Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Where Were Protests During Serbian War ?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

George of the Jungle

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 11:33:46 AM2/17/03
to

"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:ld225vk7q7hdqapj0...@4ax.com...
> I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
>
> About how president Clinton rained death down
> upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
> transportation routes and social services.
> About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
> USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
> international approval or cooperation in the
> excercise.
>
> Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
> the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
> The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
> breasts "for peace" ???
>
> Nowhere.
>
> I guess that war was *different* ... right ???
>
> What fucking hypocrites ...
>
> It's all just politics as usual. Find a way to
> attack the GOP and the president. All the high-
> toned rhetoric and bleeding heart bullshit -
> just some whitewash over the usual 'left -vs-
> right' crap. Cynical. Calculating. Seems the
> 'left' is certainly no 'better' than those
> they oppose ... their only 'moral highground'
> being a mound of their own feces.
>

And what is worse, doing it all for political reasons (as well as the
personal animus aganst Bush) is the worse kind of treason there is.

--
Ann Coulter writes that liberals are "savagely cruel bigots who hate
ordinary Americans and lie for sport." So true. Just read the hate speech
spewing from this "liberal", Mark Cresky:

"You piece of traitorous shit. My mother is dead and she was a proud Liberal
Democrat, you fucking immigrant Cossack bastard.

My family has been here for 10 generations and built this country and you
come here and shit all over it with your Nazi treason.


Steven Litvintchouk

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 11:52:54 AM2/17/03
to

BlackWater wrote:
>
> I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
>
> About how president Clinton rained death down
> upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
> transportation routes and social services.
> About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
> USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
> international approval or cooperation in the
> excercise.
>
> Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
> the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
> The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
> breasts "for peace" ???
>
> Nowhere.
>
> I guess that war was *different* ... right ???

To many in the left-wing, it *was* different, in a very important
respect.

Several left-wing columnists stated that Clinton's bombing of Serbia was
good because it was SELFLESS. That is, the U.S. was using its military
power for a "humanitarian" purpose that was NOT in the U.S. national
interest. They said that what they hate is when the U.S. uses its
military power to serve its OWN "selfish" interests.

If you don't believe that, go to
www.commmondreams.org
and search their archives for columns written around that time.

Now having said that, the real hard-core left-wing opposed the NATO
bombing of Serbia as well.
Harold Pinter and Ramsey Clark were both staunchly opposed.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net

Blazing Laser

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 2:24:12 PM2/17/03
to
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:22:46 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:

>Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
>the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
>The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
>breasts "for peace" ???

>Nowhere.

Actually there were some protests, I remember. They were mostly
anti-Clinton protests, not anti-war. (Of course a lot of the current
protesters are more anti-Bush than anti-war).

>I guess that war was *different* ... right ???

I'm glad you asked! Yes, actually it WAS different!

1. It was truly a war of liberation, not of conquest. Our goal was
to stop aggression, not to establish our own hegemony in the region.

2. The war was already going on when we stepped in. We ended it.

3. Our action was reactive, not pro-active. GW's proposed invasion
of Iraq would be the first time in US history we've been the
aggressor.

4. We led a coalition of nations, many of them neighbors of Serbia
and Kosovo.

5. President Clinton didn't have to lie about the 'evil' caused by
Slobodan Milosevic or real purpose of the war.

6. Containment and sanctions had not been successful against
Milosevic, as they obviously have been against Saddam.

7. This might be most important. A goodly majority of Americans were
in favor of our action in Kosovo. I think a big reason for the size
of the current protests is that Bush has not been successful in
'selling' the war to the American people. Clinton had relatively
little trouble convincing Americans of the necessity of our action in
Kosovo.

Actually, I think Americans just trusted Clinton more in general,
since he seemed to know what he was doing. Despite Bush's spectacular
rise in the polls after 9/11 (political capital he has carelessly
pissed away since then), most Americans have always opposed him on
nearly every actual issue, and most think his presidency has been a
disaster so far.

8. This remains to be seen, of course, but the Kosovo war turned out
according to plan. We stopped Milosevic, we caught him and he is
being tried for war crimes, and we brought peace to the region.
Serbia and Kosovo are both better off. We didn't do this in
Afghanistan, and there's not much hope we will do it in Iraq, since
the -real- reason for the invasion is not to stop Saddam or 'liberate'
the people of Iraq but to get our hands on the oil.

>It's all just politics as usual. Find a way to
>attack the GOP and the president. All the high-
>toned rhetoric and bleeding heart bullshit -
>just some whitewash over the usual 'left -vs-
>right' crap. Cynical. Calculating. Seems the
>'left' is certainly no 'better' than those
>they oppose ... their only 'moral highground'
>being a mound of their own feces.

Now if your aim in this post was to convince people of your way of
thinking, you defeat your purpose by that kind of language. It makes
it obvious that you're not really interested in calm, rational
discussion, in fact that you aren't really confident of your
arguments, and that this is just another excuse to bash 'liberals'.

Kel

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 2:51:24 PM2/17/03
to

"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:ld225vk7q7hdqapj0...@4ax.com...
> I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
>
> About how president Clinton rained death down
> upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
> transportation routes and social services.
> About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
> USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
> international approval or cooperation in the
> excercise.

People did not protest for several reasons . One, there was already a war
taking place, rather than Bush's insane vision of pre-emptive war, which
reduces us all to anarchy. Secondly, we could see that ethnic cleansing was
taking place, so the vast majority of us supported this action.


Bush Busta

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 4:09:14 PM2/17/03
to
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:51:24 -0000, "Kel" <oste...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

And how much ethnic cleansing are the Serbs doing today, Mr. Water?

--BB


--
"When Bill Clinton was appointing judges, the senior Judiciary Committee Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch, called
for "more diligent and extensive - questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views." Now Hatch says Democrats
have no right to demand any such thing. President Bush fired the American Bar Association as official auditor
of judicial nominations because the ABA gave some Republican nominees a lousy grade. Now Hatch cites the ABA's
judgment as "the gold standard" because it unofficially gave Estrada a high grade.

The seat Republicans want to give Estrada is only open because Republicans successfully blocked a Clinton
nominee. Two Clinton nominations to the D.C. Circuit were blocked because Republicans said the circuit
had too many judges already. Now Bush has sent nominations for both those seats. Hatch and others accuse
Democrats of being anti-Hispanic for opposing Estrada. With 42 circuit court vacancies to fill, Estrada
is the only Hispanic Bush has nominated. Clinton nominated 11, three of whom the Republicans blocked."

--Michael Kinsley, http://slate.msn.com/id/2078513/

RifDif

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 5:17:32 PM2/17/03
to
BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote in
news:ld225vk7q7hdqapj0...@4ax.com:

> I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
>
> About how president Clinton rained death down
> upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
> transportation routes and social services.
> About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
> USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
> international approval or cooperation in the
> excercise.
>

> Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
> the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
> The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
> breasts "for peace" ???
>
> Nowhere.
>

> I guess that war was *different* ... right ???
>

> What fucking hypocrites ...

>
> It's all just politics as usual. Find a way to
> attack the GOP and the president. All the high-
> toned rhetoric and bleeding heart bullshit -
> just some whitewash over the usual 'left -vs-
> right' crap. Cynical. Calculating. Seems the
> 'left' is certainly no 'better' than those
> they oppose ... their only 'moral highground'
> being a mound of their own feces.
>

=============================================================
You are the one guilty of fostering a convienent memory.
Here's a hint: What Yugo leader was arrested, tried, and
convicted in the Hague, for crimes against humanity?

Remember? Good.
Now go find out why.
===============================================================

SemiScholar

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 5:56:31 PM2/17/03
to
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:24:12 -0800, Blazing Laser
<blazin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:22:46 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
>>Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
>>the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
>>The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
>>breasts "for peace" ???
>
>>Nowhere.
>
>Actually there were some protests, I remember. They were mostly
>anti-Clinton protests, not anti-war. (Of course a lot of the current
>protesters are more anti-Bush than anti-war).
>
>>I guess that war was *different* ... right ???
>
>I'm glad you asked! Yes, actually it WAS different!
>
>1. It was truly a war of liberation, not of conquest. Our goal was
>to stop aggression, not to establish our own hegemony in the region.
>
>2. The war was already going on when we stepped in. We ended it.
>
>3. Our action was reactive, not pro-active. GW's proposed invasion
>of Iraq would be the first time in US history we've been the
>aggressor.

Well, actually, the last time the US was attacked was 1941 (other than
Sept 11). We've been involved in a number of wars since then,
including Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo.
None of them involved attacks on the US.

