In my experience, in bringing coercive diplomacy to bear against Slobodan Milosevic, no bomb strike was more important than maintaining NATO's cohesion.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Thus, if armaments were curtailed without a secure peace and all countries disarmed proportionately, military security would have been in no way affected.
Serbia did not want to recognize our country in a peaceful way, so that is why they wanted to destroy us. All our efforts to find a peaceful solution were impossible. In order to save the people, NATO had to intervene.
Some think the worst horrors of war might be avoided by an international agreement not to use atomic bombs. This is a vain hope.
I think no one could have made peace in Bosnia besides Holbrooke.
I know of no more important subject to the peace of Europe and the world than the reasonable reduction of armaments, especially in Europe, and of naval armaments throughout the world.
Number one, that it is smart to communicate and negotiate with your enemy instead of just waging war with bombs and weapons of mass destruction.
The atom bomb was no 'great decision.' It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.
My experience is that if the military didn't want to use force and was confronted with a president that did, the military would come back with what I would call the 'bomb Moscow' scenario. They would say it had to be done with conditions that were so extreme, you obviously wouldn't do it.
All sorts of artillery installations, rockets and tank units that are firing on civilians in Kosovo should be neutralized. If that means air strikes, then NATO should carry out air strikes.
Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.
No opposing quotes found.