Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"WalterM140" wrote:
Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the worst
president
-ever- and he is got to go.

Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.

Bush clearly is the worst president ever.

He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.

What other president has done that with so little justification?

Clinton and Kosovo.

Intervention in Kososvo may have prevented another Bosnia. Preventing
the spread of war in Europe is pretty important to American
Security.

The Spanish-American War comes to mind though.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"WalterM140" wrote:
Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the
worst
president
-ever- and he is got to go.

Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.

Bush clearly is the worst president ever.

He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.

What other president has done that with so little justification?

Clinton and Kosovo.

Intervention in Kososvo may have prevented another Bosnia.

UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia". Besides
the intervention in Kosovo didn't put any troops on the ground to actually
prevent genocide and some reports even suggest that the intervention
resulted in an expanded effort by the Serbs to eliminate the KLA and who
they considered "Albanian" immigrants from the area.

Preventing
the spread of war in Europe is pretty important to American
Security.

"Spread of war", the "war" after the death of Tito was restricted to one
country and would have stayed that way without any intervention.

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"WalterM140" wrote:
Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the
worst
president
-ever- and he is got to go.

Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.

Bush clearly is the worst president ever.

He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.

What other president has done that with so little justification?

Clinton and Kosovo.

Intervention in Kososvo may have prevented another Bosnia.

UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".

Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no. It took years to convince
our NATO allies ot intervene in Bosnia and then mere weeks to
end the war.

Besides
the intervention in Kosovo didn't put any troops on the ground to actually
prevent genocide and some reports even suggest that the intervention
resulted in an expanded effort by the Serbs to eliminate the KLA and who
they considered "Albanian" immigrants from the area.

The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
ended quickly. But rectal vision is always 20/20.


Preventing
the spread of war in Europe is pretty important to American
Security.

"Spread of war", the "war" after the death of Tito was restricted to one
country and would have stayed that way without any intervention.

Hard to say one way or the other. However I tend to agree.

The American/NATO intervention in the Balkans whether successful
or not, was done to put an end to civil war there. The American/UK
invasion of Iraq was allegedly done to preempt the threat of Iraqi
aggression that had already been successfully averted and contained
by other means.

There is no denying that there was as valid a humanitarian motive in
the Iraqi invasions as in the interventions in the Balkans. The
long term outcome of each remains to be seen.

--

FF

"Fred the peabrained Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"WalterM140" wrote:
Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the
worst
president
-ever- and he is got to go.

Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.

Bush clearly is the worst president ever.

He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.

What other president has done that with so little justification?

Clinton and Kosovo.

Intervention in Kososvo may have prevented another Bosnia.

UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".

Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no.

Bull****, UN peacekeeping operations had everything to do with the resulting
genocide in Bosnia.

It took years to convince
our NATO allies ot intervene in Bosnia and then mere weeks to
end the war.

There is a good review about the affair called "Responsibility of Command:
How UN and NATO Commander Influenced Airpower over Bosnia", Mark Bucknam. A
pdf of the book is available at:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aup...am/Bucknam.pdf

Try reading it.

Besides
the intervention in Kosovo didn't put any troops on the ground to
actually
prevent genocide and some reports even suggest that the intervention
resulted in an expanded effort by the Serbs to eliminate the KLA and who
they considered "Albanian" immigrants from the area.

The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
ended quickly.

It went to Serbia very early and that didn't cause the Serbian withdrawal
from Kosovo. The guarantee from Clinton that he wouldn't allow the use of US
ground troops ensured that the Serbian's were not going to be forced to
leave Kosovo. The Russians had considerably more influence on Milosevic
actions than any NATO bombing.

But rectal vision is always 20/20.

Especially when YOUR rectal vision is a rewrite of recent history.

Preventing
the spread of war in Europe is pretty important to American
Security.

"Spread of war", the "war" after the death of Tito was restricted to one
country and would have stayed that way without any intervention.

Hard to say one way or the other. However I tend to agree.

The American/NATO intervention in the Balkans whether successful
or not, was done to put an end to civil war there.

An internal struggle with little likelihood of spreading beyond the borders
of the country concerned.

The American/UK
invasion of Iraq was allegedly done to preempt the threat of Iraqi
aggression that had already been successfully averted and contained
by other means.

That wasn't really the view of any world leader in January 2003.

There is no denying that there was as valid a humanitarian motive in
the Iraqi invasions as in the interventions in the Balkans. The
long term outcome of each remains to be seen.

The Balkan's will still be a mess and the fault will lie squarely with the
UN.

"Brett" wrote in message . ..
"Fred the peabrained Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
....


UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".

Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no.

Bull****, UN peacekeeping operations had everything to do with the resulting
genocide in Bosnia.

Clearly the arms restriction prevented the Bosnians from defending
themselves while doing little to impede the Serbs.

Maybe I don't remember this correctly but I thought that UN
peacekeepers had very little influence in Bosnia until after Dayton.
It was simply too dangerous for them to do anything befor then.


There is a good review about the affair called "Responsibility of Command:
How UN and NATO Commander Influenced Airpower over Bosnia", Mark Bucknam. A
pdf of the book is available at:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aup...am/Bucknam.pdf


Thanks.


The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
ended quickly.

It went to Serbia very early and that didn't cause the Serbian withdrawal
from Kosovo. The guarantee from Clinton that he wouldn't allow the use of US
ground troops ensured that the Serbian's were not going to be forced to
leave Kosovo. The Russians had considerably more influence on Milosevic
actions than any NATO bombing.

Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections and
why that was more influential than being bombed?


The American/NATO intervention in the Balkans whether successful
or not, was done to put an end to civil war there.

An internal struggle with little likelihood of spreading beyond the borders
of the country concerned.