Steven Litvintchouk

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 5:51:47 PM2/17/03
to

Don't you know that Saddam has murdered over 100,000 Iraqis? Thousands
more every year?

Saddam has killed MORE people than all the ethnic cleansing that you saw
in the Balkans.
And that "war" has been going on ever since Saddam shot his way into
office in the 1970's.

So why aren't you supporting war against Saddam?

Steven Litvintchouk

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 5:53:04 PM2/17/03
to

BlackWater wrote:


>
> Bush Busta <Bush...@America.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:51:24 -0000, "Kel" <oste...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ld225vk7q7hdqapj0...@4ax.com...
> >>> I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
> >>>
> >>> About how president Clinton rained death down
> >>> upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> >>> and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
> >>> transportation routes and social services.
> >>> About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
> >>> USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
> >>> international approval or cooperation in the
> >>> excercise.
> >>
> >>People did not protest for several reasons . One, there was already a war
> >>taking place, rather than Bush's insane vision of pre-emptive war, which
> >>reduces us all to anarchy. Secondly, we could see that ethnic cleansing was
> >>taking place, so the vast majority of us supported this action.
> >
> >And how much ethnic cleansing are the Serbs doing today, Mr. Water?
>

> Since we STILL have lots of military in there, the
> facts are hard to ascertain. The Kosovars embarked
> upon their own EC program ... but then the news
> suddenly, conveniently, lost interest.
>
> As for Iraq ... there was and is EC in both northern
> and southern Iraq. That was the original reason for
> the 'no fly' zones. Saddam hates Kurds, Saddam hates
> Shiites, Saddam conspires to kill them. He's all
> that Milosevic was and more.

Saddam has killed more people than Milosovic ever did.

The difference to left-wingers may be that Milosovic's killing was based
on ethnicity. To the primitive mentality of the left-wing, Milosovic
was comitting "hate crimes"--an atrocity!

bushhater

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 9:00:52 PM2/17/03
to
Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3E51132F...@earthlink.net>...

>
> Several left-wing columnists stated that Clinton's bombing of Serbia was
> good because it was SELFLESS. That is, the U.S. was using its military
> power for a "humanitarian" purpose that was NOT in the U.S. national
> interest. They said that what they hate is when the U.S. uses its
> military power to serve its OWN "selfish" interests.
>

How about selfish interst not of amerika but of the bushit oil companies.

Blazing Laser

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 10:26:57 PM2/17/03
to

I said:

>>3. Our action was reactive, not pro-active. GW's proposed invasion
>>of Iraq would be the first time in US history we've been the
>>aggressor.

<semis...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Well, actually, the last time the US was attacked was 1941 (other than
>Sept 11). We've been involved in a number of wars since then,
>including Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo.
>None of them involved attacks on the US.

Yes, you're right. A new attack on Iraq wouldn't be that much
different from what happened in Panama or Grenada. Panama in
particular had us attacking a non-threatening country for purposes of
'regime change'. I stand corrected.

I guess what I meant to say is that the rest of the world doesn't seem
to mind what we do in North and Central America but we wouldn't find
it as easy to get away with in the Middle East. A more likely
scenario would be for Israel to declare war on Iraq and for us to join
them.

Mark Neglay

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 10:43:41 PM2/17/03
to
Blazing Laser <blazin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rib25vsl3j9i45h2f...@4ax.com>...

> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:22:46 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> >Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
> >the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
> >The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
> >breasts "for peace" ???
>
> >Nowhere.
>
> Actually there were some protests, I remember. They were mostly
> anti-Clinton protests, not anti-war. (Of course a lot of the current
> protesters are more anti-Bush than anti-war).
>
> >I guess that war was *different* ... right ???
>
> I'm glad you asked! Yes, actually it WAS different!
>
> 1. It was truly a war of liberation, not of conquest. Our goal was
> to stop aggression, not to establish our own hegemony in the region.

The US's stated reasons for invading Iraq are to remove a dangerous
dictator and to stop the threat of forbidden proliferation of WoMD.
The US has expressed no desire to permanently occupy Iraq. The only
"hegemony" I could see the US seeking in the region is to encourage
the establishment of liberal, democratic state. The US sought to stop
Germany and Japan in WWII, and the allies occupied those nations for
quite some time, then exited when they had built an economic and
political infrastructure that would beenfit both their citizens and
the world.

> 2. The war was already going on when we stepped in. We ended it.

If not for our current involvement in Iraq, a war might still be going
on...to exterminate the Kurds.

> 3. Our action was reactive, not pro-active.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Hussein probably should have been removed
from power in 1991. The only reason he was allowed to remain in power
weas because he agreed to disarm and cooperate with the world.

He didn't.

If all of Europe and the US had invaded Germany in say, 1935, after
Germany had began to illegally rearm, it would not have been a
proactive invasion. Neither would an invasion of Iraq.

> 4. We led a coalition of nations, many of them neighbors of Serbia
> and Kosovo.

So far Nato is cooperating, Turkey, Saudi Arabi I beleive, and several
others I am not going to go look up right now. Bush is working on a
coalition right now.

> 5. President Clinton didn't have to lie about the 'evil' caused by
> Slobodan Milosevic or real purpose of the war.

Many people claimed it was to distract from his personal problems,
though they were obviously biased in their opinions. Do you believe
that anyone claiming this would only be a war for oil does not already
have a dislike for Bush?

> 6. Containment and sanctions had not been successful against
> Milosevic, as they obviously have been against Saddam.

Define "successful".

> 7. This might be most important. A goodly majority of Americans were
> in favor of our action in Kosovo. I think a big reason for the size
> of the current protests is that Bush has not been successful in
> 'selling' the war to the American people.

Not true. A majority favor the removal of Sadam, by force. The only
reason you can claim otherwise is that a majority also favor 'giving
the inspectors more time'. This can be spun either way but if and
when we invade Iraq, it will become obvious that the American public
supports our invasion.

> 8. This remains to be seen, of course, but the Kosovo war turned out
> according to plan. We stopped Milosevic, we caught him and he is
> being tried for war crimes, and we brought peace to the region.
> Serbia and Kosovo are both better off. We didn't do this in
> Afghanistan

Why, because we didn't catch two people? Was that our only reason to
go to Afganistan?

Bush Busta

unread,
Feb 17, 2003, 11:50:52 PM2/17/03
to

And like Panama the leader of Iraq owes his position and many of his
weapons to the good old USA.

Here is a great trivia question for everyone.

Q. Who was the director of the CIA when Manuel Noriaga was recruited
and placed on the CIA payroll?

A. George Herbert Walker Bush

Isn't it a small world?

Ninure Saunders

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 1:04:06 PM2/18/03
to
In article <1oo25vogk6428jof7...@4ax.com>, BlackWater
<b...@barrk.net> wrote:

-Bush Busta <Bush...@America.com> wrote:
-
->On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:51:24 -0000, "Kel" <oste...@blueyonder.co.uk>
->wrote:
->
->>
->>"BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
->>news:ld225vk7q7hdqapj0...@4ax.com...
->>> I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
->>>
->>> About how president Clinton rained death down
->>> upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
->>> and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
->>> transportation routes and social services.
->>> About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
->>> USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
->>> international approval or cooperation in the
->>> excercise.
->>
->>People did not protest for several reasons . One, there was already a war
->>taking place, rather than Bush's insane vision of pre-emptive war, which
->>reduces us all to anarchy. Secondly, we could see that ethnic cleansing was
->>taking place, so the vast majority of us supported this action.
->
->And how much ethnic cleansing are the Serbs doing today, Mr. Water?
-
- Since we STILL have lots of military in there, the
- facts are hard to ascertain. The Kosovars embarked
- upon their own EC program ... but then the news
- suddenly, conveniently, lost interest.
-
- As for Iraq ... there was and is EC in both northern
- and southern Iraq. That was the original reason for
- the 'no fly' zones. Saddam hates Kurds, Saddam hates
- Shiites, Saddam conspires to kill them. He's all
- that Milosevic was and more.

But "we're supposed to believe" that's what this "pre-emtove strike" is about?

We are supposed to believe that conservatives actually want to "save the
lives" of Arabs?

Anyone reading these newsgroups have seen enough posts calling for the
deaths of Arabs/Muslims to know better. (remember oldlibs sig: "Kill ALL
the Arabs, let God sort them out..Bill Bonde asserting there were no
innocent Palestians). Yjere is even current messages from our fellow
conservatives admitting that Bush's war has nothing to with "human
rights" under the thread: War NOT About Liberating Iraqis


Anyone hearing Rummy express his openess to use Nukes in Iraq cannot
help but wonder a nuclear strike would save the lives of Iraqi
people.....

Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://deaconninure.0catch.com

The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure

The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html

My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com

To send e-mail, remove nohate from address

Will

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 2:13:36 PM2/18/03
to

"Blazing Laser" <blazin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vo935vs3qe8r8lkio...@4ax.com...

If we do go into Iraq and hussein lobs any scuds into Israel with chem or
bio agents then they (Israel) will retalliate with nukes.At least I hope so!


Bush Busta

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 3:00:41 PM2/18/03
to
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:13:36 GMT, "Will" <drill...@nospamlycos.com>
wrote:

You are hoping for a nuclear war in Iraq?

Are you mad?

Roger Adams

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 3:01:59 PM2/18/03
to

"Will" <drill...@nospamlycos.com> wrote in message
news:ABv4a.10679$jR3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I hope to hell that you don't really mean that. Remarks like this can do
nothing but help the cause of SH.
Roger


Johnny Buffalo

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 6:46:50 PM2/18/03
to
"Kel" <oste...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<k3b4a.589$bF3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Technically we are still "At War" we are in a UN imposed cease fire,
contingent on Iraqi compliance with ceasefire agreements. Iraq is not
complying and we are simply lifting a cease fire as a resumption of
agressions.

Ashland Henderson

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 9:10:40 PM2/18/03
to
"Will" <drill...@nospamlycos.com> wrote in message news:<ABv4a.10679$jR3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...

Don't know much about nukes, do you? Hint: They are more than just big bombs.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 9:26:25 PM2/18/03
to
"Will" <drill...@nospamlycos.com> wrote in
news:ABv4a.10679$jR3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net:

Lemme guess - you are pro-life, but you want to see
millions of innocent civilians incinerated in a nuclear
holocaust.

Such is what "Compassionate Conservatism" has
come to............

Ashland Henderson

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 9:35:57 PM2/18/03
to
neg...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay) wrote in message news:<d36d7e45.03021...@posting.google.com>...

> Blazing Laser <blazin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rib25vsl3j9i45h2f...@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:22:46 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
> > >the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
> > >The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
> > >breasts "for peace" ???
>
> > >Nowhere.
> >
> > Actually there were some protests, I remember. They were mostly
> > anti-Clinton protests, not anti-war. (Of course a lot of the current
> > protesters are more anti-Bush than anti-war).
> >
> > >I guess that war was *different* ... right ???
> >
> > I'm glad you asked! Yes, actually it WAS different!
> >
> > 1. It was truly a war of liberation, not of conquest. Our goal was
> > to stop aggression, not to establish our own hegemony in the region.
>
> The US's stated reasons for invading Iraq are to remove a dangerous
> dictator and to stop the threat of forbidden proliferation of WoMD.
> The US has expressed no desire to permanently occupy Iraq. The only
> "hegemony" I could see the US seeking in the region is to encourage
> the establishment of liberal, democratic state. The US sought to stop
> Germany and Japan in WWII, and the allies occupied those nations for
> quite some time, then exited when they had built an economic and
> political infrastructure that would beenfit both their citizens and
> the world.

Stated reasons and real reasons are not the same thing. Not to mention
that both German and Japan had much greater capacity for war making than
Iraq. Of course neither of them had oil either.

> > 2. The war was already going on when we stepped in. We ended it.
>
> If not for our current involvement in Iraq, a war might still be going
> on...to exterminate the Kurds.

Not germane to the problem. Nor is it necessarily correct. In any case,
might-have-beens do not balance weres.

> > 3. Our action was reactive, not pro-active.
>
> Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Hussein probably should have been removed
> from power in 1991. The only reason he was allowed to remain in power
> weas because he agreed to disarm and cooperate with the world.

Not at all true. The reason he was allowed to remain in power was because
the nations involved gave no mandate to overthrow him. The only purpose
of the war was to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

> He didn't.

Probably not, although there's been no real proof either way that I've
seen.

> If all of Europe and the US had invaded Germany in say, 1935, after
> Germany had began to illegally rearm, it would not have been a
> proactive invasion. Neither would an invasion of Iraq.

Nonsense. The situations are not parallel nor was an invasion of Germany
particularly possible.

> > 4. We led a coalition of nations, many of them neighbors of Serbia
> > and Kosovo.
>
> So far Nato is cooperating, Turkey, Saudi Arabi I beleive, and several
> others I am not going to go look up right now. Bush is working on a
> coalition right now.

Keep on working. The consensus does not appear to be quite so overwhelming.

> > 5. President Clinton didn't have to lie about the 'evil' caused by
> > Slobodan Milosevic or real purpose of the war.
>
> Many people claimed it was to distract from his personal problems,
> though they were obviously biased in their opinions. Do you believe
> that anyone claiming this would only be a war for oil does not already
> have a dislike for Bush?

I suspect that anyone taking an honest look at the basis for war would
conclude that it was partly over oil. There are other reasons, of course.
Bush's personal animas against Saddam would appear to be quite compelling
as well. And of course there is also the desire to influence the voting
public of the US. I do agree that a dislike for Bush predisposes one for
being against his war but I do not agree that that is what drives the
anti-war movement.

> > 6. Containment and sanctions had not been successful against
> > Milosevic, as they obviously have been against Saddam.
>
> Define "successful".

He hasn't invaded anyone and has not, apparently, provided any aid to
terrorism against the US.

> > 7. This might be most important. A goodly majority of Americans were
> > in favor of our action in Kosovo. I think a big reason for the size
> > of the current protests is that Bush has not been successful in
> > 'selling' the war to the American people.
>
> Not true. A majority favor the removal of Sadam, by force. The only
> reason you can claim otherwise is that a majority also favor 'giving
> the inspectors more time'. This can be spun either way but if and
> when we invade Iraq, it will become obvious that the American public
> supports our invasion.

As you say, it can be spun either way. Once we have invaded it's a
different game and at that point we are committed and should end the
war as quickly and humanely as possible. Rallying around the flag is
a strong element. Of course it also helps sway the voting public.

> > 8. This remains to be seen, of course, but the Kosovo war turned out
> > according to plan. We stopped Milosevic, we caught him and he is
> > being tried for war crimes, and we brought peace to the region.
> > Serbia and Kosovo are both better off. We didn't do this in
> > Afghanistan
>
> Why, because we didn't catch two people? Was that our only reason to
> go to Afganistan?

That pretty much was our only reason. We don't appear to be doing a vast
amount for the country now and we are still fighting there. Indeed, we
don't appear to be doing much against Al Qaida just now having been caught
up in building for a war against an entirely different country.

Ashland Henderson

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 9:38:46 PM2/18/03
to
Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3E516806...@earthlink.net>...

What nonsense. Precisely when did the far right begin giving a damn about
Moslems. Perhaps you could quote Ann Coulter on that point.

SemiScholar

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 9:56:23 PM2/18/03
to


Israel wouldn't be that stupid.

Will

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 9:57:34 PM2/18/03
to

"Ashland Henderson" <macea...@astound.net> wrote in message
news:441d41d1.03021...@posting.google.com...

> "Will" <drill...@nospamlycos.com> wrote in message
news:<ABv4a.10679$jR3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
> > "Blazing Laser" <blazin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:vo935vs3qe8r8lkio...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > If we do go into Iraq and hussein lobs any scuds into Israel with chem
or
> > bio agents then they (Israel) will retalliate with nukes.At least I hope
so!
>
> Don't know much about nukes, do you? Hint: They are more than just big
bombs.\

I know more about nukes than you think I do sonny.Let me clue you in and
tell ya something: The US has developed nuclear weopans that are high yield
explosive yet low radiation .They are called "tactical" nukes. But I guess
you haven't been doing your homework have you?


Scott Erb

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 10:18:27 PM2/18/03
to

"Will" <drill...@nospamlycos.com> wrote in message
news:yoC4a.10934$jR3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net...

Tactical nuclear weapons are short range weapons. They are not "low
radiation."


Blazing Laser

unread,
Feb 18, 2003, 11:34:56 PM2/18/03
to
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:13:36 GMT, "Will" <drill...@nospamlycos.com>
wrote:

>If we do go into Iraq and hussein lobs any scuds into Israel with chem or
>bio agents then they (Israel) will retalliate with nukes.At least I hope so!

That's the worst possible case. In fact I bet one of Bush's biggest
worries is that Saddam will be able to pull Israel into the fight. He
tried to last time and it didn't work. But that was with a more
moderate leadership in Israel.

