Jay, > I went and looked up the Geneva Convention (and from the sections I > could > find) it doesn't have anything about aggression vs. a sovereign > state. It Let me get back to you on this later - I have read this document quite some time ago, but I still have every confidence in my memorising capabilities. > My guess is yes, the American people/EU will pay to rebuild all the > things > that we have destroyed. We have a strong historical precedent for it. Allow me to doubt this - I'll believe when I see it. Did America/EU pay for Iraqi damage (I don't know - I'm asking)? I think not. > A couple of questions for you. What do you think about, what is going > on > (politically) in Montenegro? What do you think will happen? Ah... Montenegro. Historically... Montenegrin people are Serbs - there is not a single example of any Montenegrin pleading to be anything but a Serb prior to WW2 (and communist rule being established). Montenegro is kind of Serbian heroic homeland. Montenegin - that is a "Serb plus", noble and brave, from the highlands of Montenegro. Communists tried to change that, making up something like Montenegrin nation. They partially succeeded (50 years is a long time), so now in Montenegro you have about half of the people claiming to be Montenegrin Serbs, and half of the people claiming to be Montenegrins (all of those people are of Montenegrin nationality - I'm not talking about Serbian nationals living in Montenegro). All of them feel very friendly about Serbia, the difference being one side says 'Serbs - those are our best friends', and the other 'Serbs - that's us, together with our brothers in mother Serbia'. Today... You have the dictator in Belgrade, and another one in Podgorica (Montenegrin capital). Those two were close friends and allies ever since the communist Yugoslavia fell apart. They are the same breed - 'reformed' communist clerks leading 'socialist' parties, i.e. communists in disguise. But then something went wrong in their relationship (I have no doubts it's about money stolen from taxpayers), so they turned against each other. 'Anti-Milosevic' currently means 'pro-Western', so Montenegrin president become pro-Western overnight. Djukanovic, Montenegrin president, is now pro-Western, but that does not change the nature of his policies. He still has armed-to-the-teeth police force, he still has total control over media, and he is still a communist - spitting image of regime in Belgrade, only downscaled. The fact that he is pro-Western is a definite plus, but that's about it one can say in Djukanovic's favour. So, back to your question - what will happen? Anything is possible, from those two alikes becoming friends once again, to military seizing power over Montenegro (I wouldn't call it a coup, because Montenegro is a federal unit, not a sovereign state - make analogy with USA). My guess, however, is that this stand-off is going to last indefinitely, because Montenegro is not so important to Milosevic, and Djukanovic has only half of his own republic supporting him. Current problems between Serbia and Montenegro are more reflection of two presidents' personal animosities, than anything like real problem, and they have both many things to worry about - including how to stay out of Hague once this all is finished. So, my bet is - stand-off. Regards, Vladimir ------------Letter that followed within minutes------------------- Jay Schneider wrote: > The predominant influence of such a great democracy in today's > international > order should be seen as a great chance for humanity, and for the > American > people themselves, to establish the rule of law on a global scale. > Ladies > and gentlemen, it will be tragic indeed if the chance is not seized. " I have only one comment on this: BULLSHIT. To establish (i.e. impose) the 'rule of law' on a global scale? That is exactly what Third Reich tried to do - to establish their kind of law to others, not bothering to ask whether those others need it. And they used precisely the same methods - bombs. That is called fascism. Regards, Vladimir ps. about preventing a 'grave' humanitarian catastrophy, this guy is talking about... I've told you my personal opinion, that it actually started together with bombing, and I've explained why I think so. You might like to read a BBC article on this, published on 24th of March (strikes started at the end of that very day). URL is http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special_report/1998/kosovo/newsid_302000/302563.stm . And if BBC reporter had enough common sense to predict what will happen, I'm sure that people in Pentagon knew it for sure. But they paid no attention, as refugees and humanitarian catastrophy are of little concern to them - they have other goals. That's my point from the very beginning.