www.strategicstudies.org/crisis/newrome.htm

TO SERPICO.

I think if we all knew the answer to your question we would not be sitting here being sad for what is all happening.Atleast i am i can't speak for others.
I wonder about the same question myself a lot mostly when it's time to sleep.
I live in Holland now and was a member of what i tought was a good political party here.With moral and all that.Later i found out they did not have moral at all so i stepped out imidiately.
That's what i could do for the moment, but on the other hand i think where would i have been now if they all did not interfear in Bosnia? Where i come from. Then too a lot of innocent lives where taken, but a lot where spared too.
If i would know a good solution right now i would probably scream it from the rooftops.

This is the only answeri can give you.

Emina

TO ADRIANA AND XTO

>ADRIANA
>My name is ADriana.I am coming from
>Yugoslavia,Serbia.I am stady in Switzerland.My
>family is in Yugoslavia now.Iam really worry
>about tham.I hope so that everything will be
>o.k. and that war wii stop soon.I think that
>Milosevic is quilty for that,and i really fill
>sorry for all refugees.Make love not war!

---

>XTO 267 AUA:
>Adriana,
>you will find that the world is sorry that good
>people like you and your family have to suffer
>because of the evil spirit that dominates
>Milosovic. We feel for you. But you must
>understand that the bestiality done to the
>Kosovo-Albianians must be punished. As long as
>the devil rules, we must keep bombing.

---

>adriana:
>Thank you XTO!

You two are a great team, ever thought of producing soap operas or one of NATO's leaflets in order to sensibilize the population into "appreciating" what is being done to them.

, NATO airplanes attacked again Nis at
11:30am and that time used cluster bombs. Nato chose Nis downtown as primary target.
Because of many explosions of cluster bombs in strict center of the town more that 50 people
were wounded and at least 12 were killed but the result is not final. The town is still full of
nonexploded segments of cluster bombs and because of that there is still great danger for
citizens of Nis. There were destroyed many civilian houses and buildings, great destruction were
done on Clinical Medical Center in Nis and also there were destroyed about 16 civilian cars. About
100 reporters visited Nis during second half of the day.

The times are trying.

Corporations merge to form mega-corporations with far-reaching power and
influence. Workers put in ever-longer hours to make
ends meet. Families feel under siege. The gap between the country's
richest citizens and average workers widens daily. The government
imposes its most onerous tax burden on working people and families. And it
taxes most lightly the nation's wealthiest citizens.

Political attacks have become so personal that good people are discouraged
from running for office. Local governments compete with
one another to lure new businesses by giving economic incentives to
companies. Stories of government corruption appear with startling
regularity on the front pages of newspapers.

America in the 1990s, right?

Wrong.

America in the 1890s.

To understand where you are today -- and why -- you might just turn back
the clock a century.

To understand where you can be tomorrow, you might recall how citizens in
that earlier era dealt with the same forces you confront.

There are, to be sure, differences between the America of the 1990s and a
century ago. One stands out above the others.

Back then, a powerful reform movement took shape and a third party, the
Progressive Party, brought about wholesale changes in the
way government operated.

The Progressive Party's reforms were gradually co-opted, one by one, by
the two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans.
By the time the Progressive Party passed out of existence, many of the
changes it had proposed were in place.

Because government needed more revenue and the rich were not paying their
fair share, the income tax was enacted.

Because businesses were peddling tainted meat, food and medicines, pure
food and drugs laws were enacted.

Because companies were forming trusts that wielded unprecedented powers,
the antitrust and monopoly laws were enacted.

Because half the nation's population was denied the right to vote, the
women's suffrage law was enacted.

The reformers set a tone that produced yet more legislation in the decades
that followed -- from child-labor laws to unemployment
compensation, from minimum wage to Social Security.

All these changes resulted in a legislative framework to protect the
average citizen and small businesses from the excesses of big
business, special interests, and those who exploited others and used
government to their own personal advantage. Over time, that
framework gave rise to the largest middle class in history.

Now that framework is being dismantled. The economy that is evolving is
balkanizing America -- pitting social groups against one
another, widening the gap between the have-mores and the have-lesses.

What is at stake is nothing less than the cohesiveness of American
society, as the economy threatens to leave behind those without
health insurance, without pensions, without good jobs.

This is not to say that Washington policymakers deliberately set out to
enact laws and programs to set citizen against citizen, or to
reduce American living standards. Indeed, many acted out of the best of
intentions.

