[thoughtomator]

Your claimed basis for intervention is historically inconsistent with US policy. You will find no other time in US history did we intervene in a similar situation.

At the time, I knew that there was a lot of lying going on about the situation. I don't know what country you were in at the time, but in USA, it was clear that much of what we did there was timed to knock relevations of administration scandals out of the news cycle (that this was a Clinton M.O. is incontrovertible).

That you take the Clinton/Clark/Albright line at face value is extremely unusual for a participant on FR. There are a lot of possible motives for our attacks on Serbia, but the ones advanced by the Clinton administration are the least plausible of them.

[Hoplite]

Was our intervention in Somalia consistent with US policy?

No, it wasn't, was it. So ergo there must be some hidden reason the Bush Sr. administration took the actions it did, because you can't wrap your brain around something new or out of the ordinary - right?

Given the the Clinton administration lurched from one scandal to another, anything it undertook can be viewed as damage control, but then not everybody was looking to the administration for their world news, were they? Are you really trying to sell the hypothesis that NATO's European nations and Canada resorted to military action in order to cover Clinton's butt? You just haven't pondered how stupid that is, have you.

They, like I, have arrived at my 'line' independent of what the Clinton administration was selling, and the fact that your only recourse is to retreat to this last line of defence in your argument merely points out the weakness of your position.

Why don't you check out what some of the writers of the material you are relying upon are saying about our current involvement in Iraq? A "No blood for oil" t-shirt would go great with your "Free Slobo" one.