As to nukes, -no- national govenment is going to use them. I guess I
wouldn't put it past Al Quaeda, but no leader of a nation who wants to
keep his leadership (which is all of them) is going to be the first to
use nukes. As Carl Sagan put it, the nuclear arms race is two people
in a room up to their knees in gasoline and arguing over who has the
most matches.


Will

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 4:34:14 AM2/19/03
to

"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7IC4a.59908$zF6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Again you know not of what you speak.All tactical nukes are not the same.


Scott Erb

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 6:54:37 AM2/19/03
to

"Will" <drill...@nospamlycos.com> wrote in message
news:qcI4a.11386$jR3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net...

Of course not all tactical nukes are not the same.

But you haven't really made any claim except they are 'low radiation.'

Show some substance for your claim.


Ashland Henderson

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 1:06:11 PM2/19/03
to
"Will" <drill...@nospamlycos.com> wrote in message news:<yoC4a.10934$jR3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...

Tactical nukes do have less radiation than larger strategic yields do. They
are not clean, however. Even if there were a way to ignite a nuclear fusion
reaction in a bomb other than fission, and I certainly haven't heard of any,
they still wouldn't be clean. Keep on dreaming, however, and don't forget to
read the op-ed pieces.

Bloom,Leopold

unread,
Feb 19, 2003, 1:44:07 PM2/19/03
to
"George of the Jungle" <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message news:<3e510ef0$0$8415$4c41...@reader0.ash.ops.us.uu.net>...

> "BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
> news:ld225vk7q7hdqapj0...@4ax.com...
> > I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
> >
> > About how president Clinton rained death down
> > upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> > and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
> > transportation routes and social services.
> > About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
> > USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
> > international approval or cooperation in the
> > excercise.
> >
> > Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
> > the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
> > The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
> > breasts "for peace" ???


What an incredible liar you are! You really expect us not to remember
the events of only a few years ago? It was the Republicans and
conservatives who held up our intervention, through NATO, in Serbia
for some two years, and the demonstrators (left) were calling for US
intervention to end the genocide.

For which Mr. Milosovic is currently rotting in prison.

It looks very much as though Georgie-Boy, Kenny-Boy and Dickey-Boy are
setting themselves up for a prison cell right next door.

But I love the way you equate a Nato sponsored humanitarian effort
with an unprovoked unilaterial attack on a nation we already occupy.
I know you can tell the difference. More people die in real wars, and
I know how much you folks get off on that. It's a concept simple
enough for you to understand. Too bad you aren't smart enough to see
the results coming down the road.

classicliberal2

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 9:32:34 AM2/20/03
to
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:22:46 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:

> I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....

You apparently didn't.

> About how president Clinton rained death down
> upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
> transportation routes and social services.
> About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
> USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
> international approval or cooperation in the
> excercise.
>
> Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
> the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
> The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
> breasts "for peace" ???
>

> Nowhere.

>
> I guess that war was *different* ... right ???
>

> What fucking hypocrites ...

>
> It's all just politics as usual. Find a way to
> attack the GOP and the president. All the high-
> toned rhetoric and bleeding heart bullshit -
> just some whitewash over the usual 'left -vs-
> right' crap. Cynical. Calculating. Seems the
> 'left' is certainly no 'better' than those
> they oppose ... their only 'moral highground'
> being a mound of their own feces.

For anyone who may be taken in by these outrageous
idiocies--and they're circulating daily in the right-wing
echo-chamber of the corporate press--here's a
corrective:

Here's a CNN report on one of those protest
marches that never took place:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/05/nato.protest/

Here are photos of some of the Quaker contingent
who were at the same non-existent event, protesting
at the White House:
http://www.quaker.org/peaceweb/dc1.jpg
http://www.quaker.org/peaceweb/dc2.jpg

Here's the story, from the same site, about their
participation in an interfaith rally organized by the
obviously non-existent National Coalition for Peace
in Yugoslavia--they were arrested while trying to
deliver a protest letter to their "idol" Bill Clinton:
http://www.quaker.org/peaceweb/kovdc1.html

Here's a 1999 report from a radical publication
describing the worldwide protest marches that were
held at the same time:
http://www.frso.org/fight/0799/yugojun5.html

Here's an extensive collection of photos from
numerous non-existent Kosovo bombing protests
held, for months, in Washington D.C.:
http://www.carolmoore.net/photos/balkans-photos.html
Please note that there were right-wing protests
also--something to remember the next time some
reactionary parrot starts mindlessly echoing the
nonsense he heard on Sean Hannity about these
protests.

Finally, a story from FAIR about the extensive
opposition by the left to the Kosovo bombing, and
the early press aversion to reporting on it:
http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-dissent.html


The above presentation took about 10 minutes to
assemble, using Google. This fact has some strong
implications. What it means is that those who parrot
this line about there being no opposition to the
Kosovo operation either know the truth and are
intentionally lying to you about it, or are genuinely
ignorant, in which case they are making false
comments about things they haven't even taken
10 minutes to look into.

SemiScholar

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 12:23:18 PM2/20/03
to


<Snip>

Of course there WERE protests from the peace crowd back then. I
notice that right wingers OFTEN use this tactic - just declare that "I
didn't see anybody ding X back when blah blah blah". And the vast
majority of the time, I'm shaking my head wondering what planet they
are from, because people most certainly DID do "X" back when.

And besides - that tactic is a double edged sword - calling people
hypocrites for being on side A back when and side B now is - at best -
comical when the name-caller was on side B back when and is now on
side A.

Remember the conservatives whining and moaning about Clinton using the
US military in various places? And remember how, other than Somalia,
the US lost not ONE US soldier in any of those adventures?


Scott Erb

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 1:33:22 PM2/20/03
to

"SemiScholar" <semis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2o3a5vgv1ghlrvhib...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:32:34 -0500, classicliberal2
>
> Of course there WERE protests from the peace crowd back then. I
> notice that right wingers OFTEN use this tactic - just declare that "I
> didn't see anybody ding X back when blah blah blah". And the vast
> majority of the time, I'm shaking my head wondering what planet they
> are from, because people most certainly DID do "X" back when.

If one wanted to hit them with their own tactics, you could trot out the
Republicans who criticized Clinton for striking Iraq in 1998.

But when someone tries to divert attention away from the argument in that
way, it's clear they have a weak argument and they are looking to change the
subject.

Steven Litvintchouk

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 4:13:48 PM2/20/03
to

"Bloom,Leopold" wrote:
>
> "George of the Jungle" <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message news:<3e510ef0$0$8415$4c41...@reader0.ash.ops.us.uu.net>...
> > "BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
> > news:ld225vk7q7hdqapj0...@4ax.com...
> > > I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
> > >
> > > About how president Clinton rained death down
> > > upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> > > and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
> > > transportation routes and social services.
> > > About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
> > > USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
> > > international approval or cooperation in the
> > > excercise.
> > >
> > > Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
> > > the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
> > > The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
> > > breasts "for peace" ???
>
> What an incredible liar you are! You really expect us not to remember
> the events of only a few years ago?

I expect that you will always attempt to rewrite history, as the
hard-core left-winger you are. Orwell satirized you "English
socialists" in his novel "1984".

Now here is what the hard-core left-wing REALLY said, not what you say
they said:


A comment on the war by British playwright Harold Pinter
18 May 1999
When the nail bomb went off in Old Compton Street, Mr Blair described it
as a barbaric act. When cluster bombs go off in Serbian market places,
cutting children to pieces, we are told that such an act is being taken
on behalf of "civilisation against barbarism". Mr Blair is clearly
having a wonderful time. But if Britain remains America's poodle, she is
now a vicious and demented poodle.

The NATO action is in breach of its own charter and outside all
recognised parameters of international law. The United Nations has been
treated with contempt. NATO is destroying the infrastructure of a
sovereign state, murdering hundreds of civilians, creating widespread
misery and desolation, doing immeasurable damage to the environment.
Underneath the demonisation and the hysteria, there is an agenda. What
is it? It is certainly not what it purports to be. Neither Clinton nor
Blair gives a damn about the Kosovan Albanians, despite the tears. This
action is yet another blatant and brutal assertion of US power, using
NATO as its missile. This "new aggressive" NATO is helping to fulfill
one thing and one thing only, American domination of Europe. The true
danger to world peace is not "former Yugoslavia" but the United States.

Harold Pinter

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/read-m18.shtml


>
> But I love the way you equate a Nato sponsored humanitarian effort....

....which you know full well was NOT sanctioned by the UN Security
Council because Russia promised to veto it. That didn't bother you at
the time, did it?

I'm against putting American troops and American pilots in harm's way
for a "humanitarian bombing mission."

