Replies

Do you have any memory of the time?

Europe was clamoring for the US to solve an extremely embarassing problem for them. When it became convenient for Clinton to do so, he did.

The Somalian intervention, though very ill-advised, certainly was consistent with previous US actions, as it gave us control over oil resources there. That you should mention Somalia and then accuse me of being in league with the "no blood for oil" crowd is disingenuous.

Please elaborate how you arrived at your conclusion that the Kosovo campaign was the correct thing to do. What are the criteria? If it's 4200 dead, then there's no explanation for why we weren't all over Africa - in fact, pulling out of Somalia makes no sense under that criteria. Is 4200 dead white people the criteria? Then why did we side with Croatia?

What's your standard for judging an intervention to be justified?

I see you already have your "No Blood for Oil" t-shirt from 1992. How quaint. Would this be Frankinsence or Myrrh oil you're referring to?

Look, you're proving to be a rather dense subject to engage in a discussion - I have already laid out the reason behind our intervention in Kosovo previously. It's the same reason we police inner city neighborhoods that don't provide any tax revenue - if we don't the blight will spread.

I'm sorry you're siding with the thugs on this one rather than the cops, but ultimately that's your problem, not mine.

Lastly, back to the oil rationale, it's been used to try to delegitimize our involvement from Vietnam to Kosovo to Afghanistan and pretty much everywhere in between at some point. Hell, I could even propose it as the rationale behind the Serbian take over of Eastern Croatia, what with Arkan using the Oilfields in Eastern Slavonia to fuel part of his black market empire during his brief stay there and all, but you know, I won't, because I know better.

And in your case, you should too.

Please elaborate how you arrived at your conclusion that the Kosovo campaign was the correct thing to do. What are the criteria?

Unlike in Somalia, or even Iraq, the Milosevic regime threatened the stability of Europe and our NATO allies, that is why it was correct for the US to take the lead in rallying NATO forces to end the destabilizing atrocites.

You want to bicker over how many corpses fouled the mass graves. Is there a majic number? Do we go to war over 4001 and but not 4000?

Allowing Milosevic to perform genocide unchecked whould have destabilized Europe and then you would author threads about how Clinton's failure to act in the former Yugoslavia was a traitorous act of cowardice etc.......

You are blinded by a hatred of Clinton so badly that you would side with a murderer just to oppose Clinton's actions against him.

I'm no CLinton fan but to side with Milosevic is siding with a villanous demon.