Too often, though, government policymakers have based their decisions on
faulty assumptions or erroneous beliefs that have had
unforeseen consequences. Nowhere is that more true than in policies that
affect the U.S. economy.

How can we begin to restore a measure of fairness in American society,
ease the gap between the have-mores and the have-lesses, halt
the loss of good manufacturing jobs and improve the condition of the
beleaguered middle class?

The list of possible reforms is long. The suggestions that follow are
starting points, a place to begin the debate. Some could easily be
implemented; others would be difficult.

Trade

Global trade was promoted on the basis that it would benefit everyone. But
the concept is valid only if there is true reciprocity -- if each
nation provides equal access to its own market.

That hasn't happened.

Instead, as foreign competitors discovered that Washington lacks the will
to get tough on trade, they lowered tariffs but raised other
barriers to entry of U.S. products into their markets.

Washington's response was to continue to negotiate agreements with
countries that promise to open their markets, yet never do, at
least not to the extent that the United States does.

The emphasis needs to be changed from exports to imports, at least until
trade is brought into balance. That means placing controls on
imported goods.

Access to the world's richest consumer market should be granted on the
basis of national interest, not because of a blind adherence to
an abstract economic theory like "free trade."

Critics will complain that such a policy could set off a global trade war,
that it would force up wages and risk inflation.

Perhaps.

But the Japanese have been managing trade for more than 30 years and no
trade war has erupted.

As for wages, you might ponder this: Why do the people in Washington
dismiss executive pay increases that go up 100 percent or
200 percent as of no consequence, yet call for restraints when the wages
of working people go up 5 or 6 percent?

In any event, a new trade policy needs to look beyond simply balancing the
books on imports and exports.

That's because, dollar for dollar, imports cost more American jobs than
exports create. The reason: Imported products, especially
those from developing countries, most often are made in labor-intensive
industries, such as apparel. Goods exported by the United
States, on the other hand, tend to be produced by industries that require
less labor, such as agriculture.

To curb imports would require raising tariffs and other trade barriers on
products from countries that have consistently failed to open
their markets. If other nations, for whatever reason, limit access to
their markets, then the United States needs to respond in kind. It's
called fair trade.

Immigration

Restore immigration to pre-1990 levels and scale back the skilled-worker
and guest-worker visa programs that have led to widespread
abuses. Using immigration policy to create a labor surplus, thereby
helping to hold down wages or limit wage increases, should never
occur.

Adding to the foreign-worker glut is an army of illegal aliens. No one
knows their exact numbers, but it is estimated they are in the
millions. And that's after 2.7 million illegal aliens were granted amnesty
in 1986 and allowed to become U.S. citizens.
The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which was headed by the late
Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, said it believed
that stepped-up enforcement of all labor and workplace laws -- from
minimum wage to work safety -- would be "an effective tool" in
reducing the hiring of illegal aliens.

Global wages
Companies that produce goods in foreign countries to take advantage of
cheap labor should not be permitted the kind of unlimited
access to the American market that kills jobs here.

A potential solution: Impose a tariff or tax on imported goods equal to
the wage differential between foreign workers and U.S.
workers in the same industry. That way, competition would be confined to
who makes the best product, not who works for the lowest
pay.

Thus, if Calvin Klein wants to make sweat shirts in Pakistan, his company
would be charged a tariff or tax equal to the difference
between a Pakistani worker's earnings and what a U.S. apparel worker
makes.

Or if Microsoft wants to have its computer programming done in India, the
company would be charged a tariff or tax equal to the
difference between the salaries of Indian and U.S. programmers.

If this, or some similar action is not taken, the future is clear. Wages
of American workers will continue to slip, along with their
standard of living.

Taxes
Reestablish the progressive income tax, which rests on the principle that
tax rates should rise with income. This structure was in place
from the beginning of World War II into the 1960s and 1970s, which
coincided with the great expansion of the middle class.

The top tax rate might apply to, say, taxable income over $5 million, with
the top rate at, possibly, 70 percent, rather than the 91
percent top rate that covered some taxable income from 1954 to 1963.

To spread the tax burden more equitably, a dozen or so brackets should be
added, down to a tax rate of 5 percent. The bottom tax rate
in 1996 was 15 percent; the top rate was 39.6 percent.

To simplify the system, all deductions should be eliminated, as well as
the preferential capital gains tax. All dollars would be treated
alike. A middle-class working family whose income is derived solely from a
paycheck would not be taxed at a higher effective rate than
someone whose income is derived from speculating on Wall Street.

