Keri spat:
>Pity that Belgrade is being bombed. Put a stop to the insane actions
>of your armed forces and I'm quite sure that the bombs will stop.
Harold Pinter's succinct encapsulation of post-WWII US foreign
policy, "Kiss my arse or I'll kick your head in," is wrong only to
the extent that it writes the ensuing conflicts as fist-fights
between equals. "Kiss my arse or I will bomb you from a relatively
safe distance" would be more like it. It's difficult, maybe
impossible to imagine how to stop an intractable and racist regime
determined to get rid of the Albanians of Kosovo WITHOUT some sort
of military intervention. But post-Vietnam and, more recently, the
embarrassingly ill-fated Somalia adventure, the US will not allow
G.I. Joe within a mile and a half (straight up in the air) from
anyone who might do him an injury. So NATO are committed to a
project which, they admit, is only encouraging the stepping-up of the
violence they intended to counteract. A substantial force on the
ground would be the only way to rescue and shelter those most at
risk, if they were serious about that task, and the possibility of
Serbian civilian casualities of NATO weapons would be minimised.
Well, that's my view. But what other alternatives to the current course
of NATO action would listmembers advocate, if any?
all best
Robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|