ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n118

Internet Message Format | 1999-04-22 | 45KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #118
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Friday, April 23 1999      Volume 01 : Number 118




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 04:44:17 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: What Budget Surplus?  Fraudulent Accounting Practices

This is an interesting answer.  Why then is this the first year a "budget
surplus" is being bandied about as real?   If what you say is true then this
new accounting method should have shown a similar "surplus" each of the last
ten years.  There appears to be more going on here than you have stated.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bob Tiller <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>

Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) What Budget Surplus? Fraudulent Accounting
Practices


>This change in federal budgeting procedures is not new.  It was made more
than a
>decade ago, and over the years it has been widely reported in the press.
>
>Shalom,
>Bob Tiller
>
>
>
>David Crockett Williams wrote:
>
>> One of those emails I received that has "slipped through the cracks" was
one
>> I received a couple of months ago and kept meaning to send out with a
>> commentary but never got around to it and now can't find it.  Perhaps
>> someone can verify exact details.
>>
>> The gist of the story is that Barrons financial magazine, I believe, was
>> quoted as publishing the Federal deficit for each of the last two years
and
>> the cumulative annual Federal deficit increased by something on the order
of
>> $300 billion I believe.
>>
>> What is the point?  The much ballyhooed 1999 "Federal Budget Surplus" is
a
>> fraud perpetrated by a change in accounting procedures completely
unreported
>> in the mainstream media whereby all of a sudden without any public
>> indication of what was happening, the money that normally goes into
social
>> security was reallocated as part of the federal budget.  Then the actual
>> annual deficit was subtracted from this amount and the balance was
renamed
>> the "budget surplus" and all this talk about how it should be spent "to
save
>> social security", etc., is a big con job because we are talking about an
>> amount of money in fact equal to what was previously allocated to social
>> security, LESS the actual last annual DEFICIT in the Federal budget.
>>
>> Now if my understanding is correct here, wouldn't this be quite a scandal
>> with the media complicit in this coverup of the truth?  That is:  There
is
>> no budget surplus, only a change in accounting and nominclature to fool
the
>> people!   wouldn't any accounting firm be censured and any company fined
for
>> using such deception in fiscal reporting?
>>
>> Now they are talking about "oh well , looks like we will have to use some
of
>> this budget surplus to pay for the war in Kosovo".   This is in reality
then
>> the money that under last year's accounting vocabulary was the normal
>> deposit to the social security program being used instead to fight a war.
>> What do you think the vote would have been if people were asked, "shall
we
>> take money from the social security budget and use it to bomb a bunch of
>> folks in Europe?"
>>
>> This is such a outright fraud on the American people that it amazes me
>> almost as much as the history behind how the most valuable plant in human
>> history, the hemp plant, has been fraudulently outlawed as marijuana,
>> expunged from the historical record, and the government and media are
still
>> complicit in this parallel historical fraud on the American people and
>> Congress.  (see http://www.jackherer.com)
>>
>> I hope that my posting this poor excuse for the original email with the
>> exact source of the deficit numbers will at least suffice to inspire
someone
>> to find the proper numbers and sources to verify this easy to confirm or
>> refute thesis that I have faithfully depicted above, i.e.,
>>
>> The "Federal Budget Surplus" is a Fraud
>>
>> -
>>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
>>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>
>
>-
> To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:58:45 -0400
From: Bob Tiller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Re: What Budget Surplus?  Fraudulent Accounting  Practices

No, you are mistaken.  The "budget surplus" of current times means that all the
money taken in from all sources (including income taxes, Social Security taxes
and more) exceeds all the money going out --- not including "off-budget" items,
of course.  This had not occurred for more than 30 years.

Throughout much of the last decade there has been a "surplus" in the Social
Security account that was not as large as the "deficit" from all other
accounts.  Here is a hypothetical example:  If Social Security runs a "surplus"
of $300 billion, and all other items run a "deficit" of $500 billion, the total
"deficiit" is $200 billion.

If Social Security had been treated as an "off-budget" item, then the official
budget "deficits" would have been MUCH larger than they officially were during
the 1980s and 1990s.

