HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:55:50 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Dec11.001040.2978@src.umd.edu> josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>
>Since you've asked, I did look it up and your memory must have played
>tricks on you (again). 
>
>The part you have mis-remembered is stated a bit differently as one idea
>of what it might take to "effect an absolute cessation of hostilities": 
>
>   ...to force both Serbian and Croatian forces to withdraw from Bosnia,
>   to obtain the withdrawal of Serbian militias currently in Croatia and
>   ultimately to disarm irregulars on all sides.  Only then could a
>   just and stable peace be sought, on the basis of respect for the
>   pre-June 1991 jurisdictional borders and some limited population
>   exchanges between Croatia and Serbia, and between Bosnia and Serbia.
>
>Your quote above misses the "limited" aspect and makes it appear as
>if wholescale population exchange had been suggested.
>The article concludes precisely the opposite:

So what is the meaning of "limited," dear Mr. Loncaric? 



>
>   ...allowing Serbia to mount a war of aggression with impunity, to
>   engage in "ethnic cleansing" and to redraw the boundaries of
>   sovereign states by force would signify that the United States and
>   the European Community view the Helsinki agreement on human rights
>   as a dead letter---a dangerous precedent.  For all these reasons I
>   am inclined to view the employment of countervailing force under
>   a U.N. aegis as the lesser evil.

How is this quite opposite to the what I have said?  Serbs who do not want
to live in Croatia and Bosnia, i.e. all of them, would be removed?
How i this limited?

>
>Since you've asked... but now we see why you dislike this author: you
>do not like the suggestion that a "countervailing force" be used.
>
>-Josip
>
>

Milan
Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:202 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10050
From: josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:48:47 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <1gj32lINNdol@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.220952.22280@eng.umd.edu> josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>>
>>Zagreb WAS negotiating with Belgrade during this period, at length.  
>
>
>You call secession without agreements about borders, minority rights, 
>financial obligations, etc. _negotiating_?  Complex negotiations such as
>the dissolution of a state are rarely going to be quick, especially when
>all of the parties are stubborn and unwilling to compromise.  The old
>saying that "haste makes waste" was never more true than in the breakup
>of ex-Yugoslavia.
>
>-Nick

How quickly you forget!  Only about a year ago, an agreement of this
type had been reached under auspices of the European Community.  This
agreement was signed by all of the republics of the former Yugoslavia
EXCEPT Serbia.  The moral is that it takes two to negotiate.  Croatia,
Slovenia and others have been negotiating with Serbia for years.  But,
they could negotiate until hell freezes over and not make any progress
as long as Mr. Milosevic was determined to stonewall every initiative
that was proposed.  Secession came only after all other avenues were
exhausted...

In another sense, if 70+ years of the Yugoslav experiment could not
produce an agreement on the structure of that country, then the experiment
is a failure.  Now that we're talking of ex-Yugoslavia, this failure
is obvious to all.

--Josip
Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:248 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10178
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Serbian propaganda
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:45:22 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Milan Stojanovic (stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu) writes:
>parties.  Tudjman's work, his speeches and speeches of his HDZ
>officials point from the very beginning that he belongs to the
>Clerical/Party of Rights wing.  No matter that HDZ does not
>bear this name.  His " pro-Croatian " campaign was at the same
>time strongly anti-Serbian.
>...
>This is to prove that situation was essentially same
>for Serbs as was in 1941.  The constellation within Europe is
>different, there might be better mechanism to protect Serbs in
>Croatia from the same type of persecution as in 1941, there are
>no Germans to hold Serbian hands, but that is it.

(Milan, now you are talking about those Germans again? You seem
to have got them on your mind, haven't you?)

What you are saying in the second paragraph carries very little
truth, but seems to merely to serve as a thin disguise for a war 
apologetic. I was about to say that it was a completely absurd 
idea that Croatia of 1992 would repeat the WWII atrocities, no one 
would let them to. But then I remembered that it is actually 
happening - only with one difference: it is Serbs - your people! -
who are depoloying these methods.

You shouldn't accuse Croatia for something they might be doing,
when you are doing that something yourself.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc
From: tvorst@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Tommy Che Vorst)
Subject: Farmers and Subsidies
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:45:31 GMT

Out here a fairly prominent economist was asked about the US's and
Canada's opposition to EC subsidies of farmers.  He replied that it seemed
strange to him that just because these two countries do very little to
protect their farmers, they would take offense at other countries doing so.
A wise man indeed.
I am not as surprised, however.  The USA in particular has always acted as
if it SHOULD be present at the EC discussions (ie regarding Unity of all
kinds).  Somehow, I don't think they'd feel the same way about Europeans
being involved in the NAFTA negociations.  God forbib the Japanese ever
make such a demand!

