Jay Schneider wrote:

> 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.

No, it is no ones back yard. You are taking dagnerous liberty of poking
inside other country sovereign territory (not even you Americans are
disputing that). It might backfire badly, sooner or later...

> 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.

Oh...! Invisible sanctions? I bet Turks are really shaken... and that
they will change their policies against Kurs.

> 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.

I can tell you that. Because you are racists. You do not give a damn
about million of blacks slaughtered by another blacks. And because
Rwanda is no strategic point in this world - whether 'niggers' are
killing themselves there or not is none of your concern. Nor the rest of
the world, for that matter. That is why no one intervened.

I did not ask the question because I knew the answer.

> NATO via air power destroys anything that moves in a strip between
> Serbia
> and Kosovo, then sends in ground forces into Kosovo.

I think you would find yourself stuck in endless war, and that ten or
twenty years from now Hollywood would have a lot to film on. Serbia has
a long history of fighting against superior enemy, and in last two
centuries we did not lose a war (and we fought plenty of them). And I
think that is what you constantly underestimate - you Americans are so
fascinated and blinded by technology that you see no further.

As I said, Serbia has a history of winning wars and killing giants, but
at a horrible price. In World War I, more than 50% of military capable
male population died (did you know that?), but the war was won and our
immediate enemy, Austrian Empire, literally dissolved after defeat
(Serbian kingdom taking good portions of their land). In World War II,
about 25% of military capable population died, but once again we
defended ourselves from Germans. In 1948. we said 'fuck off' to USSR and
Stalin, and luckily got out of it without a war... and so on - yes, we
have a history of defiance. And, sadly enough, in all wars up to
nineties, we have been allies with USA and UK (and especially France).

Let me illustrate what I am saying by article fragment from BBC (i.e.
NATO country source of information):

Assumptions proved wrong

 It is now clear that Nato went into the war hobbled by
 three major assumptions, all of which have been proven
 wrong:

 The Alliance believed that the Yugoslav military
 will never risk a confrontation with the West and
 that Milosevic will back down at the very last
 moment. The result of this assumption was that
 Nato hyped-up its threats but curiously did not
 undertake the necessary preparations for carrying
 them through.

 Secondly, there was the vaguely racist belief that
 the "little people" in the Balkans are no match for
 Nato air power: drop a few bombs on these
 "natives" in Yugoslavia and they will sue for
 peace. The idea that Milosevic would simply
 refuse to compromise and absorb the air strikes
 was not seriously considered.

 Finally, Nato was addressing two audiences at
 the same time. While threatening Milosevic with a
 military Armageddon, the same Alliance
 commanders were reassuring public opinion in
 the West that their operation would be "surgical"
 and limited in scope.

 The outcome was that the Yugoslav dictator knew
 from the start the risks he was undertaking and
 concluded that they were worth taking.

 The story of the last two weeks is, essentially, one of
 Nato trying to disentangle the knots which were of its
 own making.

Right to the point... and coming from your partner in crime (or ally),
it should sound serious.

Regards,
Vladimir