The below in part is written with blinders on.  It is a clear as noses
and will be seen as so if not now then by all in a few years; this is
simply an attempt to extend the US empire into the Balkans and would
surely succeed (at enormous cost to the people in the region ) EXCEPT
FOR RUSSIA, which has warned that this empire stretch can lead to WWIII.
Listen up all (especially US rulers).
>
> We can't keep making this longer and longer, and below Michael resorts
> to the classic demonization he accuses CNN and NATO of doing.  I will
> refocus on his final point, since he has now accused me wrongly.
>
> Michael Strutt writes:
> > >>  Tell me Martin, what *is* the NATO military goal, as they repeatedly
> > >>  avoid any commitment to putting in ground troops? If you are just going
> > >>  to repeat the 'degrading Milosevic's military capacity' line,
> > >>  please explain what this means in terms of a viable exit strategy.
> >
> > >The NATO military goal is to destroy the military capability of the
> > >Yugoslavian military.  There is no exit strategy.
> >
> >    If that is true, given that there is no hope of doing that from the
> >    air, there is no exit at all. You're proposing eternal war like the
> >    middle east or '1984'.
> >
> >    I made the mistake of responding to you in the belief that you
> >    were putting forward an opinion you honestly hold re the bombings.
> >
> >    However, from the evasive nature of your arguments I suspect I've
> >    fallen for a troll.
>
> You say that my direct answer to your direct question is an example of
> the "evasive nature of my arguments".  I answered your questions
> directly.  I do state my cases directly.  That *is* the nature of my
> arguments, so that part of your statment is true.  But you claim this
> nature is evasive, so you are saying that answering questions with
> direct answers is being evasive.
>
> You asked me to specify the NATO military goal.  I stated the NATO
> military goal.  I am not a spokesman for NATO, so my statement of the
> NATO military goal was obviously my opinion.  You also asked me to
> state the exit strategy.  I stated that there is no exit strategy.
> Again, I think it was obvious that was my opinion.  You then say this
> means I am "proposing eternal war".
>
> You say that giving direct answers to questions is evasive, and you
> say that giving you the answer you asked for is a proposal for eternal
> war.  These are examples of Orwellian DoubleSpeak.  You use examples
> of DoubleSpeak in the same argument in which you refer to Orwell's
> '1984' as an example of what *I* am proposing.  That is DoubleThink.
>
> Lastly, after I have answered your questions directly, and after you
> have name-dropped '1984' in the same argument where you yourself use
> DoubleSpeak and DoubleThink, you accuse me of being a troll and
> resign.
>
> I'll drop a name too, then.
>
> "That's all I have to say about that." - Forest Gump
>
> martin
>
> Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
> P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
> N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701
>