All this deals with the federal income tax. Truth to tell, state and local
taxes are weighted even more heavily against middle-income and
lower-income workers. To right this situation, the federal government
could create a system of rewards and penalties when distributing
federal money to the states. The more progressive a state's tax structure,
the more federal aid it would receive.

And, finally, the corporate income tax. Thanks to sharply lower rates and
a variety of tax concessions, corporations in the 1990s pay
comparatively less income tax than corporations paid in the 1950s. During
that earlier decade, corporations accounted for 39 percent of
all income tax revenue; individuals supplied 61 percent. For the years
1990 through 1995, the corporate share dropped to 19 percent; the
individual share rose to 81 percent.

To restore some measure of balance, the top corporate tax rate, now 35
percent, should at least be raised above the highest personal
rate, 39.6 percent. In the 1950s, the top corporate rate was 52 percent.

A variety of corporate deductions should be eliminated or scaled back.
These include the essentially unlimited deduction for interest
payments and the carryover deduction of losses, both of which fuel mergers
and takeovers. Also, foreign tax provisions should be
amended so that U.S. multinational companies no longer would be able to
move income around the world to escape payment of taxes.

Social Security and Medicare

It is generally understood that shortly after the turn of the century, if
not before, both the Social Security and Medicare systems will
have to be drastically revised. They are running out of money. That means
either a hefty tax increase, a reduction in benefits for retirees,
a delayed retirement age, or some combination of all three.

One solution would be means-testing of benefits -- restricting the
programs to those within a certain income level. The system should
be changed from a retirement plan for everyone to a retirement plan for
those who need it. Again, the issue is one of balance.

In 1993, 453,833 retired people with incomes over $100,000 collected
Social Security benefits. They received checks amounting to
$6.6 billion.

That's the equivalent of all the Social Security taxes paid by 1.3 million
young working families with incomes of $40,000 a year. A
direct transfer from them to retirees whose incomes range from 2-1/2 to
more than 25 times their incomes.

Everyone would continue to have Social Security taxes deducted from their
paychecks, but benefit payments would be ended to
individuals and families whose incomes exceed, say, two to three times
median family income. That would be between $80,000 and
$120,000. Social Security benefit payments to them would be stopped only
after retirees had collected what they had paid into Social
Security, with interest.
Medicare, too, should be means-tested. The inequity of America's
health-care system was summed up by a Philadelphia physician: "I
have patients who come to my office in chauffeur-driven limousines. They
own three or four homes. And Medicare pays their bills.
Does this make sense?"

This in a society in which 40 million or more people go without health
care because they cannot afford it.

Executive salaries

Corporations are free to pay their executives whatever they want. But that
doesn't mean companies should be permitted to write off the
full amount on their tax returns, shifting the cost to taxpayers.

One possible solution: Tie tax deductibility to a multiple between the
highest- and lowest-paid workers. For example, if the
lowest-paid worker earns $20,000, then the company would be precluded from
deducting more than, say, 15 times that amount, or
$300,000, for the pay of its CEO on its corporate tax return. The balance
of the compensation would come out of the shareholders'
pockets, rather than being partly funded by the taxpayers.

Campaign finance and lobbying
Absent sweeping reforms in campaign financing, all other reform efforts
are likely to fail.

That's because the money flowing to candidates and political parties, in
staggering amounts, comes from corporations, wealthy
individuals, political action committees, and other interest groups -- all
with agendas that are often at odds with what is good for average
Americans.

Over the years, critics of the current system have generally agreed on the
need for a number of reforms, including these:

Impose a limit on the amount that can be spent to run for office.

Ban contributions by political action committees to candidates.

Close the loophole in campaign finance law that allows donors to
circumvent limits on contributions to candidates by making
contributions in unlimited amounts to political parties.

Restrict the amount of out-of-state money that a candidate may accept
while running for office.

Only by limiting the money that pours into politics will the power of
special interests be curbed.

A century ago, Americans were confronted with similar choices and they
made their voices clearly heard. Across the land, societies and
leagues and committees sprang up to bring about sweeping changes in
government, business and society.

Will history repeat itself?

As before, the people will decide.

Peace not WoD
FFFF
DdC

" NATO Losses and the Military Costs: It is clear from the amount and quality of intelligence received by this journal from a variety of highly-reputable
sources that NATO forces have already suffered significant losses of men, women and materiel. Neither NATO, nor the US, UK or other member
governments, have admitted to these losses, other than the single USAF F-117A Stealth fighter which was shown, crashed and burning inside Serbia.

