Re: RAT ANTI-NATO-ART

[Ezra Buzzington <jonoh1@juno.com>]

On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:21:47 -0700 "Sylvain, John"
<jsylvain@station.sony.com> writes:
 It 
>reminds me
>of the wierd diplomatic speak where there is a difference between 
>being
>"very concerned" "outraged" and "condemning" something. The difference 
>is
>apparently apparent to the diplomats but doesn't make a difference to 
>me.
>When you're going to war however the whole thing changes but it seems 
>like
>the US government sees airstrikes as being similar to being "very
>concerned", while ground troops would equal "outrage". A limited "no 
>way we
>can achieve our objectives but at least it looks like we're trying" 
>approach
>seems to make sense to the people in power. They don't seem to realize 
>that
>they are doing more harm than good now.

John,
I tend to agree. However there's one consideration not mentioned in the
post. The loss of our soldier's lives. Like it or not there is more of a
premium on them. Air attacks are far less dangerous for our servicemen.
So I think there's more to consider here than merely a some degree of
emotional involvement.
Best,
Jonathan


http://nationalfringe.webjump.com

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]