The purpose of American armed forces is to protect America, not Serbia.

The American military is not an international welfare relief agency.
Their purpose is to defend America with force. Killing force.

AntisDoLie

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 4:28:31 PM2/20/03
to
classicliberal2 <classic...@operamail.com> wrote in message news:<2CCE60B2C622DB81.584D3D6A...@lp.airnews.net>...

> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:22:46 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> > I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
>
> You apparently didn't.
>
> > About how president Clinton rained death down
> > upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> > and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying...

> Here's a CNN report on one of those protest
> marches that never took place:
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/05/nato.protest/

Wow, 5000 people protested.

Jim

AntisDoLie

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 4:30:26 PM2/20/03
to
Mitchell Holman <ta2...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9326D05F9...@63.240.76.16>...

> Lemme guess - you are pro-life, but you want to see
> millions of innocent civilians incinerated in a nuclear
> holocaust.

Sarcasm noted.

However, does this mean you believe those that are pro-abortion would
have no problem with it?

Jim

Blazing Laser

unread,
Feb 20, 2003, 10:45:23 PM2/20/03
to
On 20 Feb 2003 13:30:26 -0800, jame...@aol.com (AntisDoLie) wrote:


>However, does this mean you believe those that are pro-abortion would
>have no problem with it?

Nobody is pro-abortion.

George Patton

unread,
Feb 21, 2003, 12:20:11 PM2/21/03
to
"George of the Jungle" <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message news:<3e510ef0$0$8415$4c41...@reader0.ash.ops.us.uu.net>...
> "BlackWater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
> news:ld225vk7q7hdqapj0...@4ax.com...
> > I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
> >
> > About how president Clinton rained death down
> > upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
> > and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying
> > transportation routes and social services.
> > About how Serbia posed no direct threat to the
> > USA. About how we did NOT have 101% total
> > international approval or cooperation in the
> > excercise.
> >
> > Where WERE the protestors then ??? Where were
> > the peace signs ? The speeches ? The marches ?
> > The throngs of neo-hippie babes bearing their
> > breasts "for peace" ???
> >
> > Nowhere.

You put them down for not protesting! Were you protesting?

If you were not protesting, why? To lazy? Did not think it important? Coward?
Stupid?

If you did protest, don't they have the same right as you to protest?

Ninure Saunders

unread,
Feb 21, 2003, 1:22:54 PM2/21/03
to
In article <db9c0c40.03022...@posting.google.com>,
jame...@aol.com (AntisDoLie) wrote:

-classicliberal2 <classic...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:<2CCE60B2C622DB81.584D3D6A...@lp.airnews.net>...
-> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:22:46 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
->
-> > I guess nobody remembers ... how odd ....
->
-> You apparently didn't.
->
-> > About how president Clinton rained death down
-> > upon the Serbian people ... cruise missiles
-> > and bombers blacking-out Belgrade, destroying...
-
-> Here's a CNN report on one of those protest
-> marches that never took place:
-> http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/05/nato.protest/
-
-Wow, 5000 people protested.
-
-Jim

But it WAS a protest, wasn't it?


The claim made was that were NO protests from the "left".

Now since you apparently are saying that that the actions taken
regarding Serbia were WRONG...

Perhaps you'd care to doument where the protests from the "right" were?

Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://deaconninure.0catch.com

The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure

The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html

My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches

http://www.MCCchurch.org

George of the Jungle

unread,
Feb 22, 2003, 1:35:24 AM2/22/03
to

"bushhater" <wdw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96729757.0302...@posting.google.com...

> Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<3E51132F...@earthlink.net>...
> >
> > Several left-wing columnists stated that Clinton's bombing of Serbia was
> > good because it was SELFLESS. That is, the U.S. was using its military
> > power for a "humanitarian" purpose that was NOT in the U.S. national
> > interest. They said that what they hate is when the U.S. uses its
> > military power to serve its OWN "selfish" interests.
> >
>
> How about selfish interst not of amerika but of the bushit oil companies.

You mean like the war in Afghanistan was for oil, first?

"As we've argued before in this space, the war-for-oil charge is incoherent:
If Mr. Bush were really after cheap oil, he'd be campaigning to drop
sanctions and leave Saddam alone. We also cited data that shows a war with
Iraq and the subsequent reconstruction would cost far more than the United
States could make back in oil.

But perhaps a better way of debunking the "no war for oil" campaign is by
reminding invasion opponents that this is not the first time Mr. Bush has
been accused of waging war on behalf of America's energy companies: A lot of
what is being said now directly echoes the claims the left was making when
the President was preparing to invade Afghanistan a year and a half ago."

["They said Afghanistan was a 'war for oil' too",
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=%7BACF36E97-7979-4FA6-B
59F-4EF03B6C3B62%7D]

Why do you assholes let your hatred of Bush make you personally vouch for
the good behavior of Saddam?


--
Ann Coulter writes that liberals are "savagely cruel bigots who hate
ordinary Americans and lie for sport." So true. Just read the hate speech
spewing from this "liberal", Mark Cresky:

"You piece of traitorous shit. My mother is dead and she was a proud Liberal
Democrat, you fucking immigrant Cossack bastard.

My family has been here for 10 generations and built this country and you
come here and shit all over it with your Nazi treason.


Mark Neglay

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 4:58:35 AM2/24/03
to
macea...@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote in message news:<441d41d1.03021...@posting.google.com>...

Doesn't matter. My points were:

1) The claim that this is "all about oil" is a hallow claim, motivated
by political bias and 'proven' by circumstantial evidence. (That
there is oil in Iraq).

2) We have managed to overthrow hostile dictators in the past without
creating a permanent US occupied state.

> Not to mention
> that both German and Japan had much greater capacity for war making than
> Iraq. Of course neither of them had oil either.
>
> > > 2. The war was already going on when we stepped in. We ended it.
> >
> > If not for our current involvement in Iraq, a war might still be going
> > on...to exterminate the Kurds.
>
> Not germane to the problem. Nor is it necessarily correct. In any case,
> might-have-beens do not balance weres.

If I recall I also pointed out that Hussein is violating a number of
rules that he agreed to after Iraq started a war and was forced out of
Kuwait.

> > > 3. Our action was reactive, not pro-active.
> >
> > Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Hussein probably should have been removed
> > from power in 1991. The only reason he was allowed to remain in power
> > weas because he agreed to disarm and cooperate with the world.
>
> Not at all true. The reason he was allowed to remain in power was because
> the nations involved gave no mandate to overthrow him.

Then why did he even let inspectors in to Iraq in the first place?

> The only purpose
> of the war was to remove Iraq from Kuwait.
>
> > He didn't.
>
> Probably not, although there's been no real proof either way that I've
> seen.
>
> > If all of Europe and the US had invaded Germany in say, 1935, after
> > Germany had began to illegally rearm, it would not have been a
> > proactive invasion. Neither would an invasion of Iraq.
>
> Nonsense. The situations are not parallel nor was an invasion of Germany
> particularly possible.

Technically feasible? Most certainly. Politically possible?
Probably not.

In any case, the parallels are quite clear. In both cases a country
was forced to disarm after it had declared war and failed at its
conquest. In both cases, years later, both countries defied the terms
of their surrender. In both cases, the world took a
non-interventionist stance.

> > > 4. We led a coalition of nations, many of them neighbors of Serbia
> > > and Kosovo.
> >
> > So far Nato is cooperating, Turkey, Saudi Arabi I beleive, and several
> > others I am not going to go look up right now. Bush is working on a
> > coalition right now.
>
> Keep on working. The consensus does not appear to be quite so overwhelming.

What qualifies as overwhelming?

> > > 5. President Clinton didn't have to lie about the 'evil' caused by
> > > Slobodan Milosevic or real purpose of the war.
> >
> > Many people claimed it was to distract from his personal problems,
> > though they were obviously biased in their opinions. Do you believe
> > that anyone claiming this would only be a war for oil does not already
> > have a dislike for Bush?
>
> I suspect that anyone taking an honest look at the basis for war would
> conclude that it was partly over oil.

Sure, many have claimed that France's vehoment opposition to a war is
motived by oil. They may have a point. Additionally, Russia is
opposing invasion in part for fears that it will not be paid back the
debt owed it by Iraq.

> There are other reasons, of course.
> Bush's personal animas against Saddam would appear to be quite compelling
> as well. And of course there is also the desire to influence the voting
> public of the US. I do agree that a dislike for Bush predisposes one for
> being against his war but I do not agree that that is what drives the
> anti-war movement.
>
> > > 6. Containment and sanctions had not been successful against
> > > Milosevic, as they obviously have been against Saddam.
> >
> > Define "successful".
>
> He hasn't invaded anyone and has not, apparently, provided any aid to
> terrorism against the US.

