your tax dollars at work in Belgrade, Yugoslavia
VOICES FOR PEACE
'We Call for an End to the Bombing of Iraq and Yugoslavia!
Lift the sanctions against Iraq!
Let them LIVE!'
-La Crosse post office, Apr 19 99

Apr 19 99 AP wire - Yesterday NATO launched its most active day of airstrikes in its assault on Yugoslavia, pummeling refineries, bridges, and dozens of other targets.  NATO jets flew more than 500 missions in the 24-hour period ending Sunday afternoon – its highest total yet.  Today was the 26th day of airstrikes.

President Clinton is seeking $5.9 BILLION DOLLARS more military money to keep this operation going.

U.S. fighter planes also attacked Iraqi defense sites in northern Iraq today.

In addition, since our last Monday's vigil, probably another 1,500 Iraqi children have died as a result of our economic 'sanctions.'



VOICES FOR PEACE asks:
WHY are we bombing refineries and bridges?
WHY is it more important to feed bombers than to feed babies?
WHY are we hearing that even the Armed Services Committee members are against this war?
Can YOU think of more peaceful ways to spend another $6,000,000,000?

Apr 16 99:
McKinney To NATO: Stop The Bombing!
“Now Is The Time To Exchange Smart Bombs
For Smart Peace Negotiators.”

“This is not a shining moment for NATO,” says Congresswoman McKinney. “This was a deadly mistake. The U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign has moving targets from Kosovo down to Belgrade, in an ill-defined war with roving missions and policy outcomes. How can I vote to send my constituents to fight in such an ill-conceived war?”  -Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D – Ga. – 4th), Member of the International Relations and Armed Services Committees.



April 16, 1999 NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED:

Give Mediation Another Try
By JOHN R. KASICH
John R. Kasich is chairman of the House Budget Committee and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Those who have called for ground troops have not specified the goal. Is it to take Kosovo, fortify it and occupy it for years, perhaps decades, against the Serbian threat? Or should the goal be to conquer all of Serbia, with incalculable consequences for wider Balkan stability? Is "victory" at all costs worth a bitterly hostile Russia?

World War I began in the Balkans because a great power, Austria-Hungary, scoffed at the idea that Russia would intervene on behalf of its Serbian ally. The world has turned over many times since 1914, but it could be an equally grave mistake to assume that the Russians will remain passive indefinitely. They have already sent truck convoys carrying relief supplies to Yugoslavia, and there is public agitation in Russia to send military equipment.

The question we must answer is whether military intervention in a centuries-old civil war in the Balkans is likely to be resolved on our terms, or resolved over the long term.  I have reluctantly concluded that military intervention --through air power or ground troops -- is not in the national interest.  Nor will either achieve our goals.