Here is an example: you rent out your garage, and you see that moneyas enabling
you to meet your expenses.  Your overall financial picture includes that income
from the garage rental, enabling you to stay afloat.  Perhaps the rental income
you receive from your garage really should be going into a sequestered fund to
pay for garage repairs and replacement, but you are using it to pay for
groceries and gasoline and movies.  You would have huge financial problems in
the present if you kept the rental income separate, so you mix it in with all
your other money, postponing the day of financial reckoning.  You hope that in
the future you will find some way to pay for garage repairs and replacement.
That's what is going on with Social Security.

Shalom,
Bob Tiller




David Crockett Williams wrote:

> This is an interesting answer.  Why then is this the first year a "budget
> surplus" is being bandied about as real?   If what you say is true then this
> new accounting method should have shown a similar "surplus" each of the last
> ten years.  There appears to be more going on here than you have stated.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Tiller <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>
> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) What Budget Surplus? Fraudulent Accounting
> Practices
>
> >This change in federal budgeting procedures is not new.  It was made more
> than a
> >decade ago, and over the years it has been widely reported in the press.
> >
> >Shalom,
> >Bob Tiller
> >
> >
> >
> >David Crockett Williams wrote:
> >
> >> One of those emails I received that has "slipped through the cracks" was
> one
> >> I received a couple of months ago and kept meaning to send out with a
> >> commentary but never got around to it and now can't find it.  Perhaps
> >> someone can verify exact details.
> >>
> >> The gist of the story is that Barrons financial magazine, I believe, was
> >> quoted as publishing the Federal deficit for each of the last two years
> and
> >> the cumulative annual Federal deficit increased by something on the order
> of
> >> $300 billion I believe.
> >>
> >> What is the point?  The much ballyhooed 1999 "Federal Budget Surplus" is
> a
> >> fraud perpetrated by a change in accounting procedures completely
> unreported
> >> in the mainstream media whereby all of a sudden without any public
> >> indication of what was happening, the money that normally goes into
> social
> >> security was reallocated as part of the federal budget.  Then the actual
> >> annual deficit was subtracted from this amount and the balance was
> renamed
> >> the "budget surplus" and all this talk about how it should be spent "to
> save
> >> social security", etc., is a big con job because we are talking about an
> >> amount of money in fact equal to what was previously allocated to social
> >> security, LESS the actual last annual DEFICIT in the Federal budget.
> >>
> >> Now if my understanding is correct here, wouldn't this be quite a scandal
> >> with the media complicit in this coverup of the truth?  That is:  There
> is
> >> no budget surplus, only a change in accounting and nominclature to fool
> the
> >> people!   wouldn't any accounting firm be censured and any company fined
> for
> >> using such deception in fiscal reporting?
> >>
> >> Now they are talking about "oh well , looks like we will have to use some
> of
> >> this budget surplus to pay for the war in Kosovo".   This is in reality
> then
> >> the money that under last year's accounting vocabulary was the normal
> >> deposit to the social security program being used instead to fight a war.
> >> What do you think the vote would have been if people were asked, "shall
> we
> >> take money from the social security budget and use it to bomb a bunch of
> >> folks in Europe?"
> >>
> >> This is such a outright fraud on the American people that it amazes me
> >> almost as much as the history behind how the most valuable plant in human
> >> history, the hemp plant, has been fraudulently outlawed as marijuana,
> >> expunged from the historical record, and the government and media are
> still
> >> complicit in this parallel historical fraud on the American people and
> >> Congress.  (see http://www.jackherer.com)
> >>
> >> I hope that my posting this poor excuse for the original email with the
> >> exact source of the deficit numbers will at least suffice to inspire
> someone
> >> to find the proper numbers and sources to verify this easy to confirm or
> >> refute thesis that I have faithfully depicted above, i.e.,
> >>
> >> The "Federal Budget Surplus" is a Fraud
> >>
> >> -
> >>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
> "[e-mail]"
> >>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> >>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> >>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
> >
> >
> >-
> > To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> > with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> > "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
> >
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:49:08 -0400
From: "David Rush" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Re: What Budget Surplus?  Fraudulent Accounting Practices

What has happened to NCI booklet?

