Apologists for the wars fought under Milosevic try to exploit conservative dislike for Clinton and the current American war on terror by associating Serbia's enemies with Clinton or with our al Qaeda enemy. Its a straw man. Those wars would have been fought if bin Laden & Al Qaeda and Clinton never existed.
Post 5 re-phrased: Apologists for the wars fought under Milosevic try to exploit the current American war on terror and conservative dislike for Clinton by associating Serbia's enemies with Clinton or with our al Qaeda enemy. Its a straw man. Those wars would have been fought if bin Laden & Al Qaeda and Clinton never existed.
Concerning Bosnia: You are wrong. Madrid's train bombers trained in Bosnia under al qaeda operatives. They have recieved legal bosnian passports and exploit that to enter europe.
No one "justifies" Milosevic's overreaction in the Balkans. And yes, a lot of conservatives do attack Clinton's Balkan intervention because who he is. But you are treating both military actions as a will of humanity instead of political oppurtunity by Clinton.
Why did he not go to Africa where one million plus were dying in wars since you are so quick to defend US miltary action under Clinton. Reason is, the Balkans conflict was easier to win. Furthermore, why should the US solve a conflict on the EU's backdoor when Kosovo has NO US interest whatsoever? Is it not better to use our resources in the Middle east, Southeast asia and china?
Sorry, but it's not revisionism. At the time I was on an Orthodox Christian listserve. One of the posters knew personally one of the victims in the first attack in the wars of the Yugoslav dissolution: the machine gunning of an Orthodox wedding in Bosnia by Muslims. It was incidents like that, together with Izetbegovic's political position (and the Croatians adopting the same flag that the Ustashe had flown when exterminating the Serbs at Jasanovac--the third largest fascist death camp during WW II) that led the Serbs in the seceeded republics to try to fight to stay in Yugoslavia. (Note, by contrast Slovenia's and Macedonia's secession was not opposed with any force.)
Izetbegovic's Islamist writings are not something made up after the fact, nor is the funding of the KLA by Al Qaeda. The wars might have been fought anyway, but the U.S. shouldn't have gotten involved, and especially not on the side of Islamists. Fighting secessionists is often ugly (Sherman's march through Georgia would doubtless class as an 'atrocity') even without massacres perpetrated by one side on their own people---the Sarajevo market, according to Japanese investigators (hardly someone with a dog in the fight)---or faked to make military casulties look like murdered civilians as at Racak.
The EU's enthusiasm for giving Muslims their own state in Europe can only be seen as appeasement, in which Clinton was only too happy to join.