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Tommy ( Yogi )                              Dept. of English, UofM
                (the REAL UofM - nyaaaah Vid! (Minn.)) 
                     email:  tvorst@ccu.umanitoba.ca  
            ....residences in Canada, France, and Holland.
                       "YAAH! DEATH TO OATMEAL!"
                   Remember: it's just my opinion.
 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 


 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:206 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10062
From: wickerhauser-victor@math.yale.edu (Victor Wickerhauser)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: 15 Dec 1992 12:38:42 -0500
Organization: Yale University Mathematics Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2155
NNTP-Posting-Host: math-gw.cs.yale.edu

Instant historical amnesia:

In article <1gl37iINNrmn@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
>...
>When federal troops were attacked for attempting to hold the country
>together, the wars started, not before. 

It seems rather that when the Slovenes surrounded the Yugo Army
barracks and those poor 19-year-olds in tanks sent to blow up the TV
towers, that is when the war in Slovenia ended.

-- 
Prof. M. Victor Wickerhauser                      <victor@kirk.wustl.edu>
Department of Mathematics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 USA
Telephone:  USA(314)935-6771, USA(314)727-0749;     FAX: USA(314)727-4963
Sto se ljuckim trudom uzdignulo, Ljuckim znojem jopet se ponavlja. --Medo Pucic
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Subject: Serbian garbage
Organization: Enea Data AB
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:43:52 GMT

Nick Jovanovic (jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu) writes:
)Any government which declares its independence unilaterally without a
)negotiated settlement about finances, borders, minority rights, etc. is
)most certainly interested in war.  In fact, this type of secession is an
)act of war.  Unilateral secession is a coup d'etat which overthrows the
)existing government in a subset of its geographical extent.

The subject line says it all.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
From: wickerhauser-victor@math.yale.edu (Victor Wickerhauser)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: 14 Dec 1992 18:17:52 -0500
Organization: Yale University Mathematics Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2155
NNTP-Posting-Host: math-gw.cs.yale.edu

In article <1gis5hINNbhc@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
>					...It is
>only because Serbians do not want all of Croatia that Zagreb is now a capital
>city in Europe.  If full force had been used to prevent the breakup of
>Yugoslavia (as would have been used in China, for instance), Croatia would
>not now even exist.  Serbia should be getting accolades for having not
>followed this proven method of squelching unrest.  Had they pursued this
>course of action with air, land, and sea forces they would have accomplished
>a quick preservation of ex-Yugoslavia as a state.

With a 15% response rate to the draft in Serbia? Dream on.  Most young
men in Serbia are much too sensible to die for a fascist like
Milosevic.  Look at how easily Slovenia stopped the Yugo Army after
the Slovenes demonstrated the few antitank weapons they had managed to
buy.  Serbia stopped attacking Croatia -- including Zagreb -- when the
Croats had stolen or bought enough weapons to mount a successful
defense. Your sense of denial is showing.

I predict that as soon as the West starts arming the Bosnian
government (remember Lend-Lease?) the number of Serbs who do answer
the draft and wind up in the invader's infantry will shrink still more
drastically.  

>		...Even though they have been taught by these masters of 
>savagery and brutality, Serbs still only want what is theirs instead of
>what they have the potential to take by force.  None of the media spin 
>doctors, none of the public relations firms hired by Tudjman and Izetbegovic,
>and none of the net nabobs will ever change that.  

The Serbs are pretty clearly self-taught killers: the Serbian media
has been in the hands of Milosevic for several years now.  Serbia
reintroduced mass rape, something that has been out of fashion since
the Conquest.  Also, ethnic cleansing was practiced by Serbs in
Sumadija (the heart of Serbia) right after the Turks were defeated in
the mid-1800's.  This is why that part of Serbia is so "ethnically
pure" (i.e., free of mosques and Muslims) despite 400 years of Ottoman
rule.  The Serbian leadership just had to pluck the right chord, and a
small but vocal chorus of evil killers started right back up with the
same old song.

"What is theirs" for Serbs today is a legacy of horror, evil barbarism
and atrocity, plus a future of shame, poverty and isolation.