Which country did Milosevic invade? How did Milosevic threaten the
US?

> > > 7. This might be most important. A goodly majority of Americans were
> > > in favor of our action in Kosovo. I think a big reason for the size
> > > of the current protests is that Bush has not been successful in
> > > 'selling' the war to the American people.
> >
> > Not true. A majority favor the removal of Sadam, by force. The only
> > reason you can claim otherwise is that a majority also favor 'giving
> > the inspectors more time'. This can be spun either way but if and
> > when we invade Iraq, it will become obvious that the American public
> > supports our invasion.
>
> As you say, it can be spun either way. Once we have invaded it's a
> different game and at that point we are committed and should end the
> war as quickly and humanely as possible. Rallying around the flag is
> a strong element. Of course it also helps sway the voting public.
>
> > > 8. This remains to be seen, of course, but the Kosovo war turned out
> > > according to plan. We stopped Milosevic, we caught him and he is
> > > being tried for war crimes, and we brought peace to the region.
> > > Serbia and Kosovo are both better off. We didn't do this in
> > > Afghanistan
> >
> > Why, because we didn't catch two people? Was that our only reason to
> > go to Afganistan?
>
> That pretty much was our only reason.

We relieved terrorists of a massive haven for training and sanctuary.
We captured hundreds if not thousands of terrorists. We have given
the Afgani people a *chance* to escape at least some of the oppresion
they faced under the Taliban.

Ashland Henderson

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 6:22:51 PM2/24/03
to
neg...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay) wrote in message news:<d36d7e45.03022...@posting.google.com>...

Well, personally I don't claim that its all about oil, though oil certainly
comes into it. There is more evidence to that than just that Iraq has oil.

> 2) We have managed to overthrow hostile dictators in the past without
> creating a permanent US occupied state.

True. Not that we have necessarily ensured that the countries were friendly,
democratic, or upright afterwards.

> > Not to mention
> > that both German and Japan had much greater capacity for war making than
> > Iraq. Of course neither of them had oil either.
> >
> > > > 2. The war was already going on when we stepped in. We ended it.
> > >
> > > If not for our current involvement in Iraq, a war might still be going
> > > on...to exterminate the Kurds.
> >
> > Not germane to the problem. Nor is it necessarily correct. In any case,
> > might-have-beens do not balance weres.
>
> If I recall I also pointed out that Hussein is violating a number of
> rules that he agreed to after Iraq started a war and was forced out of
> Kuwait.

True. But they are UN rules, not US rules. Which is one of the main
reasons why the UN needs to be on the act, not just the US.

> > > > 3. Our action was reactive, not pro-active.
> > >
> > > Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Hussein probably should have been removed
> > > from power in 1991. The only reason he was allowed to remain in power
> > > weas because he agreed to disarm and cooperate with the world.
> >
> > Not at all true. The reason he was allowed to remain in power was because
> > the nations involved gave no mandate to overthrow him.
>
> Then why did he even let inspectors in to Iraq in the first place?

Don't see these things in simple terms. There was no mandate to overthrow
or invade Iraq. There was something of a mandate to try and ensure that he
would not invade Kuwait again.

> > The only purpose
> > of the war was to remove Iraq from Kuwait.
> >
> > > He didn't.
> >
> > Probably not, although there's been no real proof either way that I've
> > seen.
> >
> > > If all of Europe and the US had invaded Germany in say, 1935, after
> > > Germany had began to illegally rearm, it would not have been a
> > > proactive invasion. Neither would an invasion of Iraq.
> >
> > Nonsense. The situations are not parallel nor was an invasion of Germany
> > particularly possible.
>
> Technically feasible? Most certainly. Politically possible?
> Probably not.

I doubt that it was all that technically feasible considering that the
US had a very small military at the time as did the US. France was
orientated towards containment and the Maginot line, not offense. Russia
had it's own problems. Politically it was not possible, I would agree,
but I have my doubts about technical possibilities as well.

> In any case, the parallels are quite clear. In both cases a country
> was forced to disarm after it had declared war and failed at its
> conquest. In both cases, years later, both countries defied the terms
> of their surrender. In both cases, the world took a
> non-interventionist stance.

I disagree that it is that simple. Germany had both much greater war
making capability and was inherently much stronger. The League of Nations
was much weaker than the UN, mainly because of the refusal of the US to
participate in it, IMHO a major mistake. Germany was also much more open
about everything than Iraq has ever been.

> > > > 4. We led a coalition of nations, many of them neighbors of Serbia
> > > > and Kosovo.
> > >
> > > So far Nato is cooperating, Turkey, Saudi Arabi I beleive, and several
> > > others I am not going to go look up right now. Bush is working on a
> > > coalition right now.
> >
> > Keep on working. The consensus does not appear to be quite so overwhelming.
>
> What qualifies as overwhelming?

Everyone pretty much agreed on Kuwait and the 1991 war. Everyone certainly
does not agree about the current situation. Such coalation as exists is
shaky and civilian support certainly hasn't gelled the way it did in 1991.

> > > > 5. President Clinton didn't have to lie about the 'evil' caused by
> > > > Slobodan Milosevic or real purpose of the war.
> > >
> > > Many people claimed it was to distract from his personal problems,
> > > though they were obviously biased in their opinions. Do you believe
> > > that anyone claiming this would only be a war for oil does not already
> > > have a dislike for Bush?
> >
> > I suspect that anyone taking an honest look at the basis for war would
> > conclude that it was partly over oil.
>
> Sure, many have claimed that France's vehoment opposition to a war is
> motived by oil. They may have a point. Additionally, Russia is
> opposing invasion in part for fears that it will not be paid back the
> debt owed it by Iraq.

I don't doubt that both approval of and opposition to the war are driven
in some measure by oil.

> > There are other reasons, of course.
> > Bush's personal animas against Saddam would appear to be quite compelling
> > as well. And of course there is also the desire to influence the voting
> > public of the US. I do agree that a dislike for Bush predisposes one for
> > being against his war but I do not agree that that is what drives the
> > anti-war movement.
> >
> > > > 6. Containment and sanctions had not been successful against
> > > > Milosevic, as they obviously have been against Saddam.
> > >
> > > Define "successful".
> >
> > He hasn't invaded anyone and has not, apparently, provided any aid to
> > terrorism against the US.
>
> Which country did Milosevic invade? How did Milosevic threaten the
> US?

Show some proof that Iraq threatens the US. Nor did Serbia require
anything like the build-up that Iraq has required or the money spent.

And is Al Qaida dead?

Mark Neglay

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 5:39:18 AM2/26/03
to
macea...@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote in message news:<441d41d1.0302...@posting.google.com>...

> neg...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay) wrote in message news:<d36d7e45.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> > macea...@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote in message news:<441d41d1.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > neg...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay) wrote in message news:<d36d7e45.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Blazing Laser <blazin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rib25vsl3j9i45h2f...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:22:46 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> > > > >

> > 2) We have managed to overthrow hostile dictators in the past without
> > creating a permanent US occupied state.
>
> True. Not that we have necessarily ensured that the countries were friendly,
> democratic, or upright afterwards.

In other words we don't create puppet governments to ensure permanent
US hegemony on in the region?

Look I think you have to step back and consider how this subject can
be spun. If the US or NATO overthrows a dictator we can:

a) Permanently leave troops in the country. Install a friendly
dictator or insure that democratic elections do not lead to unfriendly
leaders. Create trade agreements. ...do everything within our power,
good or bad, to ensure that those countries are friendly.

b) Destroy the existing government and exit.

No matter who is in power at the time, his detractors will criticize
him under the 'a' plan for opposing democracy, acting as world
policeman, exploiting the citizens, etc... And likewise he will be
criticized under 'b' for failing to "ensured that the countries were


friendly, democratic, or upright afterwards"

> > > Not to mention


> > > that both German and Japan had much greater capacity for war making than
> > > Iraq. Of course neither of them had oil either.
> > >
> > > > > 2. The war was already going on when we stepped in. We ended it.
> > > >
> > > > If not for our current involvement in Iraq, a war might still be going
> > > > on...to exterminate the Kurds.
> > >
> > > Not germane to the problem. Nor is it necessarily correct. In any case,
> > > might-have-beens do not balance weres.
> >
> > If I recall I also pointed out that Hussein is violating a number of
> > rules that he agreed to after Iraq started a war and was forced out of
> > Kuwait.
>
> True. But they are UN rules, not US rules. Which is one of the main
> reasons why the UN needs to be on the act, not just the US.

