Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Its your reasoning that is unacceptable and quite childish....
Like saying if I find if reasonable to catch robbers and murderers, it is only reasonable that I personally be expected to join the police force....
Or if I find it reasonable to support the fireman that put out my neighbors burning house, I need to become a fireman....
Their was absolutely no threat to Americans anywhere in the world from the Yugoslavians, when
we found it reasonable to put a stop to perceived genocide in Bosina, by bombing the infrastructure and killing the citizens of Yugoslavia....
These people weren't a threat to their neighboring countries let alone the US....
Its plain that Clinton was after the genocidal maniacs....
And you may ignore the facts of history, in that; the entire UN believed, just about the entire civilized world believed that Saddam had WMD and was a danger to almost everyone....Those are the beliefs that led to the events that followed....
So don't give us crap about 'immediate threat'.....
There was no threat to us in Yugoslavia and only an erroneous belief in a threat from Iraq... mistake....
I don't think he was .....I think he expressed his belief at the time...but I don't remember exactly what your refering toIt is plain that NATO saw a threat to the stability of the entire European continent in the unraveling in the former Yugoslavia.
----------------------------------------------------------
Their was absolutely no threat to Americans anywhere in the world from the Yugoslavians, when
we found it reasonable to put a stop to perceived genocide in Bosina, by bombing the infrastructure and killing the citizens of Yugoslavia....
These people weren't a threat to their neighboring countries let alone the US....
Its plain that Clinton was after the genocidal maniacs....
By neighboring countries I mean those outside the original borders of Yugoslavia... but my point was that these people were not a threat, immediate or otherwise to the US....genocide was the main reason we claimed for being there....and that is a good and legitimate reason.....
It was pretty plain to Bush's secretary of state months BEFORE 9/11 that Iraq was not a threat to us or even to its neighbors. Was Colin Powell LYING?
And how many of your friends and family have died in Iraq? Your reasoning is not sound, nor is it acceptable. Go to war over an immediate threat by all means. If you're after genocidal maniacs keep on going - Start with N Korea, then head to Burma, Chad, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Libya (kinda), Gabon, Equitorial Guinea, Iran (again, kinda) yadda, yadda, yadda...Oh, and make sure YOUR son or YOUR daughter or even yourself have signed up....if you truly believe of course..
I don't think he was .....I think he expressed his belief at the time...but I don't remember exactly what your refering to
But all this is far off the point I was attempting to make to Mr. Grump...
I don't think he was .....I think he expressed his belief at the time...but I don't remember exactly what your refering to
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm
NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent. To attempt to suggest there is any moral equivalence between the actions of NATO in Bosnia and Bush's actions in Iraq is inaccurate.
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm
NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent. To attempt to suggest there is any moral equivalence between the actions of NATO in Bosnia and Bush's actions in Iraq is inaccurate.
That wasn't the point being made to Grump, but I can address the topic change....
The Bosnians, with help from the Iran Revolutionary Guard and the Mujahideen,....the Serbians....the Croations....were fighting each other ....
all claiming independant states within the original borders of Yugoslavia....
An ethnic war.....essentially a civil war within Yugoslavia....
None of them threatening others outside the original borders that I can remember.....
A hypothetical...
Assume the US leaves Iraq....will the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds just hold hands and sing campfire songs together...
They will without question kill each other as they are doing now....only without any outside troops restraining them.....Is there a threat to the entire Middle East?
Would it be ok for NATO or the UN to step in to then stop the ethnic killing....
Is this not essentially moral equivalence ....
(try leaving Bush out of this Hypothetical for the moment)
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm
NATO went into the former Yugoslavia because there WAS a threat to the European continent. To attempt to suggest there is any moral equivalence between the actions of NATO in Bosnia and Bush's actions in Iraq is inaccurate.
Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that would complicate any military actions, but it is not clear that these capabilities are rapidly increasing in the absence of UN inspections. The administration-and other nations-should disclose their detailed threat assessments as soon as possible to permit an informed public debate on the threats from Iraq and their urgency.