>-Nick 
> 
>
>


-- 
Prof. M. Victor Wickerhauser                      <victor@kirk.wustl.edu>
Department of Mathematics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 USA
Telephone:  USA(314)935-6771, USA(314)727-0749;     FAX: USA(314)727-4963
Sto se ljuckim trudom uzdignulo, Ljuckim znojem jopet se ponavlja. --Medo Pucic
Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:215 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10087
From: ddc@nyquist.bellcore.com (Daniel Chukurov 21324)
Subject: Re: Serbian garbage
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 03:03:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.194352.15438@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Nick Jovanovic (jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu) writes:
>)Any government which declares its independence unilaterally without a
>)negotiated settlement about finances, borders, minority rights, etc. is
>)most certainly interested in war.  In fact, this type of secession is an
>)act of war.  Unilateral secession is a coup d'etat which overthrows the
>)existing government in a subset of its geographical extent.
>
>The subject line says it all.
>-- 
>Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se

	Erland, do you do drugs on weekends? You definitely sound like a 
	troubled person, first BOMB ATHENS in previous article and now
	this.
	Or is it the influence of your attendance at the Stockholm's 
	Weekend Neo-Nazi-School No: 27?
	
	What is your problem ERR?

DDC

p.s. I now, I also call for bombing of Germany, but there is a good
     explanation for it. If I get aroud to it I will post it.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: RSA Data Security Not All Bad
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:52:54 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Dec18.131923.7408@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>Perhaps you can just call George and he'll have some troops left over
>from Somalia that he can send to the evil countries like Italy and
>Taiwan.  That'll teach'em to violate God's Principles and rob the
>money of the hard-working people in One and Only Nation Under God.
	Don't give those morons any ideas Jyrki.  The U.S. government
	has enough stupid and evil plans without you helping. ;-)
	When the Banks collapse the way the Savings and Loans did
	they'll need a nice foreign war to keep our minds off of finding
	the culprits and punishing them.  The drug war is wearing thin but
	I'm sure that Taiwan could be demonized with the appropriate effort 
	on the part of the news media.  ;-(




						smg
From: yan-dicky@cs.yale.edu (Dicky Yan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Share at the UN
Date: 12 Dec 1992 19:15:59 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dolphin.zoo.cs.yale.edu

I read from the newspaper that two countries are very "behind" in their
payment of their "share" to the UN. They are the USA and Russia.
(The amount is >$100 million.) My question is:

   How do they determine the "fair share" of each country?

(I can image that the US has a bigger share than most other countries?)

Dicky Yan.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
From: an1168@anon.penet.fi (keynes_tart)
Subject: happy christmas
X-Anonymously-To: alt.politics.usa.misc
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:53:04 GMT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc
From: subbarao@phoenix.fc.hp.com (Kartik Subbarao)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.media
Subject: This week with David Brinkley -- third guest
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:02:23 GMT
Reply-To: subbarao@fc.hp.com (Kartik Subbarao)
Organization: putchar('I'); for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) putchar('E');
Originator: news@nimaster

I missed the third segment of Brinkley today. Can anyone tell me who the
guest was?

	-Kartik
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: EC PROTECT MINORITY R
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:02:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.153354.10281@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>> 1.  Dragging the process out.
>>
>>Pish, tosh.  The process now takes nearly two years now.  From the casting 
>>of the first vote in New Hampshire until the last yell in November, it 
>>takes what, ten months?  What's another month?  Better yet, slide the 
>>general popular vote somewhere into the middle of that span; there's
>>plenty of wasted room for it there.
>
>The campaign is a far different thing than the election itself.  You may
>wish to address campaign reform as a separate subject because it has 
>nothing to do with the EC.

Ok, I'd like to restate this.  The EC determines the fact that candidates
campaign on a state oriented basis so, obviously, it (the campaign) does
have _something_ to do with the EC.  However, what I implied is true in
that the length of the campaign has nothing to do with the EC.  The campaign
takes as long as it does today for other reasons.

The point is that the EC produces a _single_ election whereas the other 
proposals (except perhaps for the ranking proposal) do not address the
issue of the contingency election which would drag out the election.

MB
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: EC PROTECT MINORITY R
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:42:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec15.160105.19640@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> >The two-party system has simply become a vehicle by which an entrenched
> >political class can perpetuate itself and large government without being
> >too obviously a monopoly (one-party system).
> 
> You must be talking about the Congress.  We have had ample turnover in
> the Executive branch.