The UN cannot and will not enforce its rules to the extent that it
must enforce them. The UN will appease and delay and make laughable
threats of sanctions. It's members will approve of tough-talking
resolutions and vote for embargos, then those same countries will
trade with the country anyway.

> > > > > 3. Our action was reactive, not pro-active.
> > > >
> > > > Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Hussein probably should have been removed
> > > > from power in 1991. The only reason he was allowed to remain in power
> > > > weas because he agreed to disarm and cooperate with the world.
> > >
> > > Not at all true. The reason he was allowed to remain in power was because
> > > the nations involved gave no mandate to overthrow him.
> >
> > Then why did he even let inspectors in to Iraq in the first place?
>
> Don't see these things in simple terms. There was no mandate to overthrow
> or invade Iraq. There was something of a mandate to try and ensure that he
> would not invade Kuwait again.

Answer the question please. Why would Hussein allow inspectors in to
his country?

> > > The only purpose
> > > of the war was to remove Iraq from Kuwait.
> > >
> > > > He didn't.
> > >
> > > Probably not, although there's been no real proof either way that I've
> > > seen.
> > >
> > > > If all of Europe and the US had invaded Germany in say, 1935, after
> > > > Germany had began to illegally rearm, it would not have been a
> > > > proactive invasion. Neither would an invasion of Iraq.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. The situations are not parallel nor was an invasion of Germany
> > > particularly possible.
> >
> > Technically feasible? Most certainly. Politically possible?
> > Probably not.
>
> I doubt that it was all that technically feasible considering that the
> US had a very small military at the time as did the US. France was
> orientated towards containment and the Maginot line, not offense. Russia
> had it's own problems. Politically it was not possible, I would agree,
> but I have my doubts about technical possibilities as well.

Germany, in 1933, had no military to speak of yet it withrew from the
League of Nations and its disarmament treaty. In 1935 it announced
the existance of its army and air force. Even then, they were small,
budding programs. The League of Nations would have had no trouble
invading and removing Hitler in the early 1930's, probably up through
1935. (My history is a little rough but the point is Germany began
violating terms of peace before it had the capacity to defend itself)
So what is the take home message? The LoN then, and the UN now, does
not have the political capacity to stop a Hitler. NATO does.

> > In any case, the parallels are quite clear. In both cases a country
> > was forced to disarm after it had declared war and failed at its
> > conquest. In both cases, years later, both countries defied the terms
> > of their surrender. In both cases, the world took a
> > non-interventionist stance.
>
> I disagree that it is that simple. Germany had both much greater war
> making capability and was inherently much stronger.

Iraq may or may not have the capacity to pose as much a threat now as
Germany did in the 1930's. I'm sure many imagined that the
economically backwards nation of Germany with its hyperinflation,
incredible unemployment and high crime could never again pose a threat
to its neigbors. It was hobbled by economic sanctions wasn't it?

But in any case, the threat from Iraq may not be the same as in
Germany (it won't be taking over Europe any time soon), but that
doesn't make it any less serious. Don't you see a temptation for Iraq
to sell WMD to other nations? To use them on the Kurds? To launch
them at Israel? To leverage them in order to further strengthen their
military and invade Kuwait again? You don't see any danger there?
This country is willing to use them, willing to sell them, willing to
defy the world, and willing to invade other countries. This country
would own Kuwait right now if its leader had its way. This country
may well control more than Kuwait by now were it not for a war effort
that was *not* spearheaded by the UN. This country *can* invade again
if we allow it. Don't for a minute think that Hussein doesn't have
the balls or the resources to acheive his goals.

> The League of Nations
> was much weaker than the UN, mainly because of the refusal of the US to
> participate in it, IMHO a major mistake.

How is the UN stronger than the LoN in preventing the next incarnation
of Hitler from appearing?

> Germany was also much more open
> about everything than Iraq has ever been.

More reason to scrutinize Iraq.

> > > > > 4. We led a coalition of nations, many of them neighbors of Serbia
> > > > > and Kosovo.
> > > >
> > > > So far Nato is cooperating, Turkey, Saudi Arabi I beleive, and several
> > > > others I am not going to go look up right now. Bush is working on a
> > > > coalition right now.
> > >
> > > Keep on working. The consensus does not appear to be quite so overwhelming.
> >
> > What qualifies as overwhelming?
>
> Everyone pretty much agreed on Kuwait and the 1991 war.

Actually the resolution barely passed through Congress but point
taken.

> Everyone certainly
> does not agree about the current situation. Such coalation as exists is
> shaky

Yes and its Bush's job to secure more allies. We'll see how he does.

> and civilian support certainly hasn't gelled the way it did in 1991.

In 1991 the war was already underway.

> > > > > 6. Containment and sanctions had not been successful against
> > > > > Milosevic, as they obviously have been against Saddam.
> > > >
> > > > Define "successful".
> > >
> > > He hasn't invaded anyone and has not, apparently, provided any aid to
> > > terrorism against the US.
> >
> > Which country did Milosevic invade? How did Milosevic threaten the
> > US?
>
> Show some proof that Iraq threatens the US.

Obviously a dictator doesn't have to directly threaten the US to
require overthrow in your opinion. In any case, Iraq has already
attempted to assassinate the President of the United States. It has
attacked our pilots as they protect the 35th and 39th parrallel (or
where ever the no-fly zone is). It *may* be supporting terrorist
activities. We see more circumstancial evidence of this every few
days. And it most certainly has the capacity and willingness to sell
or give existing WMD to others for use on the US.

> Nor did Serbia require
> anything like the build-up that Iraq has required or the money spent.

This logic explains why the US is taking a different stance on N.
Korea. We invade and destroy war-making resources of dictators who
may well use them when possible. We must seek other means when a
country goes nuclear. I'd prefer Iraq didn't also get a few nukes...

> > > > > 8. This remains to be seen, of course, but the Kosovo war turned out
> > > > > according to plan. We stopped Milosevic, we caught him and he is
> > > > > being tried for war crimes, and we brought peace to the region.
> > > > > Serbia and Kosovo are both better off. We didn't do this in
> > > > > Afghanistan
> > > >
> > > > Why, because we didn't catch two people? Was that our only reason to
> > > > go to Afganistan?
> > >
> > > That pretty much was our only reason.
> >
> > We relieved terrorists of a massive haven for training and sanctuary.
> > We captured hundreds if not thousands of terrorists. We have given
> > the Afgani people a *chance* to escape at least some of the oppresion
> > they faced under the Taliban.
>
> And is Al Qaida dead?

No. And a war on Afganistan could never kill it nor was our war there
designed as such. But it is hurt really badly. Its capacity to
threaten civilians has been reduced in manpower and financial power
and many of its assets have been seized.

Our primary goal in Afganistan was to eliminate a haven for terrorism,
which included preventing the Taliban from hiding Bin Laden from
justice.

Ashland Henderson

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 12:50:32 PM2/26/03
to
neg...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay) wrote in message news:<d36d7e45.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> macea...@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote in message news:<441d41d1.0302...@posting.google.com>...
> > neg...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay) wrote in message news:<d36d7e45.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> > > macea...@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote in message news:<441d41d1.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > neg...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay) wrote in message news:<d36d7e45.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Blazing Laser <blazin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rib25vsl3j9i45h2f...@4ax.com>...
> > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:22:46 -0500, BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
>
> > > 2) We have managed to overthrow hostile dictators in the past without
> > > creating a permanent US occupied state.
> >
> > True. Not that we have necessarily ensured that the countries were friendly,
> > democratic, or upright afterwards.
>
> In other words we don't create puppet governments to ensure permanent
> US hegemony on in the region?

We've done that as well, though it hasn't always worked out perfectly.

> Look I think you have to step back and consider how this subject can
> be spun. If the US or NATO overthrows a dictator we can:
>
> a) Permanently leave troops in the country. Install a friendly
> dictator or insure that democratic elections do not lead to unfriendly
> leaders. Create trade agreements. ...do everything within our power,
> good or bad, to ensure that those countries are friendly.
>
> b) Destroy the existing government and exit.

Or c) Vacilate around a fair amount and leave a situation much more
confused than it is.

Or d) Continue on to try and take Iran and so on.

> No matter who is in power at the time, his detractors will criticize
> him under the 'a' plan for opposing democracy, acting as world
> policeman, exploiting the citizens, etc... And likewise he will be
> criticized under 'b' for failing to "ensured that the countries were
> friendly, democratic, or upright afterwards"

It is the nature of politics for those out of power to criticize those
in power. In that sense it doesn't matter what is done.

