I reckon you might be wrong here:
>An army of 160,000 would not be adequate to defeat
>Yugoslavia, based on the Wehrmacht experience, so I believe
>the mention of it is a sort of balloon. (The talk about
>the air war destroying the Yugoslav army appears to be
>entirely fanciful.)
Strategic bombing is, like manipulating interest rates, a blunt instrument that does more harm than good. Tactical support bombing is a different dose of death altogether. If NATO lopes in mob-handed, it'd be necessary to concentrate the defensive forces if, say, protecting Kosovo-Polje is the defensive goal (which it might well be). If the Yugoslavs do that, they'll be there for the frying, just like the Iraqi's retreating down the Basra Road. Apaches and their whooping crews are murderously good at that stuff.
>I believe it is further evidence of a
>hysteria, that is, Clinton & Co. have lost control of the
>themselves and don't know how to get out of the situation,
>so they're going to go in deeper.
Seems they committed to escalation with that indictment stunt ...
>If my guess is right,
>and if the current numbers go over with the public, then
>the figures will soon be doubled or tripled. The
>Republicans ought to be smart enough to have this figured
>out, and to be waiting for the right moment to maximize
>their benefit from the situation.
If the Democrats force an all-out wat before the end of the year, it'd be a brave, and atypical, Republican who opposes it. Unpatriotic and all that.
Perhaps that's what's behind the indictment - pulling the Republicans into the complicity net before the elections ...
Cheers, Rob.