[dirtboy]

We were morally required to stop Serb Naziism in its tracks. And thank God we did.

For whatever atrocities the Serbs (and other parties in the Balkans committed), the region never represented a security threat to the United States. Now that we've created two lawless Islamic protectorates in the Balkans, we've managed to create safe havens for al Qaeda and Albianian criminal syndicates.

Things would have been much better in Kosovo had Clinton and Albright not forced conflict with their demands at Rambouillet. Milosevic would have been removed from power earlier and the Albanians would have not been allowed to ethnically cleanse the Serbs if UN peacekeepers, instead of bombs, had been used.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

For whatever atrocities the Serbs (and other parties in the Balkans committed), the region never represented a security threat to the United States. >>

The hell you say. Genocide within 400 miles of German soil (or less, if you consider Austria part of the Third Reich historically, as it was at the time) is INHERENTLY a threat to the United States. Genocide in Europe is not to be tolerated and for good reason.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Things would have been much better in Kosovo had Clinton and Albright not forced conflict with their demands at Rambouillet. Milosevic would have been removed from power earlier and the Albanians would have not been allowed to ethnically cleanse the Serbs if UN peacekeepers, instead of bombs, had been used.>>

That is possible. I'm not saying that Notsobright didn't botch things related to Kosovo. But they had good reason to put Milosevic out of business; they simply chose the simplest, easiest to understand, wrong approach.

But one cannot call Srebrenica (killing 1% of Bosnian Muslim males in a three day period) anything other than what it was: Genocide. And not to be tolerated.