Another war, a different situation entirely

Let’s compare Yugoslavia and Iraq shall we, just for a brief moment to recall the successes of Democrats in office.

[quote]For 78 days in 1999, we bombed Christian Yugoslavia (our ally in two World Wars) to aid Moslem separatists who were tight with Osama bin Laden. Ever since, NATO has occupied its sovereign territory

Snore. More dramatic oversimplifications. How very Republican.

What’s oversimplified?

Did we have UN approval? NO Did we even have Congressional approval? No. Talk about rushing to war.

Now, was there any evidence of ethnic cleansing and mass graves? No. And this was the ONLY reason that Clinton gave for invading. Bush gave many reasons for invading and removing Saddam, the one the media focuses on most was wmds since this was playing out in the UN as it was the theme of interest there.

Bush would have invaded Bulgaria.

Fred once again shows his ignorance of history through his selection of that ridiculous quote. Yugoslavia didn’t exist as a country during World War I, so how the heck were they our “ally”? The Kingdom of Serbia took some heat from the Austro-Hungarians after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, but you don’t need to take part of the future Yugoslavia, invent a non-existent (at that time) country, and tell us they were our “ally.”

During World War II, Yugoslavia was so fragmented that it’s people’s behavior during the war led, ultimately, to the ethnic tensions that tore Yugoslavia apart again in the 1990s. Again, who was our ally? The Croatian Ustashi, who sided with Hitler and outdid even the SS in their brutality against Serbs, Bosnians and everybody else they could get their hands on. the Bosnian-Hercegovinians? These guys signed up in droves to join the German auxiliary troops and, in their own right, were quite good at killing Serbs and Croats. How about Mihailovich’s Chetniks, the primarily Serb group? They started out well enough but ended the war striking deals with the Nazis so that they could try to kill Tito’s Partisans. Some frickin’ “ally”.

Um Ignoramus aka MFGR hahaha:

The ally was Serbia. Serbia IS Yugoslavia right now. That is what the nation of Serbia plus Montenegro calls itself now, it does not yet call itself Serbia so I think that the choice of wording while confusing is clear when you consider the fact that when the war happened (1999) all the other regions were already split off from Yugoslavia which is how Serbia refers to itself today. No one could possibly (though I suppose in your case someone did so let’s clarify that by saying no one with an intimate knowledge of the region would confuse the author’s meaning), that is except perhaps someone very very ignorant and very very stupid hahahahah. The meaning is clear: We went to war with Yugoslavia = Serbia, an ally of long standing to fight a war over massive human rights violations but discovered that none existed when we got there.

Compare this with the fact that Iraq was a major enemy with which we had a ceasefire that was conditional on it not us proving that it was compliant. It did not. 17 resolutions in the UN said it was not and we finally went to war.

Compare the fact that in Kosovo there was no UN resolution nor even congressional approval. Compare the thousands of dead civilians with nary a complaint from our erstwhile “one death is too many” brigade. This is why we are very confused about the outrage of posters such as MFGR now, but then past posts have made it very clear which posters have a command of facts and which do not. Ready to run again MFGR?

That’s my favourite bit. Yep all those people the campaign was meant to save were actually tight with Osama bin Laden. That’s right, even them old grannies and babies etc etc. All a bunch of terrorists. Poor old Slobo was just trying to to the world a favour, but we stopped him. I guess now we would just call the genocide he hoped to commit in the cause of serb ultra nationalism a ‘preventative action in the war on terror’.

Yes. And by and large, the more vocal the poster, regardless of which side, the weaker their grip on the facts has been.

Come on Fred try not to be an arse, who gives a shit if they were Christian or Muslim.

Not one of you who have responded to fred’s initial post have addressed the real point (the point that FS hi-lited in bold type), i.e., that we went to war without congressional authorization and also did it without the permission of the United Nations.

Nor have any of you addressed the second point, which is that Clinton rushed us into an unauthorized war for what Rascal and some others would term a “lie”.

There is an obvious double standard at work here… does nobody want to comment on it?

mofangongren?

[quote=“Tigerman”]Not one of you who have responded to fred’s initial post have addressed the real point (the point that FS hi-lited in bold type), i.e., that we went to war without congressional authorization and also did it without the permission of the United Nations.