- ----------
> From: Bob Tiller <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Re: What Budget Surplus?  Fraudulent
Accounting Practices
> Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 9:58 AM
>
> No, you are mistaken.  The "budget surplus" of current times means that
all the
> money taken in from all sources (including income taxes, Social Security
taxes
> and more) exceeds all the money going out --- not including "off-budget"
items,
> of course.  This had not occurred for more than 30 years.
>
> Throughout much of the last decade there has been a "surplus" in the
Social
> Security account that was not as large as the "deficit" from all other
> accounts.  Here is a hypothetical example:  If Social Security runs a
"surplus"
> of $300 billion, and all other items run a "deficit" of $500 billion, the
total
> "deficiit" is $200 billion.
>
> If Social Security had been treated as an "off-budget" item, then the
official
> budget "deficits" would have been MUCH larger than they officially were
during
> the 1980s and 1990s.
>
> Here is an example: you rent out your garage, and you see that moneyas
enabling
> you to meet your expenses.  Your overall financial picture includes that
income
> from the garage rental, enabling you to stay afloat.  Perhaps the rental
income
> you receive from your garage really should be going into a sequestered
fund to
> pay for garage repairs and replacement, but you are using it to pay for
> groceries and gasoline and movies.  You would have huge financial
problems in
> the present if you kept the rental income separate, so you mix it in with
all
> your other money, postponing the day of financial reckoning.  You hope
that in
> the future you will find some way to pay for garage repairs and
replacement.
> That's what is going on with Social Security.
>
> Shalom,
> Bob Tiller
>
>
>
>
> David Crockett Williams wrote:
>
> > This is an interesting answer.  Why then is this the first year a
"budget
> > surplus" is being bandied about as real?   If what you say is true then
this
> > new accounting method should have shown a similar "surplus" each of the
last
> > ten years.  There appears to be more going on here than you have
stated.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Tiller <[e-mail]>
> > To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >
> > Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 12:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) What Budget Surplus? Fraudulent Accounting
> > Practices
> >
> > >This change in federal budgeting procedures is not new.  It was made
more
> > than a
> > >decade ago, and over the years it has been widely reported in the
press.
> > >
> > >Shalom,
> > >Bob Tiller
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >David Crockett Williams wrote:
> > >
> > >> One of those emails I received that has "slipped through the cracks"
was
> > one
> > >> I received a couple of months ago and kept meaning to send out with
a
> > >> commentary but never got around to it and now can't find it.
Perhaps
> > >> someone can verify exact details.
> > >>
> > >> The gist of the story is that Barrons financial magazine, I believe,
was
> > >> quoted as publishing the Federal deficit for each of the last two
years
> > and
> > >> the cumulative annual Federal deficit increased by something on the
order
> > of
> > >> $300 billion I believe.
> > >>
> > >> What is the point?  The much ballyhooed 1999 "Federal Budget
Surplus" is
> > a
> > >> fraud perpetrated by a change in accounting procedures completely
> > unreported
> > >> in the mainstream media whereby all of a sudden without any public
> > >> indication of what was happening, the money that normally goes into
> > social
> > >> security was reallocated as part of the federal budget.  Then the
actual
> > >> annual deficit was subtracted from this amount and the balance was
> > renamed
> > >> the "budget surplus" and all this talk about how it should be spent
"to
> > save
> > >> social security", etc., is a big con job because we are talking
about an
> > >> amount of money in fact equal to what was previously allocated to
social
> > >> security, LESS the actual last annual DEFICIT in the Federal budget.
> > >>
> > >> Now if my understanding is correct here, wouldn't this be quite a
scandal
> > >> with the media complicit in this coverup of the truth?  That is:
There
> > is
> > >> no budget surplus, only a change in accounting and nominclature to
fool
> > the
> > >> people!   wouldn't any accounting firm be censured and any company
fined
> > for
> > >> using such deception in fiscal reporting?
> > >>
> > >> Now they are talking about "oh well , looks like we will have to use
some
> > of
> > >> this budget surplus to pay for the war in Kosovo".   This is in
reality
> > then
> > >> the money that under last year's accounting vocabulary was the
normal
> > >> deposit to the social security program being used instead to fight a
war.
> > >> What do you think the vote would have been if people were asked,
"shall
> > we
> > >> take money from the social security budget and use it to bomb a
bunch of
> > >> folks in Europe?"
> > >>
> > >> This is such a outright fraud on the American people that it amazes
me
> > >> almost as much as the history behind how the most valuable plant in
human
> > >> history, the hemp plant, has been fraudulently outlawed as
marijuana,
> > >> expunged from the historical record, and the government and media
are
> > still
> > >> complicit in this parallel historical fraud on the American people
and
> > >> Congress.  (see http://www.jackherer.com)
> > >>
> > >> I hope that my posting this poor excuse for the original email with
the
> > >> exact source of the deficit numbers will at least suffice to inspire
> > someone
> > >> to find the proper numbers and sources to verify this easy to
confirm or
> > >> refute thesis that I have faithfully depicted above, i.e.,
> > >>
> > >> The "Federal Budget Surplus" is a Fraud
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
> > "[e-mail]"
> > >>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> > >>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages
send
> > >>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
> > >
> > >
> > >-
> > > To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
> > > with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> > > For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> > > "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
> > >
> >
> > -
> >  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
> >  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> >  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> >  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
"[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:52:42 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) The American Role in The Balkan War: A European Perspective On NATO

