>We are talking about one scenario of death and destruction versus another
>here, Marg! It's difficult and it's about unimaginable human suffering -
>so any bunch of concerned individuals are gonna go at it pretty hard.
I meant only that the stakes are small for us, Rob: it's not we who are being shelled, bombed, or taken out and shot. Nor do our opinions have a discernable impact on those who order the shelling, bombing, or executions (would that it were but so!).
(And if you need to cut 'Margaret' down to fewer chars, i'd really prefer 'Meg' thankyousoverymuch :-)
>
>My feeling is that there is an unfortunate tendency amongst we lefties to
>set ourselves opposite and apart - rendering ourselves smugly impotent in
>the process.
Hear! Hear!
>We shouls also seek input into saving lives right now, in the real
>benighted world. To that end, we need a grasp of what's happening and a
>take on what's possible by next week.
Ah, but then what? Who here has the ear of anyone in power?
> No, the soldiers would
>primarily have to come from the European NATO countries, especially the new
>member states. Now there's a gamble.
A gamble on more levels than one: remember the disgraceful Euro record in Bosnia. Even the *Dutch* stood by while the Serbs committed atrocities against the 'Turks', ferchrisake!
>The partition would be policed not by NATO troops (now most definitely 'the
>invader'), but Russian troops - Primakov and Yeltsin save their political
>hides, Russia its face, and Milosovic can point to some Slavic
>'brotherhood' thing to take the curse off it.
And in the name of their shared Christianity they turn a blind eye to continued 'cleansing' of Muslims? If the very UN force that was meant to protect the Bosnian Muslims could turn their backs....