[vooch]

Agreed that the locals should take responsiblity for their our actions.

However, in the case of Yugoslavia, Clinton supported the most extremist elements possible. Whenever there was a chance at achieving peace, The Clinton White House actively scuttled the peace plan and convinced both the Bosnian Jihadists & the KLA to take even more extreme positions.

Clinton spent some 5 billion on Alija Iztbegovic's un-elected regime. All the while Clinton sidelined the moderate Muslim, Fikret Abdic, who just happened to have won the Presidential election.

Instead of supporting the legally elected Bosnian President Abdic, Clinton supported the xenophobic Iztbegovic.

The locals bear much blame, but the Clinton White House bears just as much for their lavish support of the most extreme elements out there.

[JCB]

The problem is that there never really was a working peace to "scuttle." Serbs wanted a united Yugoslavia, then a Greater Serbia. Muslims and Croats wanted independence.

This statement has me puzzled: "Clinton spent some 5 billion on Alija Iztbegovic's un-elected regime. All the while Clinton sidelined the moderate Muslim, Fikret Abdic, who just happened to have won the Presidential election."

Isn't Abdic the tycoon/warlord near Bihac who allied himself with the Serbs and fought against the V Corps along with the BSA? I've never heard of him winning any elections. On the contrary, he was viewed by most Muslims as a traitor. Where do you get your info from?

"The locals bear much blame, but the Clinton White House bears just as much for their lavish support of the most extreme elements out there."

No, not "just as much." Not even nearly as much. If you want to talk extremists, there's plenty: Arkan, Mladic, Karadzic, the Jokers, HVO, Oric, etc. Most of whom were not sponsored by the West. They had their own agendas and persued them regardless of whether they had a stamp of approval.

The Balkan wars were fought by nationalists out to grab land, not by some suit in Washington or Berlin.