In a message dated 4/23/99 9:45:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,=20
[e-mail] writes:

<< Subj:=09 The American Role in The Balkan War: A European Perspective=20
On NATO
 Date:=094/23/99 9:45:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
 From:=[e-mail] (Magnus Kellerdal)
 To:=[e-mail]
=20
 To Mr David McReynolds
=20
 You can see this as a personal thought about the war in Kosovo. You can
 also see it as frustration given by a man who feels that he is once again
 standing on the brink of a mass-grave and that the very same grave is being
 filled without purpose or thought.=20
=20
 Let me introduce myself. Magnus Kellerdal, Swedish citizen, age thirtysix,
 Master at Laws, Technical Engineer, Captain Swedish Army Reserve, working
 within Municipality Administration, Halmstad, Sweden. As You=20
 will see, a rather talkative person.=20
=20
 Three weeks ago an old friend of mine phoned me from Beograd.=20
 Once we used to work together, he as my assistant, and we campaigned
 together. My friend still has the same citizenship as me, but he was
 born in  Beograd and now he works there. He told me that he was one of=20
 them standing guard on the bridges over river Sava and that he now wore=20
 the well known insignia "Target". We talked for a very long time. In fact,=20
 talk is not indifferent to us because when we once worked together talk=20
 and dialogue were our key tools. Now, what is so peculiar with this small
 story? Maybe nothing, except for this - both my friend and myself are
 decorated with The NATO Service Medal. We once used to work in IFOR/SFOR
 and thereby acting as "occupiers" in Republika Srpska and Federacije BiH in
 Bosna. We liaised and worked together with=20
 Bosnian-Serb Police officers, and Bosnian-Muslim Police officers. In fact,=20
 we worked with the officials of the community as a whole, as several=20
 hundred representatives of the international community in Bosnia are
 working today - primarily with words. =20
=20
 7 April I read an article in Washington Post, written by Thomas W. Lippman.
 It confirmed what I had already gathered, namely that the stress at
 Rambouillet was caused by the fact that NATO and USA were on a strict
 time-schedule: the upcoming celebration of NATO=B4s fifty years anniversary
 in Washington on 23 April. Therefore the agreement had to be in hand and
 the ground forces in place. Cruel, is it not? Because of a time-schedule
 people are dying. To continue, on the morning of 25 March, the morning
 after the onslaught I said (and You will have to take my word for it) to my
 colleagues at my work exactly this, that NATO must show success at their
 anniversary or it will be virtually impossible for them to change their own
 statutes into a "New NATO Order". My colleagues smiled, called me cynical
 since I was saying that the war was about a time-schedule and prestige and
 referred to the fact that I was a poor analyst of the Balkans. You see, I
 had only a couple of days before the onslaught assumed that NATO would not
 attack but instead make the wise and only decision to make the parties
 return to the table for more dialogue. Well, when my friends smiled at me,
 in the morning of 25 March, I answered that I was not a bad analyst of the
 Balkans but a bad analyst of NATO and USA - I simply did not think that
 they could  commit to such actions, such stupidity, and that NATO would not
 exist in its present form in ten years from now. When my colleagues stopped
 smiling and started to listen I went on by saying something like=20
 this:=20
=20
 """This is Balkan. Balkan is a Turkish word that means Mountains. This is
 Partisan Land. This is the worst kind of terrain for combat. Serbians have
 fought in this kind of terrain for the past six hundred years. And
 especially this people I know, since I used to work very close with them.
 It is Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava. It is Vidovdan and the sign of three
 fingers. It is the tale of Vuk Brankovic. It is Kosovo Polje. It is
 Karadjeordje and every war for the past six hundred years. It is Kosovo i
 Metohia, or Kosovo as we confuse it with. It is every church and holy place
 in the Serb-Orthodox culture. It is Kalemegdan, Sava and Gracanica. It is
