In fact 100% of the evidence so far is that bombing has made things worse for the people it was supposedly trying to help, weakened the democratic opposition to Milo in Yugoslavia,
gn: Not so sure the dems in Yugoslavia have a track record worth worrying about at this point. As to making matters worse, it's a good point. There are two issues. People who retrospectively advocate bombing of concenctration camps in WWII are faced with the fact that the bombs would have killed the camp interns as well as the camp s tructure and garrison. But I suppose the point is that it would have been better to stop the camp qua killing machine. But this identifies my principal worry (the second issue). They're trying to run a clean war (i.e. minimal NATO casualties). If they want to build their bourgeois Europe they should go in and take the guy out. It may just be that NATO isn't imperialist enough.
Gar Lipow <lipowg at sprintmail.com>:
(And to those who call that appeasement -- all U.S. presidents prior to Clinton had the very sensible policy that you damn well do put some effort into not provoking a war with people with large number of nuclear warheads pointed at your cities.)
GN: The mighty Russian Empire was incapable of invading Chechnya or Afghanistan. It is rather doubtful they would Nuke the U.S. over Serbia. There's the question, "what's in it for them?" In WWI, Russia wanted to expand at the expense of Germany, Poland, etc. There was "something in it for them." There's nothing here for them. Sound and fury.
-- Gregory P. Nowell Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Milne 100 State University of New York 135 Western Ave. Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298