It seems to me that the arguments over the crisis are about many different issues. However, in media discussions and when one is talking to our friends and families, these sisues become confused and as a result there is a lot of misunderstanding. The main issues would appear to be:-

1) Will bombing achive NATO's original war aims?

2) Will NATO's action (bombing Serbia) stop the ethnic cleansing ?

3) Is NATO's action legally justifiable?

Then of course we can start to dig a bit deeper and ask ourselves what are NATO's REAL war aims? I cannot believe that they did not satisfy the most basic principles of planning, which would have required them to think of the likely outcome of their action and to make a contingency plan to cope with it.

Therefore they must have realised that their action would result in a masisve increase in the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and bring Serbia to the point of destruction; ruining for at least another generation the hope of establishing a democratic system of gouvernment there. So in other words all of NATO's declared objectives will NOT be achieved. Blair has quite boldly been seen to try and drive a wedge between Serbia and Montenegro and the movement of refugees has put enourmouse presure on the already sensitive ethnic mix in Macedonaia.

The more I see the more convinced I become that Tony Benn is right and that western foreign policy (chiefly the USA and Germany) is to distabilise the balkans.

Well done politicians you're on target! Give peace a chance.

Fransis Francis