 what Jerusalem is for jews. Bomb them for thirty days and they will only be
 more defiant. For every bomb they will be more willing to resist. It is
 like trying to stop a fire by pooring fuel over it. For us, in our country
 and in our culture, we are learned to live by the law. And what does our
 Constitution say? It says that surrender is against the Constitution. It
 says that this law against surrender can only be altered after two
 decisions in our Parliament and with a Parliament election in between. In a
 state of war our Parliament is closed, and a special War Delegation assumes
 responsibility. That delegation is by our law forbidden to alter our
 Constitution - their only task is to win the war. By this we are trapped in
 our own law. We are therefore in our defensive organizations, both military
 and civilian, taught that every declaration of surrender is a false one. We
 may not like this, but it is the Law. Now, I know a people who willingly
 are trapped in their country, culture and history and they are Serbs. Me
 personally, I would rather fight against Kamikaze-pilots than Serbs when it
 comes to Kosovo i Metohia. And therefore NATO have already lost this
 war. But that is only one part of it. On Balkan and faced with a problem
 You cut off the problem. The so called problem in this case is the ethnic
 Albanian population, the only persons that Serb forces can hit with ease.
 There will be retaliation on the ground."""
=20
 I must confess I could not, in my wildest dreams, foresee the situation
 where Serb Government went after the ENTIRE ethnic Albanian population.
 Brutal speculations in Sweden was that the figure would stop at one million
 people. This may sound cynical, but that was from the example of Bosnia and
 therefore landed in the figure of one million people.
=20
 I can also add this: The old Swedish Army Oath  - it was abolished in 1982
 - started with the words """A warrior must fear God and be loyal to the
 rightful King.""" It ended with the words """In the time of war the warrior
 must act couragesly and with his own life and blood defend his Fatherly
 country.""" If it is something I have learned about Serbs and Kosovo it is
 exactly this. It is a reality. It is Kamikaze. =20
=20
 When they finally accept an International Armed Force in Kosovo - and in=20
 the end they must - after the signing of an acceptable agreement I
 would be proud and honoured to participate in such a force. And such a
 force does not have to be larger than ten thousand men. Where the NATO
 figure 30000 men comes from I do not know, but I can still count. And my
 country has a long tradition of peace-keeping and conflict-solving. For the
 past fifty years we have deployed more than eighty thousand men and women
 into the field, sometimes with good results and sometimes with bad results.
 The result lies in the mandate and the willingness to commit to the
 operation. I think we can have both in this case. And NATO? Well, NATO in
 its present form will soon be gone. Not this year, not next year but in ten
 years. The problem with NATO is that USA is not located in Europe and that
 The European Union is no longer in need of USA in the Cold War against
 Russia. I mean, we are fifteen Member States and ten Applicant States.=20
 We are already the bigger part of Europe. We have no quarrel with Russia.
 We know this, we know this so well but no one has yet tried to stand on=20
 his own feet. It is like a child trying to walk for the first time. In
 order to walk You must first try. Maybe Serbia, in a most ironic and
 cynical way, has given us the reason for trying. In the end, we will have
 our unified and peaceful Europe.=20
 =20
 This is what I think will be read in European columns in ten years time:
=20
 """The year of 1999 and the new millennium marked an important step in
 European foreign and security policy and the view on the European region as
 a whole. Under the coming years Europe finally tore down blocks and
 positions remaining from the Cold War. Europe realized that USA was not
 located in Europe and that Russia was. We realized that Russia could not
 and would not pose any other problem than that out of poor economy and
 therefore was to be helped in a more real manner. EU realized that we had
 to assume responsibility for our own continent - how could we otherwise