> > > > Not to mention
> > > > that both German and Japan had much greater capacity for war making than
> > > > Iraq. Of course neither of them had oil either.
> > > >
> > > > > > 2. The war was already going on when we stepped in. We ended it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If not for our current involvement in Iraq, a war might still be going
> > > > > on...to exterminate the Kurds.
> > > >
> > > > Not germane to the problem. Nor is it necessarily correct. In any case,
> > > > might-have-beens do not balance weres.
> > >
> > > If I recall I also pointed out that Hussein is violating a number of
> > > rules that he agreed to after Iraq started a war and was forced out of
> > > Kuwait.
> >
> > True. But they are UN rules, not US rules. Which is one of the main
> > reasons why the UN needs to be on the act, not just the US.
>
> The UN cannot and will not enforce its rules to the extent that it
> must enforce them. The UN will appease and delay and make laughable
> threats of sanctions. It's members will approve of tough-talking
> resolutions and vote for embargos, then those same countries will
> trade with the country anyway.

Not much different from us, actually. In any case, it is not our part
to unilaterally enforce the rules of others. You don't have to like it
but it's still not our part.

> > > > > > 3. Our action was reactive, not pro-active.
> > > > >
> > > > > Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Hussein probably should have been removed
> > > > > from power in 1991. The only reason he was allowed to remain in power
> > > > > weas because he agreed to disarm and cooperate with the world.
> > > >
> > > > Not at all true. The reason he was allowed to remain in power was because
> > > > the nations involved gave no mandate to overthrow him.
> > >
> > > Then why did he even let inspectors in to Iraq in the first place?
> >
> > Don't see these things in simple terms. There was no mandate to overthrow
> > or invade Iraq. There was something of a mandate to try and ensure that he
> > would not invade Kuwait again.
>
> Answer the question please. Why would Hussein allow inspectors in to
> his country?

Because he lost the war and there were threats if he did not allow inspectors.
But again, there was no mandate during the war to overthrow or invade Iraq.
Which is why Bush did not do so.

I've seen a lot of talk on it one way and the other and even read a few
books about it. I retain grave doubts that it was possible for the league
of nations to invade Germany in 1935.

> > > In any case, the parallels are quite clear. In both cases a country
> > > was forced to disarm after it had declared war and failed at its
> > > conquest. In both cases, years later, both countries defied the terms
> > > of their surrender. In both cases, the world took a
> > > non-interventionist stance.
> >
> > I disagree that it is that simple. Germany had both much greater war
> > making capability and was inherently much stronger.
>
> Iraq may or may not have the capacity to pose as much a threat now as
> Germany did in the 1930's. I'm sure many imagined that the
> economically backwards nation of Germany with its hyperinflation,
> incredible unemployment and high crime could never again pose a threat
> to its neigbors. It was hobbled by economic sanctions wasn't it?

The economic sanctions were one of the major reasons Hitler was able
to take over. As to Iraq, it has nothing like the capacity to pose
as much of a threat now as Germany did then. I'm not saying that Iraq
should not be invaded, though I have my doubts. I'm saying that the
UN inspectors should be given the time they need.

> But in any case, the threat from Iraq may not be the same as in
> Germany (it won't be taking over Europe any time soon), but that
> doesn't make it any less serious. Don't you see a temptation for Iraq
> to sell WMD to other nations? To use them on the Kurds? To launch
> them at Israel? To leverage them in order to further strengthen their
> military and invade Kuwait again? You don't see any danger there?
> This country is willing to use them, willing to sell them, willing to
> defy the world, and willing to invade other countries. This country
> would own Kuwait right now if its leader had its way. This country
> may well control more than Kuwait by now were it not for a war effort
> that was *not* spearheaded by the UN. This country *can* invade again
> if we allow it. Don't for a minute think that Hussein doesn't have
> the balls or the resources to acheive his goals.

There is no evidence that Iraq is willing to sell anything in the way
of WMD's to anyone. There is so far no real evidence that they still have
them, though that may change. Germany, of course, did have them at the
start of WWII and chose not to use them due to possible retaliation.

> > The League of Nations
> > was much weaker than the UN, mainly because of the refusal of the US to
> > participate in it, IMHO a major mistake.
>
> How is the UN stronger than the LoN in preventing the next incarnation
> of Hitler from appearing?

Hasn't happened yet, for one thing.

> > Germany was also much more open
> > about everything than Iraq has ever been.
>
> More reason to scrutinize Iraq.

I have no problem with scrutinization.

> > > > > > 4. We led a coalition of nations, many of them neighbors of Serbia
> > > > > > and Kosovo.
> > > > >
> > > > > So far Nato is cooperating, Turkey, Saudi Arabi I beleive, and several
> > > > > others I am not going to go look up right now. Bush is working on a
> > > > > coalition right now.
> > > >
> > > > Keep on working. The consensus does not appear to be quite so overwhelming.
> > >
> > > What qualifies as overwhelming?
> >
> > Everyone pretty much agreed on Kuwait and the 1991 war.
>
> Actually the resolution barely passed through Congress but point
> taken.
>
> > Everyone certainly
> > does not agree about the current situation. Such coalation as exists is
> > shaky
>
> Yes and its Bush's job to secure more allies. We'll see how he does.

Assuming that it is his job in the first place, you are correct.

> > and civilian support certainly hasn't gelled the way it did in 1991.
>
> In 1991 the war was already underway.

Not really. The invasion of Kuwait was the proximate cause of the war but
not the war itself.

> > > > > > 6. Containment and sanctions had not been successful against
> > > > > > Milosevic, as they obviously have been against Saddam.
> > > > >
> > > > > Define "successful".
> > > >
> > > > He hasn't invaded anyone and has not, apparently, provided any aid to
> > > > terrorism against the US.
> > >
> > > Which country did Milosevic invade? How did Milosevic threaten the
> > > US?
> >
> > Show some proof that Iraq threatens the US.
>
> Obviously a dictator doesn't have to directly threaten the US to
> require overthrow in your opinion. In any case, Iraq has already
> attempted to assassinate the President of the United States. It has
> attacked our pilots as they protect the 35th and 39th parrallel (or
> where ever the no-fly zone is). It *may* be supporting terrorist
> activities. We see more circumstancial evidence of this every few
> days. And it most certainly has the capacity and willingness to sell
> or give existing WMD to others for use on the US.

Sheesh. You are correct about the attempted assassination. Indeed, I think
that is one of the main reasons for the president's drive towards war. I
don't think it is sufficient in and of itself. As to the terrorist connection
I think you are placing yourself in the wild-eyed theorist area. I don't
see much of any evidence of any connection between Iraq and Al Qaida or
other terrorist groups that we should be hunting down. As to the capacity
and willingness (or availability) of existing weapons there are other
dangers much greater than Iraq with that capacity.

> > Nor did Serbia require
> > anything like the build-up that Iraq has required or the money spent.
>
> This logic explains why the US is taking a different stance on N.
> Korea. We invade and destroy war-making resources of dictators who
> may well use them when possible. We must seek other means when a
> country goes nuclear. I'd prefer Iraq didn't also get a few nukes...

It's a theory. Then again I'd say that North Korea doesn't have any oil
and isn't particularly interesting to our president.

> > > > > > 8. This remains to be seen, of course, but the Kosovo war turned out
> > > > > > according to plan. We stopped Milosevic, we caught him and he is
> > > > > > being tried for war crimes, and we brought peace to the region.
> > > > > > Serbia and Kosovo are both better off. We didn't do this in
> > > > > > Afghanistan
> > > > >
> > > > > Why, because we didn't catch two people? Was that our only reason to
> > > > > go to Afganistan?
> > > >
> > > > That pretty much was our only reason.
> > >
> > > We relieved terrorists of a massive haven for training and sanctuary.
> > > We captured hundreds if not thousands of terrorists. We have given
> > > the Afgani people a *chance* to escape at least some of the oppresion
> > > they faced under the Taliban.
> >
> > And is Al Qaida dead?
>
> No. And a war on Afganistan could never kill it nor was our war there
> designed as such. But it is hurt really badly. Its capacity to
> threaten civilians has been reduced in manpower and financial power
> and many of its assets have been seized.

Don't bet the house on any of that. I'd point out that our war on Afganistan
was precisely designed to do just what you say it wasn't. It failed though
not necessarily wholely.

> Our primary goal in Afganistan was to eliminate a haven for terrorism,
> which included preventing the Taliban from hiding Bin Laden from
> justice.

That was certainly part of it.

0 new messages