Democrats are the terrorists last hope?

You are correct that they were part of the same country, but Kosovo was 90% muslim as a region. They were persecuted by the serbs, it was a genocide (not saying the KLA were boy scouts either). The UN and the international community says they have the right to intervene to halt genocide. It does not specify that it has to be one country against another, it can be one faction in a country against another. The problem is with killing lots of other folks because they are ethnically not like you.

If you don't like the word "incursion" to describe the Serbs leaving their ethically distinct region of their country to enter the Kosovo region that is ethnically distinct and begin to kill thousands of their innocent people, please suggest a better word than "incursion".

 

So, when TX, So Cal, AZ, and NM become predominately mexican, which may happen in our lifetimes, should we just hand them back to mexico? Serbia didn't want to give up land...land that was invaded by ethnic albanians (muslims).....so they tried to push the muslims back into albania. Seems to me like we would be willing to fight for our states.

 

Why are you defending murderers? The Serbs were not trying to push the Albanians back. They were systematically rounding them up and slaughtering them.

 

Maybe if gangs of Texans, armed by the US govt., don't go into the mexican neighborhoods and kill them by the thousands and rape the women, they won't want to go back to being governed by the Mexicans.

It comes down to everyone having access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When one group can discriminate against others because they are ethnically different, a fight generally ensues. The US govt. is set up to try and deliver the american way of life to all. If they are successful, why would anyone want to revert to Mexican govt.?

Have you heard of masses of mexican americans agitating to go back under mexican rule and take Tx. with them? I haven't. They left mexico because they thought the opportunity was better over here.

 

Now I'll argue with myself for a bit. :hihi: Despite the fact that all original pretenses for the war were false, I don't think Bush is as big an idiot as this makes him look. There are some smart folks in Washington, even if they are misguided. So, if the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq were false, what were the real reasons?

I believe it was a neo-con plan for the foreign policy of the US to stress its use of the military to project American interests and ideals. We were the last superpower standing, but China is emerging as a power, and we should take advantage of the opportunity to do some things we thought we should. Like take down Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea.

The neo-con manifestos are over at http://www.newamericancentury.org/ .

Under reports and letters, read:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf .

If you want to know who was signed up for this, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century , and you will see under "signatories to statement of principles" Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, otherwise known as the part of Bush's cabinet "that counted" in the runup to Iraq.

I believe this has much more to do with why we went into Iraq than 9/11. 9/11 was just a convenient excuse to implement the plans documented above.

If all the stated reasons for entering a war are false, then the people are pure idiots, or there was another reason that was never stated. I believe there was another reason that was never stated, and it was not for the oil.

 

We are comparing apples to oranges red. It was a two way street over in kosovo, and the surrounding areas. Why are so many of you so quick to take the side of the muslims? I believe more Christians were killed during their war than muslim..up until the very end anyway. Atrocities were undoubtedly commited by both sides, so why did we pick the side of the muslims? That's what I don't understand.

As far as who occupied the land before the other..we took this land from the indians a.k.a. native Americans. It was ours to take. We were strong, they were weak. We have made something of it. Of course, we didn't have to worry about some huge super power coming in and taking the side of the indians now did we?

I'm no friend of communist, or supporter of socialism, but what we did in the balkans was not right. No matter what the circumstances, we should never side with a group of muslims. Hence.....I don't understand why we are rebuilding iraq. Screw them.

Surely someone else on this board was in theater over there. If so, please explain to these guys that what they read in the papers, and saw on TV was extremely one sided. There were, and still are, hundreds of mass graves filled to the rim with the bodies of poor white christian men, women, and children. They were slaughtered by the muslims because the muslims wanted the land they occupied. We helped give them that land.

 

That's exactly what I said

Here you have no clue what you are talking about. I've been in the refining business for the last 20 years and have been to South America and Asia to help build refineries for a US oil company. They are indeed building refineries and specialty plants in other countries with lower labor costs and less environmental protection. They are even shutting down parts of plants here in Louisiana that are being replaced by newer facilities in 3rd world countries. Like I said in my earlier post NAFTA and other trade agreements like it plays a large part in that.

 

Not sure where you got this info, but according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), gasoline stocks have fallen over last few months. Looking at the data, we're producing much less gasoline today than in 1990.

EIA

 

Production isn't the issue. In April we used 1.7 million fewer barrels of gas than was produced.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/16/markets/oil_eia/index.htm