 ever ask other continents to do the same? The European Union took, after
 ten years of extreme failure on the Balkans the first deliberate steps
 against a united view on Europe. Under the past ten years we have seen NATO
 split into a European Organization with a more loose alliance to a North
 American Organization. By American criticists it is stated that the
 European Union got the excuse they wanted for ridding themselwes of USA, so
 often criticized for meddling in European policy and that this was indeed a
 backstab after all the help provided by USA over the past sixty years, yes
 in every war during the twentieth century. Europeans who applaud the
 breakdown argue that when the only place where You can read about European
 foreign and security policy is in Washington news papers then You must
 "free" Yourself from the "nanny" on Capitol Hill and grow up.
 A more balanced observer would say that because of the frightful events
 caused by NATO=B4s enormous misjudgements and disastrous actions on the
 Balkans, which was seconded by EU itself, Europe was litterally pushed in
 the direction that up till then had been a Western European "club" but now
 turned to something new - a united Europe. A European Region. What happened
 on the Balkans was simply not allowed to happen again. The framework was
 provided through EU, WEU, OSCE and the new approach against Russia. The
 work was in the beginning slow and haltering, but=20
 now  it has proven successful. And NATO, this so forceful and successful
 organization, the Winner of The Cold War and the last of its remnants, in
 1999 standing only a few feet away from declaring a new policy at its fifty
 years anniversary, saw the tidal wave turn and vanished in the sand.""" =20
=20
 My NATO service medal from SFOR in 1997 and 1998 will one day be a rarity -
 they will no longer be produced. =20
=20
 This is soon a reality, because there is a problem with NATO when we are
 talking about our "New European Order", EU. If I was to be ironic I would
 also add that within EU we now need a patsy for this disaster on the
 Balkans. And "fortunately" we have USA, which is not located in Europe and
 can never become a EU Member State. A USA that we sometimes regard as
 arrogant in its foreign and security policy, an arrogance we have=20
 accepted over the years since USA is "the leading hound". This is real
 politics now. A couple of days ago Mr Carl Bildt gave a very sharp speech
 with a clear address in EU over the lack of combined security and foreign
 policy within EU itself. I have heard the same speech emerge from many
 European capitols And in the choice between NATO in its present form and
 EU, well it is really not a choice. EU of course. First the conflict must
 be solved - hopefully after new negotiations - and then there is the
 aftermath. Europe trade a lot with North America, but it is only a fraction
 of how much we trade with ourselves within EU. And EU already has a
 military branch. And Russia poses no threat anymore, as well as Germany is
 not, or the old conflict between France and United Kingdom, or the even
 older conflict in Italy, or the once raging war between the Nordic
 countries aren=B4t posing any threats. And we have OSCE. And we are
 neighbouring countries and the countries that always must pay the heaviest
 burden of war in Europe. We have at least learned to dance within EU, two
 steps forward and one step back. And now we also have a reason for doing
 the last part, regardless of how many Marshall Plans USA has provided
 Europe with during this century, regardless of our centiments over the
 years. A century that by the way soon will be history. This is not to be
 against USA in itself, it is only the inevitable outcome of history.=20
=20
 So, what is the new policy for NATO? Well, I for one think that one of them
 is EDO - European Defence Organization. But while this academic debate
 continues people are dying on the ground. They will not be given ten years
 of time. Thanks to Us.=20
=20
 Yours cincerely
=20
 Magnus Kellerdal,
 former Liaison Officer in CIMIC Affairs (Civil-Military Cooperation),
 Swedish Battalion, Nordic-Polish Brigade, Task Force Eagle, SFOR.
=20
 Hvitfeldtsgatan 44
 S-302 34 HALMSTAD
 Sweden
=20
=20
  >>


