Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mamzelle
"Unfortunately, this was a neocon war. Ever know Clinton to fight, willingly? He needed the cover of "intellectuals" like Bill Kristol and Krauthammer to join forces with McCain, Biden, Albright to send Wesley to the Balkans.

Actually, this was one of those rare instances where the aqendas of the neocons and the libs crossed, but for two different reasons.

The Democrats wanted to narcissistically pretend that it was WWII and they were "saving the Jews" -- and Clinton needed something to take the US' minds off of Monica.

For the Neocons, the 50th anniversary of NATO was coming up with not a single engagement in all of those 50 years. But neocons didn't want NATO to disappear so NATO needed to validate its existence ASAP, because if it didn't, NATO would be an easy target for the political scrap heap.

A neocon lightbulb moment!: What better way for necons to validate NATO's existence and silence Lib objections to NATO's continuation than to makes its first engagement for a lib "humanitarian cause"? And that is precisely what the 1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia was billed as!

The "1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia" was nothing more than "a dirty political deal" brokered to satisfy the unwritten agendas of both the Neocon Republicans and the Liberal Democrats. The fact that people died, a country was destroyed, and we blew open the gates of Europe to Islamofascists was irrelevant to guys like Lieberman & McCain -- "The Donkeys and Elephants marched hand-in-hand and NATO was saved!" was supposed to be the real story -- even if where they marched was "into Hell"!

46 posted on 07/27/2006 9:11:03 AM PDT by Bokababe (www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Bokababe; La Enchiladita; Arizona Carolyn
If NATO is supposedly a peacekeeping force, then why are they just standing around watching the Islamofacists torch Christianity in Kosovo.   By definition, what kind of peace is NATO attempting to keep?   NATO forces claim they are helpless to intervene, because they don't want to get in the crossfire.   Why the hell are NATO even in there?   When is that territory going to be returned to it's rightful owner?


     
Support the war on terror...

 

 

48 posted on 07/27/2006 10:25:36 AM PDT by Smartass ("In God We Trust" - "An informed and knowledgeably citizen is the best defense against tyranny")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Bokababe
The Democrats wanted to narcissistically pretend that it was WWII and they were "saving the Jews" -- and Clinton needed something to take the US' minds off of Monica.

And Clinton got to establish (for the generally oblivious public, at least), Democratic defense "creds" -- in a multi-lateral (we had "friends!") air war where our military could be nuanced by our oh-so-wise Euro allies, with no question of using ground troops, and minimal risk of US casualties.

The media obliged by painting the muslims as pathetic victims, and the Christians as viscious animals.

A perfect Democrat war, the illusion of which needs to be maintained until, of course, the reality of Islamic conquest can be blamed on our subsequent evil untilateral agression which radicalized those poor muslim victims.

I doubt that Schwartz will be taking any more bus trips in that area of the world. Reality can be harmful to your health.

93 posted on 07/28/2006 2:02:07 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson