Replies

Whatever a neo-con is.. wasn't it a word Gephart made up? So "neo-cons" are evil for proactivly defending the US against terrorists? But, looking at your further posts, you attack US policy in Bosnia/Kosovo so Clinton would be a "despot" by those standards. So is Clinton a neo-con?

Was there self-defense in Kosovo? I thought I was asking about fighting terrorists. Did you lose something or someone in Kosovo? You seem fixed on it and the KLA. No, there was no direct threat Serbia posed to the US. However, due to the nature of Milosovic, the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, and the nature of European wars revolving around that region, we went in with NATO. We were a lead force because the US armed forces could be trusted to not engage in rape, torcher, and other crimes UN "peacekeepers" engaged in. Any US soldier caught doing these things is thrown into a dark prison called Leavenworth for a very long time, unless he is executed. The NATO involvement was sanctioned, if under diress from Europe and the UN, by the leaders of the factions. That is not, however, what we are talking about here. We are talking about the right to defend ourselves against a force that is capable of, and has attacked the US mainland, our embasies, and our armed forces in neutral ports and countries.

As for thinking we are in a "no-win" situation in the Balklans, you seem to have confused what I meant (the problem with typed messages). Our mission there was to stop the atrocities and separate the factions. The goal was to allow them the chance for peace and freedom. I would argue that Clinton, Europe, and the UN made this difficult for the soldier on the ground to accomplish, but we did succeed. The factions were separated, and the factions have a chance to rebuild and become productive members of the 21st century. Nowhere in my orders did it say "guarantee they will not go back to war". You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We showed them a better way and dumped a lot of money and resources into the region, now it's up to them, just as it will be up to the Iraqis and Afgans. Just as it was up to post WWII Germany and Japan.

But please remember my questions were framed for the war on terror, not the balklans.

Whatever a neo-con is.. wasn't it a word Gephart made up?

I already posted the answer to that question here on this thread. It has nothing whatever to do with Gephart. Irving Kristol takes full credit for creating the word "neo-conservative" and the neo-conservative movement. Unlike some others like Jonah Goldberg and David Frum who try to pretend that it doesn't exist, Kristol is very forthright about the meaning of the term and the significance of the movement. Here is the link again:

The Neoconservative Persuasion
From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol

"Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."

Clinton would be a "despot" by those standards. So is Clinton a neo-con?

Clinton was clearly a despot. As far as being a neo-con, like everything else, he was whenever it suited his purposes. He talked about "national greatness" and "extending our power" whenever he wanted to distract people from what was going on at home.

No, there was no direct threat Serbia posed to the US.

Thank you for this candid admission. I appreciate your honesty.

Our mission there was to stop the atrocities and separate the factions. The goal was to allow them the chance for peace and freedom.

I can agree with what you are saying if you are referring to Bosnia-Herzogovina. But I fail to see how the subsequent bombing the Serbian infrastructure falls under the rubric of "stopping the atrocities and separating the factions."