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:52:30 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Nobel Laureates' Kosovo Peace Initiative

In a message dated 4/23/99 4:30:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,=20
[e-mail] writes:

<<=20
 1999.04.22 Zenit
=20
 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNERS'=20
 PROPOSAL FOR PEACE IN KOSOVO
 Resolution of Conflict Must Come through United Nations
=20
 ROME, APR 22 (ZENIT).- Following an audience with John Paul II, the
 participants in the first summit of Nobel Peace Prize Winners, held in=20
 Rome from April 21-22 and sponsored by the Gorbachov Foundation,=20
 presented their proposal for the reestablishment of peace in Kosovo=20
 on the Capitoline hill of the Eternal City.
=20
 The document is the fruit of the collaboration of Betty Williams, Frederik
 de Klerk, Rigoberta Mench=FA, Simon Peres, David Trimble, Joseph=20
 Rotblat and Mikhail Gorbachov.
=20
 On behalf of the participants in the summit, Mikhail Gorbachov, the=20
 former Soviet president, said that the peace proposal for Kosovo is=20
 based on the immediate suspension of military activities and the beginning=20
 of direct negotiations among the contending parties. Specifically, the=20
 Nobel winners called for the urgent return of the refugees to Kosovo,=20
 based on the guarantee of a broad autonomy for the separatist province=20
 and on the decisive intervention of the international community in=20
 humanitarian support for these people. These measures must be=20
 implemented as the "highest priorities."
=20
 The summit participants also support the presence of a multinational=20
 force under the direction of the United Nations, with the express=20
 approval of the Security Council.
=20
 Finally, the Nobel Prize winners believe the conflict will not end=20
 unless an international conference is called which, in the words of=20
 Mikhail Gorbachov, would allow for the "Europeanization of the Balkans=20
 instead of the Balkanization of Europe."
=20
 The participants expressed their willingness to mediate in the crisis.=20
 In fact, they want to collaborate with the U.N. and Kofi Annan, its=20
 secretary, to put an end to this war and prevent new threats and=20
 possible dangers to peace. They even stated that they are ready to=20
 travel to Belgrade to attempt direct mediation.
=20
 At the end of the press conference, the participants said it was
 inadmissible to use force to solve problems of a strictly political nature=20
 and, therefore, are convinced these can only be resolved through=20
 diplomacy.
=20
 ZE99042206
=20
 * * *
 ZENIT
 is an International News Agency
=20
 Visit our web page at http://www.zenit.org
 To subscribe/unsubscribe  http://www.zenit.org/english/subscribe.html
=20
 --------------------------------------------------------
 SEND US YOUR NEWS: Please send press releases, statements and other
 information to our international news desk at: [e-mail]. Periodicals,
 reports and other longer publications can be mailed to us at: ZENIT, C.P.
 18356, 00164 Rome - Italy .
=20
=20

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:52:48 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: AP: Journalists Protest NATO Attack

In a message dated 4/23/99 11:09:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<<
 April 23, 1999

 Journalists Protest NATO Attack

 Filed at 8:07 a.m. EDT

 By The Associated Press

 BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The International Federation of
 Journalists expressed deep concern today over NATO's attack
 against Serbia's state television center in Belgrade, saying the
 alliance had violated its pledge to hit military targets only.

 "This bomb attack seems to make a very clear statement that
 civilian and particularly media targets are legitimate," IFJ
 General-Secretary Aidan White told a news conference.

 He said the attack meant that Serbian journalists who are working
 for a free media are now more than ever in danger of being
 persecuted.

 "We need more solidarity with these journalists, not actions
 which mean they will be put more in the firing line," White said.

 The attack came a day after missiles slammed into a Belgrade
 high-rise that housed Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's
 governing party and a radio and TV station owned by his daughter.

 "The rules of the game seem to have been changed over the last
 few days and that's very dangerous," White said.

 NATO argues Serbian television is a legitimate military target
 because it spreads "propaganda" about the Western air campaign.
 It said the attack against the earlier attack against the radio and
 TV station on Thursday was justified by the fact the building
 housed Milosevic's party.

 The Brussels-based IFJ is a federation of journalism unions
 representing about 450,000 journalists around the world.

 * * *
 the Orthodox Peace Fellowship web site on Church
 response to the NATO attack on Yugoslavia has been
 expanded and updated:
 www.incommunion.org/nato.htm
 * * *

  >>


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:52:23 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: jhurd_newparty: NATO gears up for invasion of Kosovo at end of May

In a message dated 4/22/99 11:46:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Subj:     jhurd_newparty: NATO gears up for invasion of Kosovo at end
of May
 Date:    4/22/99 11:46:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
 From:    [e-mail] (David L. Wilson)
 Sender:    [e-mail]
 To:    [e-mail]

 The Guardian/The Observer (London)

     Nato gears up for invasion of Kosovo at end of May

 By Peter Beaumont, Andy McSmith and Patrick Wintour in London and Ed
 Vulliamy in New York, Sunday April 18, 1999

 Nato is making plans for a ground invasion of Kosovo as early as the end
 of May. The Observer has established that 80,000 troops have been
 earmarked for the operation. American forces have already started training
 in a reconstruction of a Balkan village in the Colorado Rockies.

