Hi Vladimir,

>
>Pardon my language, but this is my honest opinion on what you should do.
>Why should USA do anything? It is *NOT* your back yard, and it is *NOT*
>your planet, for you to do whatever you please.
>

No arguments that it's not our backyard, I've always been surprised that the
European NATO countries haven't taken leadership as it is their back yard.
>
>Speaking of selective justice, tell me your opinion on Kurds - 25
>million living in Turkey with _no_ rights, and another x million living
>in Iraq, with Turkey doing obvious repression over their human rights,
>and going as far as military raids into neighbouring country (Iraq) to
>fight Kurdish rebels. Mind you that Yugoslavia never did such a thing -
>attack anyone - and that resemblance between 'ethnic' Albanians and
>Kurds is nothing less than striking... they are both on territory of
>sovereign countries, most of them illegally, defying country's laws,
>wanting to take the piece of land and 'go away' with it because they
>calculated they pose majority in that particular area... Why did USA not
>bomb Turkey? (this sounds almost funny) Why did they not intervene 'in
>the region'? Why did they not protect Kurdish refugees and prevent
>humanitarian catastrophy?
>

The answer to the Kurdish question is similar to the earlier Serbian issue
initially. Confusion of the masses. I would suspect until the Iraq
conflict less than 10% of the US population knew the Kurds exist. Now there
is pressure to help them hence the "northern fly zone" in Iraq, many of the
sanctions against Iran and oddly enough invisible sanctions against Turkey.
No, we're not bombing them but the amount of finacial aid we're sending is
not nearly what it would be if they didn't have the human rights issues with
the Kurds.

The U.S./NATO can't solve/intervene in all the worlds problems (I'm sure you
might argue can't solve any of) but that also doesn't mean they should try
and solve some of them. A better question as opposed to the Kurds is why we
didn't intervene in Rwanda. Honestly I'd be at a loss to answer that one.


>You can take a look at BBC, for example, for a clear demonstration that
>things do not have to be done that ugly way.
>

A good thought I should bookmark their news service...

>As I said, we Serbs will not be submissed. So, I'm afraid you Americans
>will go for that other option. Very sad.
>


What do you think about this as a third option (that I think is likely):

NATO via air power destroys anything that moves in a strip between Serbia
and Kosovo, then sends in ground forces into Kosovo. They are then left
there (long-term) as a peacekeeping force. The downside (politically) is the
higher loss of American life (you can take all sorts of pot-shots at the
overly heavy concern over American lives) but it does have the advantage of
allowing NATO to achieve it's goals without totally destroying Serbia.

Given my preference it would be Russian and NATO forces "enforcing" this
buffer zone. Although since this is a hypothetical scenario, it's even more
unlikely for a Russian NATO "peace keeping" force


>
>Well, I don't know if you will appreciate this letter :-) But it's how
>it is - we are at two different sides of an on-going war. It is
>certainly good to speak to someone from 'the other side' - it reminds us
>all that those on the other side are, ultimately, people not so
>different from ourselves.
>
I do appreciate it both the harsh words and the kind ones. They're honest
words and that's what I'm looking for. Thanks again,

Jay Schneider
jay@cs.uoregon.edu