Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (1178)	4/2/1999 9:15:00 PM
From: jbn3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

George, My first post on this thread presented some arguments why NATO should intervene in Kosovo. I still believe that it needed to be done, but I fear the psychological planning of the intervention was grossly blundered. IMO, NATO should have begun a campaign restricted to Serbian targets in Kosovo, the forces actually committing the atrocities. It should have been as heavy a campaign as possible within those limits. This type of activity would have * punished those actually committing the crimes; * allowed NATO to retain the negotiating threat of a similar, larger, expanded campaign against, and in, Serbia itself; * represented a psychological hurdle for Serbian troops assigned to Kosovo; * lessened the number of civilian casualties; * not been so certain to needlessly alienate large portions of the Serbian citizenry; * made it more difficult for Milosevic to play the patriotism card; * not made NATO guilty of strikes against civilian and non-partisan populations; * thus, been morally more defensible. (If there's any moral grounds for a war) Kinda late for that now.... ;^{ jbn3