True but this is a hard thing to provide evidence for. Meanwhile the Serbs can run amok while we agonize in doubt.
> skeptical on th question. My friend, there is neither a moral nor a
> practical basis for a bombing that will kill thousands of people and
It's not clear the bombing will kill 'thousands of people,' except perhaps military personnel, which would not be a bad outcome if it weakened the Milosevic regime.
> is likely to accomplish nothing in saving lives, or weakenign
> dictators. (But the bombing will help M. get a stronger hold on
> Serbia. People under bombardment always rally around their leader --
> no matter how dispicable.)
This is a tactical argument.
> 2) There is also no evidence that this bombing is legal under
> international law. Opposing Hitler at Normandy and in fact the first
> time he cross out of the border of Germany would certainly have met
> the interntational law test.
I don't care. Wouldn't have cared then either.
> If you want an alternative policy (like Paul, operating on the
> counterfactual assumption that the U.S. actually has good intentions)
> -- try direct bribery of the Serbian and Albanian peoples of both
> Serbia and Kosovo to agree to a peace settlement.
Fine enough, but we don't have the luxury of that option, especially now.
> P.S. -- to Max on the Hitler test; in my old High School, I was on the
> debate team. There was a rule that as long as the issue under debate
> involved stuff that happened after WWII, and was not directly related
> to German war crimes, the first person to bring up Hitler
> automatically lost the debate.
This is well-taken up to a point. But it does deprive my side of the best case in point for supporting an imperialist intervention, so I'm reluctant to give it up.
As Nowell pointed out, in considerably more erudite fashion, as usual we have a limited set of unappealing choices. Right now diplomacy does not appear to clearly outrank the others.