If Bosnia/Kosovo had ended up costing us one trillion dollars, 35,000 dead and wounded american soldiers, and trapped us in the midst of an ongoing and bloody civil war after 5 years, I'd say fuck 'em and bring the troops home. It ain't worth it.
Fortunately, Clinton handled it competently, with skillful diplomacy, minimal cost to the american taxpayer, and no loss of american troops. So history will judge him kindly on it.
If Bush had handled Iraq and Afghanistan as competently as Bosnia and Kosovo were handled, Bush would be a hero today with a 70% approval rating.
If Bosnia/Kosovo had ended up costing us one trillion dollars, 35,000 dead and wounded american soldiers, and trapped us in the midst of an ongoing and bloody civil war after 5 years, I'd say fuck 'em and bring the troops home. It ain't worth it.
Fortunately, Clinton handled it competently, with skillful diplomacy, minimal cost to the american taxpayer, and no loss of american troops. So history will judge him kindly on it.
If Bush had handled Iraq and Afghanistan as competently as Bosnia and Kosovo were handled, Bush would be a hero today with a 70% approval rating.
You are aware 20k troops are STILL there, with aircraft ships and all the support that goes with those missions? Still deployed in a place we were told would be a short mission that NATO would take over.
What exactly was the dire threat to the European continent that made it reasonable for the United States to bomb them.....
If Bosnia/Kosovo had ended up costing us one trillion dollars, 35,000 dead and wounded american soldiers, and trapped us in the midst of an ongoing and bloody civil war after 5 years, I'd say fuck 'em and bring the troops home. It ain't worth it.
Fortunately, Clinton handled it competently, with skillful diplomacy, minimal cost to the american taxpayer, and no loss of american troops. So history will judge him kindly on it.
If Bush had handled Iraq and Afghanistan as competently as Bosnia and Kosovo were handled, Bush would be a hero today with a 70% approval rating.
Why doesn't it surprise me a Bush lover would lie?
First, there were 20,000 american troops in the initial IFOR stabilization force. There's only several thousand there NOW. European troops are the majority of the SFOR force. You sure you were in the military? I'm surprised how uninformed you are on military matters.
Second, there is no civil war in Bosnia, is there? Nobody is shooting at our troops, and bosnians for the most part love us. They name streets after Wes Clark and Bill Clinton.
Compared to the incompetent, and frankly criminal way your president has bungled Afghanistan and Iraq, Bill Clinton's handling of bosnia and kosovo, in comparison, looks like a text book example of skillful diplomacy, international cooperation, and a non-violent wind down of a long running conflict.
ask NATO...it was a NATO action and not solely American.
So its the cost you really object to...is that correct? Thats your opinion?
To much money....the staggering death toll.....the cost....?????
I guess there are some that would even say that about WWII.....it cost too much.....that would be their opinion....
The costs were no doubt extremely high.....
The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II was roughly 72 million people. The civilian toll was around 47 million, including 20 million deaths due to war related famine and disease. The military toll was about 25 million, including the deaths of about 4 million prisoners of war in captivity. The Allies lost about 61 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million.
The cost in actual money ... I couldn't even begin to calculate.....
Think that was to costly to fight that war....after all, WE got into that war pretty much voluntarily at first......
DCD...you're so brain dead with Bush hate, it stunning....
ask NATO...it was a NATO action and not solely American.
Why doesn't it surprise me a Bush lover would lie?
First, there were 20,000 american troops in the initial IFOR stabilization force. There's only several thousand there NOW. European troops are the majority of the SFOR force. You sure you were in the military? I'm surprised how uninformed you are on military matters.
Second, there is no civil war in Bosnia, is there? Nobody is shooting at our troops, and bosnians for the most part love us. They name streets after Wes Clark and Bill Clinton.
Compared to the incompetent, and frankly criminal way your president has bungled Afghanistan and Iraq, Bill Clinton's handling of bosnia and kosovo, in comparison, looks like a text book example of skillful diplomacy, international cooperation, and a non-violent wind down of a long running conflict.
Oh, and I detest George Bush....never have liked him. Didn't like Clinton, either. The last president that was even remotely worth a damn was Ronald Reagen...
