Leo,
>It also seems that you do a little of what you are blaming Michael for.
For
>example, the most serious of those who supported NATO intervention on the
>left took a position in favor of a military invasion, and are hardly
>uncritical of the use of the air war option, much less of the use of bombs
>with depleted uranium. If you don't want to argue against a straw man, you
>need to address that position.
Why would a person who believed an invasion of Kosovo was the right approach, yet was critical of the air war, have supported NATO? There was never any indication that an invasion would be undertaken. If you supported NATO, then you supported an air war. Saying that you would have supported a ground war is a red herring, since a ground war was never seriously considered by NATO. People who were not in a leadership role within NATO had no opportunity to support an invasion, only to support or oppose the bombing campaign.
>Finally, certainly one of the most articulate proponents of intervention
in
>Kosova was Ian Williams, and Michael posted her what I found a pretty
>definitive refutation of the argument with regard to Racak. But nowhere
did I
>see his points addressed.
I don't recall seeing this, but I'd be interested in looking at what he had to say. Can you re-post the link?
Brett