George is the GREAT PRETENDER

That makes no sense...do you mean fools abound all over the place ??? thats true i guess. but some places have more than others.

 

It makes perfect sense since the whole thrust of your assertion seems to be that only those who oppose a clearly expeditionary war of aggression in which we have been in the wrong since the very start are the fools.

Anyone following events would have recognised foolishness from all sides.

 

No i was talking about one person making anti war people seem ill informed (not saying i am) but if you come out with something it should hold at least a little water...or oil ... whatever..

 

The Facts? Are you kidding me? I want to know why you think it's okay for Clinton to allow the building of a $829 million and $695 million bases in Bosnia but Cheney and company can't allow the building a 51 million dollar one? Your right, I think people are getting the picture as to what is really going on.

 

I'll tell you why Jozak. Clinton stabilized Bosnia and kept a war from spilling into other parts of Europe has it had during WWI. Why? Because it was the right thing to do and it prevented bloodshed. The United Nations gave Clinton and Blair a standing ovation.


Bush destabilized a region that was stable. Why? Oil.

If you don't see the difference, it's because you don't want to.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

Interestingly, Clinton's intervention in Kosovo (which I supported) had no UN authorisation, so it's hard to believe it got a standing ovation for that. His royal leftishness Chomsky considered it illegal.

But back to Iraq, would you consider Saddam's various genocidal campaigns against his own people to be evidence of "stability"?

 

I found it to be an amazing victory as well. I saw the ovation on CNN. It seemed as if the U.N. would clap forever with Clinton standing in the middle of the room smiling and unable to speak because of all the adulation. Such news coverage has been nearly stripped from the Internet.

Although the U.N. did not originally support military action, it was a quick and decisive NATO action that was followed by a lot of humanitarian aid, not occupation.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0305.blumenthal.html

After the Kosovo war, other world leaders regarded Clinton with a deference that extended beyond his role as the chief of state of the number-one power. They considered him a first among equals because of who and what he was, not only because of the country he represented. They knew that he understood in depth their own countries' economics and history and politics like no other U.S. president before him. Because of their implicit trust in him, U.S. prestige reached a zenith it had not enjoyed since perhaps the presidency of John F. Kennedy, when the Western leadership had not been so close. "Because of his empathy and understanding, the world felt included and not resentful of America," a British cabinet minister told me.

 

Jozak, I am not a big fan of the clinton administration, so don't count me off as someone who defends all dems and hates all republicans, that is not the way it is, i just want the truth. Bosnia under Clinton's presidency was VERY unstable, buses would be pulled over and everyone on would be shot and killed, including little children. Woman were constantly being raped and killed on a daily basis, It was around the state of the Sudan, and if Bush sent troops to stop the genocide in Sudan, I would NOT be against that, Just like i wasn't against troops being sent to Bosnia, but I am against troops being sent to Iraq because Iraq was a stable nation. Saddam needed to be taken out of power, but there was time to come up with a plan to get him out of power, instead of rush to war and send our troops there the completely wrong way, excluding the fact that it was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia that ACTUALLY attacked us, shouldn't we be there? well, we went to Afghanistan, but of course Bush didn't send troops to saudi arabia, home of his oil buddies. Instead, he sent troops to Iraq, where the hell is the reason for that? WMD? than why didn't we go to Iran, Putting an end to an evil dictator? Why didn't we go to China? Freeing and Liberating the people from murder and rape? Why didn't we go to the Sudan?? There is no justifiable reason for us to go to Iraq.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Oh I am not dismissing anything you say. I supported going into Bosnia to. One of my best friends is a Bosnian Muslim, and his dad got murdered over there by the asshole Milosivich. I am just saying I think it's hypocritical to allow Clinton to build 2 500million dollar plus bases for a military operation and not allow Bush to build a 51 million dollar one for Iraq. This is not weather we agreed with the war or not, but we are over there, we went to war, so we need to make sure we obtain the best outcome for the Iraqis, that is all I want. Honestly, I did not have an opinion on the war, which is surprising becasue I have an opinion on almost everything. I was frankly sick of hearing about it, and nothing else on the news, so my thinking was, "If we are going to go in, let's hurry up and do it and get it over with."

 

Well I will admit, it is a lot easier for the Media and the country to critisize Bush than Clinton, because Clinton was such a strong talker and leader, unlike Bush, but personally, I think both of them should have been critisized to the same amount.

Peace and Love,
Dan