Clinton has sworn that we would not send in ground troops... Yet, the burning question remains: "If there is genocide taking place on a scale that justifies our bombing that country, why then does it not justify sending in ground troops?" When the policy of lobbing missiles and bombs in Serbia proves to be a failure, the U.S. will have two choices: declare victory and stop the attacks (in spite of failure, as with Iraq), or send in ground troops and escalate this ill advised strategy into a full scale war.
Not one in fifty Americans on the street could begin to explain why we are doing this. As with other military actions recently, there is no clear strategy involved. Politics appears to be the prime motivation, and it just represents a sad chapter in our history. This is just another "Wag the Dog" action taken by Clinton to divert attention from the China nuclear espionage/campaign contributions scandal. Even the vastly pro-Clinton media seems to be at a loss for words to describe what end might reasonably be expected that is in American interests. Russia is beginning to send military ships into the Mediterranean to "monitor" our attacks. Clearly, this may be the biggest foreign policy blunder this century and could easily plunge the world into WW3.
If you had a son or daughter in the military, would you consider this thing a cause that justifies sending him/her to risk his life for? I wouldn't. Isn't is ironic that Bill Clinton, the "draft dodger" president is so "trigger happy", or that his liberal supporters so eager to risk global war?