It definitely applies to Congress.  My comment was more aimed at the 
two-party system than to the Electoral College.  My point was that
your claimed advantage of the EC that is "maintains the two-party system" 
is not indisputably an advantage.

> True, N-party systems _can_ produce minority presidents.  If you go to a 
> runoff system after this event to increase the seeming popular support
> then you run the risk of delegitimizing the election by:
> 
> 1.  Dragging the process out.

Pish, tosh.  The process now takes nearly two years now.  From the casting 
of the first vote in New Hampshire until the last yell in November, it 
takes what, ten months?  What's another month?  Better yet, slide the 
general popular vote somewhere into the middle of that span; there's
plenty of wasted room for it there.

> 2.  Setting the stage for behind closed doors deals.  That is, in a runoff,
>     party X agrees to support candidate Y in exchange for something such
>     as a Supreme Court position, policy, etc.

So now it happens within the parties themselves.  So what?  Don't you
agree with me that Mario will look striking in black robes?

> 3.  The rules of the game are changed because all you have to do is come in
>     second in the "primary" and then make deals to win in the runoff.

I really don't see the horror involved in changing this from an intramural
sport to a varsity one.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: EC PROTECT MINORITY R
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:22:42 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec9.192846.29167@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

> Whether we liked Mecham or not, he was totally viscerated by the fact that
> he appeared to have insufficient popular support to rule.  Now we have
> runoff process but we should never have to use it as long as the two
> party system is intact.

The two-party system has simply become a vehicle by which an entrenched
political class can perpetuate itself and large government without being
too obviously a monopoly (one-party system).

You argue that an N-party system without runoffs promotes odd results.
Then when your opponent argues that the problem can easily be solved by
runoffs, you respond that they are unnecessary under the two-party system.

You seem to be insisting that we not throw the placenta out with the 
bathwater.  
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: hicks@pulsar.rtp.dg.com (Linus Hicks)
Subject: Re: EC PROTECT MINORITY
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 22:36:19 GMT
Reply-To: hicks@dg-rtp.dg.com
Organization: Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Dec7.203656.3339@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
|> In article <577.1657.uupcb@synapse.org> lucien.saumur@synapse.org (Lucien Saumur)  writes:
|> >     In an article <ByossD.4qo@rice.edu>, byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc
|> >J Byrd) writes:

    [Stuff deleted]

|> This is admittedly an interesting concept.  I think that we should 
|> consider that our goal is to elect a president quickly, decisively,
|> and in a way that legitimizes the election.  I do not favor this
|> ranking of the candidates proposal for these reasons:
|> 
|> 1. It would encourage third party candidates to run.

    [More deleted]

Then what do you propose we should do about the abuse of power that
seems rampant within both of the major parties? Perhaps this is off
the subject, but what problem are we really trying to solve?

Linus
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: hicks@pulsar.rtp.dg.com (Linus Hicks)
Subject: Re: Hating PAC's
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 15:59:48 GMT
Reply-To: hicks@dg-rtp.dg.com
Organization: Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Dec17.065717.4644@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

|> How about providing free air time to all candidates (make it a
|> requirement for those businesses asking the govt. for monopoly use of a
|> section of the electromagnetic spectrum)?  This would vastly reduce the
|> amount of money that someone would need to spend on a campaign.  Public
|> financing of the rest of the campaign would obliviate the need for
|> almost all contributions (other than startup ones to get someone on the
|> ballot).

Yes!!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Electoral College
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:15:17 GMT

To paraphrase Mike Best (I'm sure he'll correct if needed):

   He wanted me to read Federalist, but when I used them as
   an argument against the Electoral College, even in its
   original form, he says I'm arguing against something which
   doesn't currently exist.

   He wants to keep the EC, but throw out the office of Elector.
     -  This seems to me an even further departure from original
        intent.  Not that there's anything explicityly wrong with
        that (with care, of course), but it seems Mike Best is
        always the one pointing out original intent.

   He's highly against pure democracy (which implies popular
   voting on every single issue & office). 
     -  I agree this is not practical, BUT I'm not talking about
        every single issue and office, ONLY the office of President.


More equally (and therefore fairly) representative would be a change 
to the electoral college specifying voting proportional to the popular
vote, this reform occurring at the state level.  But if this were 
the case, and the office of Elector were removed, what's the point?  
Why not simply use the popular vote?

Some may wonder why I'm focusing on this problem, especially so
long before the next election.  The answer is that I think the
electoral college, in its original conception, is similar to what
the congress has become:  elitist. 



-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution