Clinton's Kosovo Whopper

Bosnian Moslems are the same as Saudi Moslems and all Moslems are extremists, eh? What a hack!

 

No kidding. Bosnia is one of the few places left in the world where Americans are loved. It's one thing to hate Clinton, but to defend rapes and torture and muirder to get a swat at him, that's despicable.

Osama and Co. tried to radicalize the Bosnians and Kosovars to hate the "evil American crusaders." His guys were beat up and escorted to the border. They know who saved them from ethnic cleansing.

 

So, may I assume that you are drawing parallels between Serbia and Iraq?
Are you sure you want to do that?

BTW, do you ever intend to tell us the source of the quote you include at the bottom of your emails, or are you claiming that you have said this? I have asked you several times in several discussions, and the silence you have offered thus far is deafening.......

BiR

 

BiR, The quote came from Karl Rove, Sean Hannity likes to repeat it a lot on his program. In my opinion you could say that conservatives saw the savagry of 9-11, the neocons saw a cash cow and milked it for all she was worth.

 

Serbia could have been an Iraq. Fortunately, Clinton was president at the time.

 

I suppose some could compare this article you quoted, with the fact that we have now lost more lives in the Iraq war than we lost on 9-11.

http://www.infoshout.com/iraq%20death%20toll.htm

http://iraq.pigstye.net/


Does it make a difference? No. Lives are still being lost.

It's peculiar how every mistake, if it was a mistake, by Clinton is brought to light, however, from my memory, you hardly ever point out Bushes faults and mistakes. At least not to the same degree as Clinton...

A pattern I see...


Jamie

 

EVERYBODY knows that - thanks for doing what carpro couldn't do for himself.

Regards,
BiR

 

That's fair enough.. I point my fingers to all politicans. I think they are all rotten to the core!

Jamie

 

They are NOT the same things.

• First, as I mentioned before, the Bosnian Moslems had nothing to do with the Arab Moslems that perpetrated 9-11.
• Second, Clinton didn't support the extremist Muslim forces in Europe, he stopped the genocide of the Bosnians.
• Third, to whom was the Bosnian genocide intervention controversial? The Republican controlled Congress supported it as did the UN.
• Fourth, the method of regime change that Clinton supported did not include invading and wrecking the country, but working with the resident opposition to bring change from within.
• Fifth, Clinton did not pretend that Kosovo was threatening the US, so that is a false comparison.
• Sixth, Clinton did not pretend that Serbia did have weapons of mass destruction, so that is another ridiculously false comparison

It's one thing to compare the situations, but it's quite another to draw false analogies to cover up Bush's debacle.

 

Don't see how. Maybe you can show us.

Um, yes, he did. His intervention was decisive in stopping the ethnic cleansing. This is not controversial.

So far, you haven't shown any numbers. Show us.

Since when does the US report to the UN for permission?

Bosnia is peaceful and free. Iraq is a nightmare of violence. Nuff said.

If you think the lives of the Bosnians don't count, I suppose so. I never thought I'd hear a professed Christian being an apologist for rape and torture.

BTW, it was Serbian militia, armed with heavy equipment supplied by the Yugoslav army, against Kosovo civilians. Some "civil war." You might as well say Saddam had a civil war with his political enemies.

I know you hate Clinton, but making apologies for genocide and systematic rape, that goes over the line. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

You hear it every time a Christian of your political ilk says we shouldn't have overthrown Saddam. The Iraq rape rooms and torture chambers would still be running at full steam if we hadn't.
As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, liberals only support the use of our military in situations where there is absolutely no US national interest involved. Bosnia, solely to try to stop ethnic cleansing? Sure. Iraq, where a madman was sponsoring international terrorism in addition to committing atrocities? Should have stayed out!

 

I suspect that most democrats are delighted to compare Clinton's involvement in the Balkans, to Bush's war in Iraq. Nothing could point up the difference between Bush and Clinton more accurately.

 

There were less destructive methods for regime change.

The torture chambers at Abu Gharib were taken over and continued by the liberators. Great.

Now rape rooms are not needed as there are no longer any civil peace force son any hooligan on the street can rape an unescorted girl. Kidnappings, torture and murder by gangs and rival militias are more frequent than Saddam & sons could manage. Is gassing that much worse than firebombing with white phosphorus?

Rush Limbaugh will say anything whether there is any basis or not. If you believe him, more fool you, but if you're merely parroting him without regards to truth, more shame on you.

No, not solely but that provided some of the moral impetus.

The world is full of madmen sponsoring internationl terrorism. The most grievous atrocities were committed nearly 20 years before the invasion while in a war - not long after which Rumsfeld shook his hand.

No one claims that Saddam was a good man or that it is better that he not be in power, but he was an excuse, not the reason, Bush attacked Iraq. He had been mostly contained by the time of the invasion - atrocities and genocides were going full steam in Africa before and even now than in Iraq, but that doesn't impress Bush. Iraq had sanctions imposed, inspections taking place and was even being bombed from time to time for violations. North Korea and Iran claim to have active nuclear programmes, North Korea for weapons and Iran for energy, yet Iraq, which has only the remnants of one disabled a decade ago by Bush's daddy, is the one chosen for a "preemptive strike". Why?

 

Gosh carpro, you can never resist a personal slap in the face instead of just addressing the issues, can you?

The Barbarian covered this nicely.

 

Ok, NATO, not UN - you got me.

Would you care to discuss all the other points or just engage in ridicule? For instance, how were the Bosnians involved with 9-11?