Jim writes: >The issue might be restated as "why did the US wait so long to intervene in >WW2?" If memory serves, some Japanese planes had to pay a visit to one of your imperial holdings before you got really cross with them. Even then, the big R. didn't open hostilities against the the Euro-fascists until Hitler (who still fancied his chances in Russia at that stage - and who'd clearly forgotten what had happened when last the Yanks came across the water some 24 years earlier) rather daringly declared war on the US. >and why did it allow GM and other US-based corporations free play in >Nazi Germany? etc. I think you'll find that a lot of leaders of what were >to be the Allies -- especially in England -- were more or less pro-Nazi. Hell, Oz was selling Japan all the pig-iron it wanted right up to when they threw a load of it at Pearl Harbour - our pompously quasi-Pom Tory PM of the time, Bob Menzies, is still referred to as 'Pig-Iron Bob'. As has ever been the case since, we got some of it back - value-added and at some cost (they flattened Darwin with it). >But rather than go further in >speculating about motives, it's important to note that _motives help >determine the means used_. And the means used help us determine the motives, no? And NATO has a PR hole there we should be able to drive a truck through, if we keep at it. It's TV stations and office buildings now. What 'military targets' await? >The US/NATO motives pushed them in the direction of ultimatum-based >diplomacy and then diplomacy with threats of bombing, and then the actual >use of strategic bombing. The elites see the only way to fix things to >their liking is to do it _from above_. Did they encourage the democratic >and generally pacifistic ethnic Albanian movement for more rights (the >restoration of Kosovar autonomy)? No. That's too messy. It can't be >controlled, since it involves people who can't be controlled very easily. >(Look what our "friends" in Afghanistan did!) Instead, bombing was used. >The elite couldn't use troops, of course, because of the lingering Vietnam >syndrome and the greater degree of democracy in W. Europe than in the US. >So bombing -- a "solution" that never solved anything, especially when >applied alone -- was applied. Chris thinks - and I simply can not yet bring myself to agree with him - that the US are gonna fatten up the KLA, give 'em tactical weaponry, and send 'em in to do the killing and the dying for 'em - with NATO air and logistic support, no doubt. Now, I realise this has been standard US practice for many decades now, but even the Yanks must learn eventually! Or are they blithely creating another medium-long-term rod for their own backs - another erstwhile puppet-cum-demonic-enemy-of-the-people process in train? It's a way of avoiding American boys-in-bags, might leave Boris a way out now that he's declared Russia will respond to a NATO invasion, and it helps obviate the diplomatic problem of where to invade from, I s'pose ... hey, mebbe I do agree with Chris ... >Of course, now that we've demonized Milosevic and labeled the Serbs a >nation of killers, the popular support for sending in ground troops is >rising. So the elite is succeeding at achieving a goal they've cherished >for years, the purging of the Vietnam syndrome and the increase in popular >willingness to take direction. Can anybody assure me that no tactical or strategic commie-bloc nuclear weaponry persists on Yugoslav soil? If not, can anyone assure me it wouldn't be under Belgrade's control? Not a rhetorical question - I just haven't a clue. >But the problem is that the bombing has made th Serbs more resolute, united >them behind _their_ elite. So chances are that even ground troops won't >succeed in achieving US/NATO's stated goals. So we might see the Vietnam >syndrome coming back. I can't for the life of me begin to imagine a realistic ending to this nonsense. This is getting right out of control. Just look at the July papers from 1914. At first, no-one thought we'd be so mad as to go through with our posturing, then, slowly, the horrible realisation dawned that blood would be spilled. Of course, no-one had a clue how big it was all gonna get for some tragic time to come. But try, with the benefit of hindsight, to pick the moment of no-return in 1914. What would constitute the equivalent of the Kaiser's sad note to the Tsar today? A NATO ground-assault, for mine. Kaiser Bill effectively telling Tsar Boris, 'Sorry, mate - gotta do it now - nothing personal.' Sigh, Rob.
