Phyllis Benis asked an interesting question. What if the United States had paid its dues to the United Nations? Wouldn't that have been quite a bit cheaper than war? Of course, we could blame all that on the Repugs and Jesse Helms, but Clinton never fought for that the way he he fought for the rights of bananas. Wasn't S.M in a corner from the beginning? With NATO troops stationed in his country, it was a matter of time before he would have faced charges as a war criminal. While his people may suffer the bombing for while, he faces no more severe consequences then he would have anyway. The real losers in this, besides the refugees and people suffering the bombing, will be the poor in the U.S. and the other allied countries, as social spending falls to pay for the war. Could all this be an exercise in military Keynesianism to forestall the Asian crisis spreading further? I am very appreciative of all the intelligent analysis I am reading on this list, although I am a loss to see how anyone in their right mind could credit Clinton and company with some humanitarian concerns. Remember Ricky Rector and Welfare "Reform"? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
