Don't worry, this isn't another weird New World Order, Clinton, or religious rant. Just wanted to start a discussion about the obvious parallels here between Kosovo and Y2K.

Imagine a few months back. Imagine you are a Kosovar. You know what the Serbs did to muslims in Bosnia, you can see the obvious signs that it is going to happen again. Question: what do you do? Answer: you do nothing. You wait, hope for the best, and then either get massacred or driven out of the country.

This is how people always react, it seems to me. History shows that human beings just aren't very good at reacting to these kinds of threats, given it happens again and again. The Jews in the Holocaust is another example. How many saw what was coming and then took action? Precious few. It appears to be human nature to deny these kinds of threats.

Y2K is like this. We can see it coming. But how many will protect themselves? I bet the same percentage as the Kosovars or the WW2 Jews - that is, very few.

Another parallel. Our government and NATO obviously got more than they bargained for in Kosovo. We thought we had it all gamed out and weren't expecting 2M refuges and dead. We weren't expecting this brutality.

Well, Y2K is like that, too. Can our government really understand the risks? And if it doesn't, can it help us if things get ... brutal?

Just some thoughts. Might be worth discussing with the DGIs.

-- nut1 (nut1@imb.com), April 22, 1999

Answers

"Our government and NATO obviously got more than they bargained for in Kosovo. We thought we had it all gamed out and weren't expecting 2M refuges and dead. We weren't expecting this brutality.

My first question is: Why do you use "we"? Are you "the government"...are you "NATO"? Then a comment,...thought and expectation are individual,...they are processes that cannot be extended to groups...no "group thought, expectation" exists anywhere on the planet, and perhaps in the Universe as we know it. Fiction, pure and simple, albeit, commonly held and used fiction. Lastly, a snide comment,...the next "governmental" original thought could be the first

"There are two ways to slide easily through life: Namely, to believe everything, or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking." - Alfred Korzybski.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 22, 1999.

and again,...

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 22, 1999.

too many italics...

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 22, 1999.

History proves time and again an unarmed populace is always ripe for being shown a lack of respect.

Donna: Those Italianos sure are pesky little critters.

-- Mike T. (anita_martini@the.ranch), April 22, 1999.

Donna,

Quite a struggle with the formatting.

But what is your point? "We" is just a shorthand. Obviously, "I" am not NATO. As is: "we" won WW2. As opposed to "the government in charge of the US during the 40's won WW2". Etc. Most people understand this.

Similarly, "the" Kosovors didn't make a decision. They made 2M individual decisions. But it is the aggregrate of these decisions we are analyzing. No one suggests that there was a "group" decision.

I can't decide if you are a academic who just likes to nitpick things (you sound like some of the types I ran into Harvard, where every obvious statement got deconstructed), or you are just making a political statement (I am not my government, I hate everything Klinton and the liberals do etc).

-- nut1 (nut1@imb.com), April 22, 1999.

just for good measure...

-- btdt (bold@critt.com), April 22, 1999.

"History shows an unarmed populace ...".

Sorry, but the Kosovars were heavily armed. Albania in general, and Kosovo in particular, have lots of guns. They have a gun culture, just like Colorado.

I know this from direct experience after a tour in Bosnia and visits in that region. That place is NRA all the way. A man's pride rests on how many guns he has.

So, having guns won't save you. The original poster was talking about psychology, I think, and hit the nail on the head.

-- JHalt (jhalt@n1army.mil), April 22, 1999.

No,..."we" is not just a shorthand. Do a bit of reading on General Senamtics. Words influence thought. Actually, it has been shown that at the evolutionary level of human beings now...thought cannot happen without words. "We" is an abstract,...unless you are talking about anyone you KNOW and have intimate contact with. It is semantic laziness that is done every day in the media, and unfortunately has filtered down to personal usage. Most people don't understand that they are creating abstracts and nonsense in their perspective when they use the word "we". Try replacing any of your previous statement with the word, "I."

The Yugoslavia issue is one of economics lest anyone be fooled. Well-monied and armed NATO "nations" would not be there otherwise. Ask the question, as Jim Garrison said...Ask the question. Who profits by the NATO incursion/bombing of Yugoslavia? Use the word "we" if you are over there with a gun...otherwise, logic demands another word.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 22, 1999.

jhalt - you are correct in that past a certain point firearms alone will not be sufficient. the requirement is for firearms, organization and training. Unfortunately the only group on the ground in Kosovo which managed to put those three groups together were a bunch of communist drug dealers (a.k.a. the KLA). Fortunately for this country that is not the case here!

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 22, 1999.

"Actually, it has been shown that at the evolutionary level of human beings now...thought cannot happen without words."

Well, humans are not evolving...they are sinking. That quote is certainly full of words, but without thought. Carries no logic. Had to be written by a woman, I suppose. thought cannot happen without words? duh.....a baby thinks....and learns. Words and language are a gift. The word we, is certainly acceptable. We are family!~

-- womencanbeillogical (beingtoowordy@boring.com), April 22, 1999.

Donna: the thing that drives me crazy is the sanctimonious use of "we" by columnists/agit-propsters when saying things like "we have grown as a people" or "we Americans want to prevent suffering" or "we support ground troops." You are right: there is no 'group think,' but the group mind and other 'mass-man' concepts are useful coinages for those who seek to manipulate populations. They truly believe that individual liberties are subservient to the interests of the State, and so fabricate falsehoods about "we the people's" beliefs so as to manipulate the zeitgeist. We the people don't want war in Kosovo, and we don't think much of Clinton, yet their 'polls' show otherwise. They are skillful propagandists: each time a reporter/columnist uses a 'we' formula, it gets implanted in the communal mind, taking on a life of its own. With constant repetition these memes take on the form of instruction, and how many modern minds are capable of resisting the "if we, then you, too" command implicit in all modern propaganda. History has a voice, and it is human, but for the past several centuries History's voice has been that of oligarchic financial elites, fomenting wars and urging the world on towards a one world economy, currency, and government. "We" becomes the empty totem, the deracinated cipher that enables their conquest.

-- Usual (in@jam.com), April 23, 1999.