As previously stated, I tend to agree. However at least there already
was war there. You made the argument that the NATO intervention
actually destabilized Kosovo. That is arguable but there is no
argument that the invasion of Iraq destabilized Iraq.


The American/UK
invasion of Iraq was allegedly done to preempt the threat of Iraqi
aggression that had already been successfully averted and contained
by other means.

That wasn't really the view of any world leader in January 2003.

There are no world leaders.

As you know, that view was officially held by at least two nations
with permanent membership in the UN Security Council. It seems all
but inescapable that it was also the opinion of the US and UK, else
why sabotage the weapons inspection program by feeding the UN and
IAEA inspectors false information?


There is no denying that there was as valid a humanitarian motive in
the Iraqi invasions as in the interventions in the Balkans. The
long term outcome of each remains to be seen.

The Balkan's will still be a mess and the fault will lie squarely with the
UN.

Perhaps I am optimistic but I still hold hope for both the Balkans and
Iraq.

--

FF

Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections and
why that was more influential than being bombed?

Russians did not influence the elections, but they did influence Mr.Milosevic
by making him believe that a NATO ground offensive was likely.(It was not)

argument that the NATO intervention
actually destabilized Kosovo. That is arguable but there is no
argument that the invasion of Iraq

The controlled destablization of Iraq was a major war aim.
After collapse of Brzenzinski's ambitious "Eurasia plan" the fault line is now
between Cyprus and Afghanistan and all countries on this line will experience
similar things within this decade.

UN Security Council. It seems all
but inescapable that it was also the opinion of the US and UK, else
why sabotage the weapons inspection program by feeding the UN and
IAEA inspectors false informa

Some countries in western Hemisphere are actually fighting for their bare
survival but politicians have no guts to tell the truth to public.

Perhaps I am optimistic but I still hold hope for both the Balkans and
Iraq.

Balkan countries are no longer on fault line but for Iraq and the other
countries between Cyprus and Afghanistan the same cannot be said,for them even
worse yet to come.

"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
. ..
"Fred the peabrained Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
...


UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".

Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no.

Bull****, UN peacekeeping operations had everything to do with the
resulting
genocide in Bosnia.

Clearly the arms restriction prevented the Bosnians from defending
themselves while doing little to impede the Serbs.

Maybe I don't remember this correctly but I thought that UN
peacekeepers had very little influence in Bosnia until after Dayton.
It was simply too dangerous for them to do anything befor then.


There is a good review about the affair called "Responsibility of
Command:
How UN and NATO Commander Influenced Airpower over Bosnia", Mark
Bucknam. A
pdf of the book is available at:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aup...am/Bucknam.pdf


Thanks.


The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
ended quickly.

It went to Serbia very early and that didn't cause the Serbian
withdrawal
from Kosovo. The guarantee from Clinton that he wouldn't allow the use
of US
ground troops ensured that the Serbian's were not going to be forced to
leave Kosovo. The Russians had considerably more influence on Milosevic
actions than any NATO bombing.

Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections

The withdrawl started in June, the election had nothing to do with it.

and
why that was more influential than being bombed?

The election had nothing to do with the Serbian withdrawl from Kosovo.

The American/NATO intervention in the Balkans whether successful
or not, was done to put an end to civil war there.

An internal struggle with little likelihood of spreading beyond the
borders
of the country concerned.

As previously stated, I tend to agree. However at least there already
was war there. You made the argument that the NATO intervention
actually destabilized Kosovo.

That wasn't the claim I made. It might help if you actually tried to
remember what claims NATO made about what was occurring daily in Kosovo
before the bombing started and compare that with what occurred due to the
bombing.

"Brett" wrote in message . ..
"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
. ..
"Fred the peabrained Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...
...


UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".

Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no.

Bull****, UN peacekeeping operations had everything to do with the
resulting
genocide in Bosnia.

Clearly the arms restriction prevented the Bosnians from defending
themselves while doing little to impede the Serbs.

Maybe I don't remember this correctly but I thought that UN
peacekeepers had very little influence in Bosnia until after Dayton.
It was simply too dangerous for them to do anything befor then.


There is a good review about the affair called "Responsibility of
Command:
How UN and NATO Commander Influenced Airpower over Bosnia", Mark
Bucknam. A
pdf of the book is available at:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aup...am/Bucknam.pdf


Thanks.


The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
ended quickly.

It went to Serbia very early and that didn't cause the Serbian
withdrawal
from Kosovo. The guarantee from Clinton that he wouldn't allow the use
of US
ground troops ensured that the Serbian's were not going to be forced to
leave Kosovo. The Russians had considerably more influence on Milosevic
actions than any NATO bombing.

Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections

The withdrawl started in June, the election had nothing to do with it.

Oh, sorry. I confused those points.

Could you elaborate on why the Russians had more to do with the Serbian
withdrawal from Kosovo, than did the bombing of Serbia proper and
Blegrade in particular?


and
why that was more influential than being bombed?

The election had nothing to do with the Serbian withdrawl from Kosovo.

See above. But so long as we're on the subject (even if by mistake)
do you think the bombing of Serbia (Use of air power we're actually
on-topic here) influenced the elections and contributed to the demise
of the Milosvic regime?

... You made the argument that the NATO intervention
actually destabilized Kosovo.

That wasn't the claim I made. It might help if you actually tried to
remember what claims NATO made about what was occurring daily in Kosovo
before the bombing started and compare that with what occurred due to the
bombing.

While it is true you didn't use the word 'destabilize' I thought it
to be an apt characterization of what you did describe.

It is pretty clear that Iraq was destablized by the 2003 invasion
and has yet to re-stabilize.

--

FF

"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
. ..
"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
....

Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections

The withdrawl started in June, the election had nothing to do with it.

Oh, sorry. I confused those points.

It appears to be your permanent state.