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had denied, about a month into the bombing, that the US had suffered the additional losses reported to Defense &
Foreign Affairs.

By April 20, 1999, NATO losses stood at approximately the following:

38 fixed-wing combat aircraft;
Six helicopters;
Seven unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs);
“Many” Cruise Missiles (lost to AAA or SAM fire).

Several other NATO aircraft were reported down after that date, including at least one of which there was Serbian television coverage. The aircraft reportedly
include three F-117A Stealth strike aircraft, including the one already known. One of the remaining two was shot down in an air-to-air engagement with a Yugoslav
Air Force MiG-29 fighter; the other was lost to AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) or SAM (surface-to-air missile) fire. Given the recovery by the Yugoslavs of F-117A
technology, and the fact that the type has proven less than invincible, the mystique of the aircraft — a valuable deterrent tool until now for the US — has been lost.

At least one USAF F-15 Eagle fighter has been lost, with the pilot, reportedly an African-American major, alive and in custody as a POW.

At least one German pilot (some sources say two men, implying perhaps a Luftwaffe crew from a Tornado) has been captured.

There is also a report that at least one US female pilot has been killed.

In one instance in the first week of the fighting, an aircraft was downed near Podgorica. A NATO helicopter then picked up the downed pilot, but the helicopter
itself was then shot down, according to a number of reports.

Losses of US and other NATO ground force personnel, inside Serbia, have also been extensive.

A Yugoslav Army unit ambushed a squad climbing a ravine south of Pristina, killing 20 men. When the black tape was taken from their dog-tags it was found that 12
were US Green Berets; eight were British special forces (presumably Special Air Service/SAS). This incident apparently occurred within a week or so of the
bombing campaign launch.

It is known that other US and other NATO casualties have, on some occasions, been retrieved by NATO forces after being hit inside Yugoslavia. At least 30
bodies of US servicemen have been processed through Athens, after being transported from the combat zone.

At least two of the helicopters downed by the Yugoslavs were carrying troops, and in these two a total of 50 men were believed to have been killed, most of them
(but not all) of US origin.

Certainly, the US has lost to ground fire and malfunction a number of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. At least some of these have been retrieved more or less intact,
and the technology has been immediately reviewed by Yugoslav engineers. More than one told this writer that the technology was now readily able to be replicated
in Yugoslavia."
http://www.strategicstudies.org./crisis/newrome.htm

To : anyone

I heard that there were 7 American soldiers
being held prisoner, has anyone else heard any thing on this?????

Just another one of NATO lies, I don't even want to comment on it's brutality anymore, it is too evident.

Jamie Shea likes to tell us every day how KLA is very strong and causing Yugoslav Army great difficulties. Swedish jurnalist that spent four days with KLA said they still are exactly where they were a month ago when he visited them. That they are very worried about weapons Yu army has and depressed with what they have. He described their fighting and capabilities as worst than what was used in the first world war.

Hi people,
I think we(NATO) are getting somewhere now. Milosevic is starting to give in a little. If we keep the bombing up for a while longer I believe he will surrender unconditionally. Or if he is smart he will fake his death and disappear from the face of the earth.
I want to clarify something else though. I was raised with guns. I have been shooting them since I was 6 years old. I have never killed another human, and pray to God I never have to. I do not think guns are the problem with society today. I think they are the only answer to our problems. If guns are illegal everywhere, the only people with guns will be the criminals. The good people of the world will have no defence. You can not rely on the police. By the time they get to you , it is all over. If you were a criminal would you assault someone you knew had a gun, or someone you knew was helpless. If every person in the world was trained and required to carry a gun and under legal obligation to shoot anyone comitting a crime, criminals would soon be extinct or find a real job in order to survive. I know this sounds radical and some hothead would abuse his right to carry a gun, but when he abuses his right some other good person would shoot him. VOILA!! No more criminals=no more crime! The same goes for a country that makes gun posession illegal. They(like the armed criminals) will have total control over their citizens. If the government turns evil, people will have no way to overthrow them and reestablish justice. That is why the US constitution guarantees its citizens the right to keep guns. Now they want to take them away from good people. Only the bad ones will have them then. Gun control is the first step to slavery. I will die before I give up my guns!!
The golden rule.
He with the guns, makes the rules.