>
> I think the question is not wether a lot of people will die if ground troops
> are sent. I think the question is, that is more Albanian civilians going to
> die if ground troops are sent, than if they aren't sent.
Right, because everyone knows inhabitants of Serbia aren't people.
>
>
> The main argument against sending the ground troops is that such war would
> be impossible to stop. But this is the US militarist viewpoint, that no war
> can be lost. Most of the people have adopted the viewpoint that nothing can
> be done to stop the ethnic cleansing.
The NATO bombing has intensified the flow of refugees out of Kosovo. Most of these refugees are fleeing the war and hope to return when the war is settled. Vuk Dravasovic (if he is to be believed) stated this on the CBC last night. He also said that there are many Albanian Kosovo refugees in Belgrade and Serbia proper. He also said that the Milosovic regime is willing to grant Kosovo a high degree of autonomy but only under Yugoslav law.
> If the Albanians had a choice wether
> to leave their homes forever in a week, wich they have to do now, or in a
> half of a year, wich would be the case if NATO-troops are protecting the
> evacuation, I can easily imagine wich one they would choice. If winning the
> war is impossible, the NATO would leave Kosova when it is evacuated.
>
> A good argument is that sending ground troops would create more suffering to
> Albanians, wich will be stucked in between the lines. I base my
> counterargument against that to views of former NATO-commander George
> Joulwan, who claimed in tuesday's New York Times that even small army would
> be able to create a safe zone for refugees in Kosova.
Now NATO can appear as real heroes. First you create a dire refugee situation then you intervene in a heroic manner to save the refugees. Right on, NATO. I wonder what people think of Milo meeting with the moderate Albanian Kosovo leader yesterday?
Sam Pawlett