[Bush2000]

Demidog is suggesting (and I agree) that the actions are morally equivalent.

Bullshit. There's a huge difference between the terrorist hijacking and the bombing of Serbia.

1. Terrorists gave no warning. NATO warned Milosevic explicitly that reprisals against Albanians would meet swift justice.

2. Terrorists hit civilian targets. NATO went after militarily significant targets.

3. Terrorists specific goal was to kill civilians. NATO's specific goal was to hurt Milosevic's military command-and-control systems.

If you can't see the difference between these things, you truly have no moral standard. Everything's a wash.

[bunkerhill2]

Electrical grids and civilian water supplies, military targets. I agree we probably babbled enough warnings, but spent unnecessarily billions for a fabricated case of ethnic cleansing/genocide which you will find did not happen. Am I justifying Milosevic? No, as I do not justify the ICC. Serbia was attempted to restore order to a province that had huge illegal immigration problems and the largest heroin pipeline to Western Europe (all well documented in European as well as our own governmental documents). NATO, another organization I feel has outlived its purpose, broke its own Charter. Serbia never attacked nor invaded any of the NATO counries. NATO used the same justifications that Hitler used to invade Poland and Czekslovakia. As far as diplomacy goes, I would hardly call the ultimatum of surrendered sovereignty a call for peace. No, this Kosovo campaign was fabricated and many innocent were killed, collateral damage or not. And to think we even got to deplete national security assets for this waste of an adventure at the expense of our true national security.