>Doug notes:
>
>"...because strategically, the time for inserting ground troops was now.
>Right this minute! Load up the planes with paratroopers! Given that our
>stated war aims were to protect Kosovars..."
>
>It was only a "stated war aim" Doug, you shouldn't believe White House
>press releases, the real US and NATO intentions are economic and political
do you find similarities then with irak's war? i thought the whole thing was
about hepling those that were being cleansed..... wasn't that one the
purpose of nato's action?
>and the humanitarian angle is only an angle. Yes it was a strategic
>necessity to have something other than the bombing of empty military
>targets, but unfortunately the absense of ground troops and the ban on
>strategic non-military targets (utilities, industry) were political
>decisions.
>
>"...we weren't even willing to fly our planes low enough to retard his
troop..."
>
>Yes, the Serbs are well armed and are dug into nearly every Kosovo
>villiage, and they have anti-aircraft capabilities. Whoever takes on the
>Serbs is going to suffer losses.
so after 60 days of proving that this is not the way to stop the cleansing
(people is still dying in all sides), i just wonder how much longer will we
wait to change the strategy.
And yes Doug, NATO are more interested in
>their losses than they are about the Kosovor people. Thats why the 24 super
>helicopter (now 21) were heralded so much in advance - you didn't believe
>the press releases about them going into action did you - against a
>hailstorm of light, medium and heavy anti-aircraft fire; but have no fears,
>they will fly up a quite valley on an ineffective high altitude mission at
>least once to prove a point, and to give the press people a couple of good
>shots to show how US equipment is "invinsible".
>
>"...obviously nobody among the NATO planners - even reckoned among his
>options: his launching of an all-out attack on Kosovo the moment the bombs
>started falling."
>
>Wrong, the press releases about a quick victory and Milosevic coming to his
>senses soon, were actually only press releases. NATO obviously new they had
>a shit-hole on their hands, thats why they continue to fly high altitude
>sorties, because flying low continues to be dangerous.
>
>Doug, you keep trying to prove NATO and the US do not have good intentions.
if they have good intentions they better change the strategy that haven't
proved useful.
and besides how awful it is the whole situation in yugoslavia, will you let
people worry about the "order" nato is willing to impose to the rest of the
world in the very present and future?
>Who is your audience, who does not know this? For not even the NATO
>generals believe their own press releases. So NATO is bad. NATO is bad. So
>if NATO is bad, what then? What is the point of proving hyprocricy in this
>western alliance?
the point is you shut your mouth and accept whatever comes or you don't and
try to fight it.
>
>The question remains: what stops Milosevic?
not the airstrikes.
And given that Milosevic
>"cleansed" Kosovo while sitting at the negotiation table, what next? What
>is your answer for the Kosovo people, because I do not see a solution
you are right, i don't see a solution either, specially with the actual nato
attitude....
nato has tried only airstrikes (besides political negotiation). what about a
change....
>coming from proving the US is a warmongering superpower?
>
>Tony
>
>
>
>