: : NATO, which is supposed to be a purely defensive consortium, without so much as a "By your leave" from the UN Security Council, commences a bombing campaign against a sovereign nation: As such they have the 'right' to what the hell thye like to people living within the borders. If your decrying US aggression, why not Serb aggression - be consistent, or is the safety of people not your issue here?
-----------------------
Since when is it inconsistent to see the Milosevic government *and* NATO as two incredibly powerful, undemocratic institutions pursuing their own agendas which have nothing to do with 'humanitarianism?' If you want to use intellectual crayons to color NATO white and Serbs black, be my guest. Forgive the rest of us who desire to expend a little effort to figure out what is actually going on here.
If NATO's reasons for the air strikes were so compelling, if the humanitarian aspects of what they planned were so righteous, why not take it up with the UN Security Council instead of acting unilaterally, as a 'defensive' consortium?
I'll tell you why... because the ambassadors from the world's governments would go ballistic... just as I'm sure you would should the CIS declare a bombing campaign against Turkey until such time as it agrees to stop its aggression against the Kurds.
Do 'let's be consistent' now.
Krasnaya's Critical Mass
