Too bad we were helping the wrong side. Clinton didn't "engineer the submission of Yugoslavia". Clinton beat a washed up, flat broke, already stretched well beyond it's means, poorly motivated, former soviet country called serbia, and in doing so helped the piece of crap muslims establish their own countries. Where's the honor in that? Clinton did nothing red. The only thing he seemed to be able to engineer, while in the White House, was an occasional BJ. He accomplished nothing except driving some of the best war fighters we had right out of the military. Clinton was, in a word, a joke. He constantly sided with the UN, even when it was obviously not in our country's best interest. He slashed our military budgets at the cost of readiness. He made it perfectly clear that he hated all of us in uniform. He put us in a position to where people overseas laughed at us. I'd rather be feared and hated than laughed at. Find another way to defend clinton red. Say he was a charismatic speaker, say he did good things for the economy (which is a lie), but kosovo, albania, croatia, and bosnia are all very poor examples. And, in my opinion, all of these little conflicts were nothing more than civil wars that we never should have stuck our noses into to begin with. If we're going to help anyone, at least help the Christians...to hell with the muslims.
Just like Bush in Iraq. Wrong. Clinton and our Nato allies stopped a genocide in progress, in its tracks, at extremely low cost to the US or to the world community. 8,000 were killed at Srebrenica alone, not to mention the widespread rape of the women. This differed greatly from the treatment of Saddam by the republican presidents, who tolerated his genocides since he began his rise to power in 1972, becoming president in 1978. He supposedly killed 300,000, and he killed most of them early in his rule, while Reagan and Bush I were presidents. Reagan sent Rumsfeld there to kiss his butt and shake his hand in the mid 80's, since he was fighting Iran and we thought an embarrassment would be good for Iran. I guess we never really gave a damn about the thousands of Iraqis he was killing which is why I never bought the throw down excuse for Bush II, after there were no WMD, that "Saddam was a bad guy". Like Iraq. Heck there was no civil war till we got there. The bulk of Saddam's slaughter took place in the 80's while he was consolidating his power and eliminating his opposition. He had no WMD, and we could have controlled him with weapons inspectors like we did from 91-98, much cheaper and just as effective. Talk about never should have stuck our noses in. Clinton stopped an active genocide, that should have been stopped. We did not even lose a soldier during the conflict, now THAT'S EFFECTIVE. In terms of good accomplished at low cost, I can't remember when so much good was done for so little cost. And in Iraq, you have to go back to Vietnam to find so little accomplished in terms of protecting Americans at such a high cost. That's why Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all time low of 28% currently. A good war is one where we pursue goals that are morally justified and the value of the objectives achieved far outweighs the cost to achieve them. Clinton did good in Kosovo, and Bush has done poorly in Iraq.
Whatever. There's another thread around here somewhere where I explain what a joke the balkans were/are. Dig it up and read it. I'm not wasting my time. If you're so worried about genocide, then what's your view on rwanda, or one of the twenty or thirty other sorry places in africa killing each other off at the rapid rate? Personally, I couldn't care less about them, but I'd be interested in seeing how you feel since you're so worried about scumbags killing other scumbags. I say give them more guns and ammo, and dammit, someone needs to go over there and teach the bastards how to shoot. What happened in the balkans is nothing like what you are saying. I swear to you, more Christians were killed and butchered than muslim. If we were going to get involved, then we should have supported the serbs. But...we never should have gotten involved to begin with. Don't believe everything you read in the paper or see on some HBO documentary. I do not understand your blind devotion to clinton. Do you love him so much just because he was the last dem president? Do you support him because he did his very best to strip this country of our moral values? Popularity polls mean nothing. I'm a very conservative registered republican, and if someone called me and asked if I approved or disapproved of President Bush, I'd tell them that I very much disapprove. That doesn't mean that the democrats are any more powerful. It just means that I'm very disappointed in the president's performance. You people are no stronger, we just lack a true conservative president. Hell, we had the house, senate, and white house for six years and accomplished little. I've lost touch with the republican party, or maybe it's they've lost touch with people like myself. You see, that's the difference between people like you and me, I make informed opinions based on fact and logic. I'm not afraid to say that people I've supported screw up from time to time. Bush isn't perfect, and there's a lot of issues that I disagree with him on, but the alternative would have been a complete disaster. You, on the other hand, base your worthless opinions on popularity polls and what you hear on the daily show. You probably haven't had an original thought since you were potty trained. To sum it up, just about every word of your above post is nothing more than mindless dribble. You really should put quotes around it before some other left wing democrat sues you for plagiarism.
What makes you think if I defend Clinton on Kosovo that I love Clinton, or that I'm a liberal Dem. I'm a registered Repub. who voted for Reagan twice, and for Bush I. But I'm not a blind repub., I'm a swing voter, and I voted for Perot in 92 as a protest vote. But I've never voted for Bush II, I've been able to see his small minded ignorance up close here in Tex. as the gov., and I did not believe he was up to the job, and I believe my assessment has been borne out. But you are just making stuff up about what kind of person you think I am is based on just one opinion of mine, it's wrong, and its poor technique for making such judgements. Who said I had blind devotion to Clinton? You just made it up. I supported Clinton on Kosovo. That is all you know, and it is not logical to assume that therefore I supported Clinton blindly on everything. It just does not follow. I've stated on another thread that Bush II got it right going into Afghanistan, although it hardly took a mental giant to get that one right. That does not mean I blindly support Bush II, I can assure you.
Well....you knew what I meant. That's what's important. Green for martin for keeping me straight. :thumb:
So, you're saying that we should have backed the Communists in Serbia? What? Come on, Salty. Clinton gave the orders, he set the policy, it was his responsibility. He made the correct decision to use airpower. He made the correct decision to NOT invade Serbia. Incidentally, Yugoslavia (Serbia) was never part of the Soviet Union. I know you don't like him and he was not popular with the lifers, but he did a good job as President. There is a lot more to being a president than having the approval of all the E-5's. Example? Our involment in the Balkans was not to support the UN but to support our NATO allies, with whome we have a military alliance. Clinton tried to let the Euros handle it alone but they couldn't get it done without us He did not. The military began downsizing after the Cold War because we no longer needed the kind of forces that we maintained at great expense. Congress controlled the military budget and the decisions were bipartisan. This budget-reduction started under Reagan and continued under Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43. Give us an example. This is going to be hard for you to prove. Just because he allowed women to serve and closet gays to serve is not evidence that he "hated" all of you. We didn't get involved to protect muslims. We got involved to prevent the the Serbs from expanding their Communist control to the rest of the Balkans.
Often you do. And when you do, you can be very convincing. But you also often have opinions based on emotion. You can be intolerent of factual and logical opinions you dislike and tend to simply describe them as "worthless", which is not convincing at all.
My goodness red to Claim that Clinton won Kosovo. That is a good one. Best joke i have heard in a while. He let those people slaughter innocent women and children for years. Democrats are great at preaching civil rights for everyone. But when it comes to paying the price they dont have the stomach for it. Nancy Pelosi is a bigger threat to this country than 10 George Bush's. As a Republican i am not impressed with the way Bush has managed this war. But it was the right thing to do he just didnt finish the job while he had the troops over their to do it. And he listened to that idiot Rumsfeld . Right now i think it would be wise to split the country into 3 sections. Each with a say in the govnt. and then get the hell out of there. Each section responsible for the peace of their own people. Plan B is to change the Term Middle East to Nuclear Fallout zone.
