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.
Milosevic did not perform genocide and had no plans for genocide. That's a fact. Destabilizing Europe is a catchword used after the fact since it's hard to explain to those who didn't give a damn about the area, the real reasons for the whole mess.
This is a fallacy. Other than the appeal to WWI nostalgia, there is no evidence whatsoever that the war in the disintegrating Yugoslavia threatened to spread on its own outside the borders of that territory. If you knew the history, it was not the assassination of the Archduke that caused Europe to spiral into WWI - it was the intervention of the great powers. So if we are using WWI as the guide, it is the intervention and not the existing crisis which was the greater threat to stability. The kind of stability we have now, due to the occupation of the area by NATO forces, will be no more lasting than the stability under Tito. What has changed, that you think the area won't slide immediately back into war the moment we pull out the occupation forces?
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?
Is there a magic number for casualties that justifies intervention? I would say no, there is not. If you challenge the existence of that magic number, then you are also challenging the rationale for the war itself, which was largely based on the grossly inflated magnitude of the official estimates of casualties.
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.......
Milosevic performed genocide? Where? When? How? There is much evil about Milosevic, but genocide is not a substantiable charge. And we had a very good alternative option, which was to support a strong pro-democracy movement in supplanting him - but we deliberately chose to ignore it!
I think you need to study a few topics: Ustashe, the Handzar division, the Turk conquest of Constantinope and Smyrna, and the involvement of Islamic fascism on the side of the Bosnian and Albanian Muslims. Given the historical background and the facts on the ground, the only way to justify Western intervention would be to argue that we should have intervened on the side of the Serbian people.
How exactly did he threaten the stability of Europe and the Allies? Your statement is both preposterous and paradoxical, because it is Europe (namely Germany & Austria) that exacerbated a largely local political crisis into a full-blown civil war. Not that the U.S. is completely blameless, but Europe had allowed things to get out of control by recognizing the unilateral and unconstitutional secession of Slovenia and Croatia (the secession of 11 Southern states precipitated the U.S. Civil War - and this is exactly how the Yugoslav civil war started; by a forced and forceful withdrawal of the two republics from the union). They stupidly allowed the external borders of Yugoslavia to be changed, yet stubbornly insisted on preserving its internal boundaries, arbitrarily drawn by a bunch of drunken Commies somewhere in the hills of Bosnia, in the winter of 1943.
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?
Do you go to war over 4001 corpses, but not the millions in Rwanda? Just a question...
Allowing Milosevic to perform genocide...
What genocide? Did I miss something?
I'm no CLinton fan but to side with Milosevic is siding with a villanous demon.
No one here is siding with Miloshevich. You can't see the forest for the trees, my friend.