Ghost of BiB Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 What makes you (maybe the only one on earth) think he wouldn't have been a threat to them?You just don't give up do you? You must be into all kinds of self abuse. 415879[/snapback] Romania and Bulgaria have back up. Milo knew that. Sorry, although tragic this situation doesn't compare with the one in the middle east. It's called oil - the black stuff the world's economy depends on. As you yourself mentioned, this is a regional conflict that the US basically didn't have any reason to take the lead on. This could have been prosecuted without falling under the auspices of NATO (which technically under the NATO charter wasn't exactly legal either, but we're talking an administration that had a wonderful understanding of lawyers and TV time.)
Buckey Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Romania and Bulgaria have back up. Milo knew that. Sorry, although tragic this situation doesn't compare with the one in the middle east. It's called oil - the black stuff the world's economy depends on. As you yourself mentioned, this is a regional conflict that the US basically didn't have any reason to take the lead on. This could have been prosecuted without falling under the auspices of NATO (which technically under the NATO charter wasn't exactly legal either, but we're talking an administration that had a wonderful understanding of lawyers and TV time.) 415916[/snapback] Agreed on all points, but even without those invasions (and we cannot dismiss the possibility) it could have been horribly tragic and a major decline in stability throughout Europe. Not to mention a growing concern of threat to peace there for years to come and something that may have been much more difficult to deal with down the road... Hitler, Kim Jong, Saddam, etc.
Ghost of BiB Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Agreed on all points, but even without those invasions (and we cannot dismiss the possibility) it could have been horribly tragic and a major decline in stability throughout Europe. Not to mention a growing concern of threat to peace there for years to come and something that may have been much more difficult to deal with down the road... Hitler, Kim Jong, Saddam, etc. 415957[/snapback] Let's leave out the tragic part (just about everything everywhere is tragic). It was still a European regional issue. I don't follow where you think it would have been so destabilizing to Europe at large. Most of Europe didn't think so, or they would have acted. Our military is supposed to be used to further, support or protect our policy, security and interests. As partisan as it sounds, Clinton HAD no policy. I'm sure you can google something, but it will be hogwash when put to the test. A much stronger case can easilly be made for our position in the middle east, than can be said for the Balkans.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Let's leave out the tragic part (just about everything everywhere is tragic). It was still a European regional issue. I don't follow where you think it would have been so destabilizing to Europe at large. Most of Europe didn't think so, or they would have acted. 415973[/snapback] Great. Now he's going to counter with "Well, Iraq wasn't destabilizing to the Middle East, so why'd we invade them?", demonstrating once again that he's almost totally clueless...
Buckey Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Let's leave out the tragic part (just about everything everywhere is tragic). It was still a European regional issue. I don't follow where you think it would have been so destabilizing to Europe at large. Most of Europe didn't think so, or they would have acted. Our military is supposed to be used to further, support or protect our policy, security and interests. As partisan as it sounds, Clinton HAD no policy. I'm sure you can google something, but it will be hogwash when put to the test. A much stronger case can easilly be made for our position in the middle east, than can be said for the Balkans. 415973[/snapback] Everything everywhere is tragic? I don't think you can compare pure genocide, especially in the heart of the European Union to anything else that affects us directly... of course there is the Sudan and N. Korea. I disagree with that vs. Iraq. Iraq was ZERO threat to us, but to have a communist dictator hell bent on ethnic cleansing and domination in Europe was unacceptable. We disagree, fine, I can see your point of view, but given the same reasoning, Iraq is a joke. Let's put away the national threat and just look at the genocide... it was admirable for us to stop it. I agree with you that the EU, notthe US or NATO, should have taken the lead... but it seems we are always the ones to save the world... *sigh*
Buckey Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Great. Now he's going to counter with "Well, Iraq wasn't destabilizing to the Middle East, so why'd we invade them?", demonstrating once again that he's almost totally clueless... 415983[/snapback] You are a moron... go away. Ya Iraq was a HUGE threat... ooooo all those nut jobs in pick up trucks and shot guns... Please, Israel would have pounded them better than we tried if it was necessary. Buy a clue. PLEASE just stop your GOP talking points... you are a lemming, fine, but keep your mantra to yourself.
Ghost of BiB Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 You are a moron... go away. Ya Iraq was a HUGE threat... ooooo all those nut jobs in pick up trucks and shot guns... Please, Israel would have pounded them better than we tried if it was necessary. Buy a clue. PLEASE just stop your GOP talking points... you are a lemming, fine, but keep your mantra to yourself. 416003[/snapback] Buckey...sorry, but you have either no ability or desire (both likely) to engage your brain in "strategic" thought. CTM is not nor ever will be a member of the GOP. what he does have is an ability to see things PAST the news clips. I understand the Balkans are a personal issue to you, but when you have to make global implicating decisions, or at the least, think about what courses of action are in the best national interest, "genocide" of someone who is not providing you with something vital to your national interest is rarely a factor. The people who do this work for real, and either recommend or make these decisions understand and accept that. The only reason that dog had a chance to hunt is that there was a mass migration of older senior leadership combined with politically supportive appointments to replace them within the Pentagon. We are still feeling the pain of that, though after 5 years some folks who can at least play well together are getting into the decision process.
Buckey Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 Buckey...sorry, but you have either no ability or desire (both likely) to engage your brain in "strategic" thought. CTM is not nor ever will be a member of the GOP. what he does have is an ability to see things PAST the news clips. I understand the Balkans are a personal issue to you, but when you have to make global implicating decisions, or at the least, think about what courses of action are in the best national interest, "genocide" of someone who is not providing you with something vital to your national interest is rarely a factor. The people who do this work for real, and either recommend or make these decisions understand and accept that. The only reason that dog had a chance to hunt is that there was a mass migration of older senior leadership combined with politically supportive appointments to replace them within the Pentagon. We are still feeling the pain of that, though after 5 years some folks who can at least play well together are getting into the decision process. 416025[/snapback] Thanks for your understanding. Yes, selfish reasons often are the catalist to our aggression. But I really believe that Milosevic was much more than a mass murderer. I belive he had grand intensions and large scale ambitions for many reasons. I think it was just and we did the right thing. I agree with your reasoning of why that "dog got to hunt", and I was appalled at his appointments to Thee military command posts, ie; fromer Carter men.... But really no one knows what monster would have been created and I believe we stopped a big one. As far as Saddam goes, we'll never know. He could have been a future WW3 instigator, or he could have been the beaten down tyrant that we new... But the manipulation of the American people to serve the special interests of "this dog" doesn't sit well with me at all. 200 billion, no guarantees we will have an ally, no end in sight, poor planning, and this is a MAJOR undertaking. If we fail, we will have created the biggest terrorist platform in the world. SO, what ya got on the grill? I'm doing a Ribeye, with oak and pecan. I wish I could get my hands on Lean Perrin's "Pure Blend" steak sauce, that was the best and I can't get it anymore. I know I know!! You make your own.... no store bought stuff! ha. Peace brother.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 23, 2005 Posted August 23, 2005 You are a moron... go away. Ya Iraq was a HUGE threat... ooooo all those nut jobs in pick up trucks and shot guns... Please, Israel would have pounded them better than we tried if it was necessary. Buy a clue. PLEASE just stop your GOP talking points... you are a lemming, fine, but keep your mantra to yourself. 416003[/snapback] And Milosevic was a superpower. Christ, you're stupid.
Buckey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 And Milosevic was a superpower. Christ, you're stupid. 416062[/snapback] and so was saddam... You stupid F. Please stop taking up our time and just go away... God you are such an idiot... or a moron, not sure yet.
Recommended Posts