 Military planners believe six weeks is the minimum period necessary to
 wear down Serb military and police units in the province.

 According to sources in London and Washington, the accelerated timetable
 follows the insistence by Nato's political leaders that the allied
 military campaign against Yugoslavia must be wrapped up within three
 months.

 It also follows a radical rethinking of Nato's air strategy to include
 lower level and higher precision raids against Serb forces in Kosovo and
 economic targets.

 Evidence is emerging that more than 3,000 ethnic Albanians may have been
 murdered by Yugoslav forces in Kosovo in a three-week orgy of ethnic
 cleansing and village burning.

 'We are no longer talking about sending peacekeeping troops into an
 entirely permissive environment,' said one source last week. 'We are
 talking about the use of ground forces in a way that would have been taboo
 a month ago. That is, sending troops in semi-opposed.'

 Such an intervention would require Serb lines of communication and
 logistic support to forces in Kosovo to be cut to the point of being
 negligible.

 'Already we are seeing evidence that this is happening,' said the source.
 'The main road between Belgrade and Pristina has been cut. They are
 running out of petrol and diesel in the province, and we are hearing
 reports that when Serb troops use their radios they are not working. We
 are also hearing of collapsing morale in the Pristina corps, including
 defections.'

 Planning for a limited ground campaign is being rushed ahead. A senior
 adviser to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said yesterday that they would
 never admit detailed plans for a ground troop invasion since it would
 leave Nato open to the charge of giving Belgrade advance warning of its
 plans.

 Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal Democrat leader, predicted yesterday that the
 air campaign would enter a new stage this week. He said: 'I think the
 conflict will come to a head in the next few days. It's not the end but
 the beginning of the end.'

 In Washington a senior US army officer said planning a ground assault was
 being examined on two levels: the invasion of Kosovo and what was being
 called the 'securing' of Serbia proper and the region around Belgrade.
 Combat units amounting to 'between 75,000 and 80,000' soldiers are to take
 part in what officials are calling an envisaged 'limited invasion' of
 Kosovo itself once the frontiers have been sealed.

 The force would be preceded by an advance guard of 20,000, including
 special forces, minesweeping and explosives experts, followed by an
 artillery and tank spearhead to blast a narrow way as far towards central
 Kosovo as possible.

 A US official said a ground war could not commence until the weather was
 reliable and 'the defences are more than degraded' - 'say, no sooner than
 six weeks, but not necessarily later than two months'.

 Using a Balkan village replica in the Colorado Rockies, US troops are
 already training for the invasion. The Pentagon insists the site will be
 used as a training ground for US servicemen on their way to Bosnia but, as
 a military source said, 'there's not too much difference between a village
 in East Bosnia and a village in Kosovo'.

 The numbers of troops needed for each phase of the operation have been
 worked out. In preparation for the strike force of up to 80,000, 8,000
 troops are to secure the border between Albania and Kosovo, and a further
 200,000 Serbia's other borders with Bosnia, Hungary and Romania. The
 200,000 would be a massive deployment intended 'to all but throttle Serbia
 and to cage Milosevic'.

 US troops based in Tuzla, Bosnia, have already been briefed on an
 operation to deploy along the Drina valley and the border with Montenegro,
 and to go into Montenegro if necessary.

 Meanwhile in Washington, a Romanian diplomat confirmed that there had been
 overtures from Clinton administration officials to the pro-western
 government of Professor Emil Constantinescu in Bucharest, to discuss a
 mass Nato deployment along Yugoslavia's eastern and Danube frontiers.
 Romania is torn between its religious and historical ties to Serbia and
 its new reformist pro-American mood, particlarly its desperation to become
 a member of Nato.

 Although a Romanian diplomat denied that Nato membership had been
 mentioned in the discussions, a State Department official said: 'The issue
 of membership cannot be far from their minds. If Romania does not
 co-operate with a Nato ground war against Serbia, they know they can
 forget joining Nato, and they don't want that.'


 =============================================================
  David L. Wilson  *  212-674-9499  * <[e-mail]>
      The main enemy is at home. -- Karl Liebknecht, 1914
 ======================================================== >>


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #118
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.