Again, the point is weak because the author’s (and your) grasp of history is weak. We could point to a nation as being an ally of long standing if we had any actual history of being an ally with them. Our involvement in World War I had nothing to do with the Serbs, and their involvement in World War I had nothing to do with us and a lot to do with the assassination of Ferdinand.
As the United States was not willing to stick its neck out for Serbia or for Yugoslavia at the times that both countries were under attack, and since history is devoid of examples where Serbia or Yugoslavia have stuck out their necks on America’s behalf, I fail to see how this has any relevance on our later actions in the 1990s.
Iraq was a “major” enemy? Perhaps to the Kuwaitis. Now there’s a great long-standing ally in the Republican view of things. Our people die to get their country back for them in 1991, and their leaders are all hanging out at discos in Cairo waiting for the shooting to end.
Do you mean the thousands of dead civilians killed by our long-time “ally” the Serbs? Plenty of people were complaining about it.
My outrage about your complete ignorance of history? About your quoting a writer who appears clueless about history? No reason to be confused: I prefer forum threads chock full of facts. Now, Tigerman has pulled up some interesting dictionary definition that indicate his belief that “facts” includes “false facts”, but I expect more than that.
I’ll take that as a compliment, then. A little research will take you a long way.
Probably just swimming, followed by a visit to the driving range.