"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
R. David Steele wrote:
Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
China in the near future for control of the far East.

Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
fight.

Easier said than done. We got into that one because the Serbs were
practicing a
little genocide against their former Moslem neighbors and we decided to
break it
up, good guys that we are. How's it going to look if we pull out and let
them
resume their blood bath? When it comes to something like genocide, aren't
we
supposed to stop it and see that it stays stopped? Or would looking the
other
way make the practice palatable?

Have you been hiding under the same rock that Art inhabits? Noticed any
changes in terms of how things are these days in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
SFOR was down to 12K troops total (not just from the US) in 2002; MNB-N, for
which the US has been the major contributor, is down to 2,700 troops total.
The situation has largely stabilized, and the question of why we have to
continue to contribute troops to this task is a viable one. After all,
Georgie, your man Clinton told us when he sent our IFOR contingent into the
region back in late 1995 that we would be out of there in 1997...which would
seem to weigh against your whining about the continuing troop requirement in
Iraq today.

Brooks


George Z.