Nor have any of you addressed the second point, which is that Clinton rushed us into an unauthorized war for what Rascal and some others would term a “lie”.

There is an obvious double standard at work here… does nobody want to comment on it?

mofangongren?[/quote]

You’re asking to be floundered…

Excuse me? Care to explain what you mean?

Yes, Rascal:

You are very concerned with the “truth” when it pertains to Bush and his misleading of world opinion. Given that there was no humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and given that the Albanians there played the media like a violin or it is a fool? What do you have to say about Clinton’s lying to the American people? He did not even get congressional approval for this little venture and your nation and France were right there in the front with him ASSAULTING a sovereign nation with no wmds, no record of developing them and no ceasefire agreement demanding it prove it was complying. YOUR nation Germany supported this to the hilt. YOUR nation was instrumental in creating the problem in the first place by demanding as I have shown in another thread, that all the other EU nations support the independence of Croatia and Slovenia. Of the 15 EU nations at the time, 14 were against, only Germany supported this and it forced everyone to go along with its little game. Tragedy ensured. What do you have to say about these lies, and the contemptible disrespect that Germany and France had for Yugoslavian sovereignty? contempt for UN approval and international law? Contempt for the TRUTH? hahaha

Sigh… to some, even the obvious appears hidden while the far-fetched seems likely. :unamused:

Rascal, did you or did you not engage in an argument that lasted almost two years and which was contained in no less than 4 different threads, wherein you asserted that President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq?

You argued that because Bush asserted that Saddam possessed WMD despite his knowledge that he was relying on intelligence, the nature of which is virtually never 100% certain, that he thus “lied”.

Well… what is different about what Clinton did? He rushed us into war alleging genocide. His claim relied on intelligence regarding the alleged genocide, despite knowing that he was relying on intelligence, the nature of which is virtually never 100% certain.

:unamused:

Sigh… to some, even the obvious appears hidden while the far-fetched seems likely. :unamused:

Rascal, did you or did you not engage in an argument that lasted almost two years and which was contained in no less than 4 different threads, wherein you asserted that President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq?

You argued that because Bush asserted that Saddam possessed WMD despite his knowledge that he was relying on intelligence, the nature of which is virtually never 100% certain, that he thus “lied”.

Well… what is different about what Clinton did? He rushed us into war alleging genocide. His claim relied on intelligence regarding the alleged genocide, despite knowing that he was relying on intelligence, the nature of which is virtually never 100% certain.

:unamused:[/quote]

And some people never learn to quit. As usual your statement is an oversimplification of the argument and biased in your favour also.

Had Clinton used such terms as WE KNOW and WE CAN PROVE then the comparison you are now trying to draw might be valid, care to prove that comparison. Thought not !!! :unamused:

Traveller:

You were saying…

Traveller Wrote:

[quote] And some people never learn to quit. As usual your statement is an oversimplification of the argument and biased in your favour also.

Had Clinton used such terms as WE KNOW and WE CAN PROVE then the comparison you are now trying to draw might be valid, care to prove that comparison. Thought not !!! [/quote]

[quote]“We know that by the time our air strikes began, the Serb
campaign of executions and expulsions had already started,” he
said. Milosevic was indicted in part because of a massacre of
ethnic Albanians in Kosovo that occurred in January – two
months before NATO bombing started March 24. Using similar
tactics in Croatia and Bosnia earlier this decade, Milosevic
loyalists drove 2.5 million people from their homes and are
believed to have killed about 250,000 of them, Clinton noted.[/quote]

dod.gov/news/Jun1999/n06031999_9906031.html

Just wanting to make sure I understood your argument correctly.

[quote]Rascal, did you or did you not engage in an argument that lasted almost two years and which was contained in no less than 4 different threads, wherein you asserted that President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq?

You argued that because Bush asserted that Saddam possessed WMD despite his knowledge that he was relying on intelligence, the nature of which is virtually never 100% certain, that he thus “lied”. [/quote]
Based on what I recall I did not accuse him of lying just because he stated things based on intelligence as you imply, I did so because he stated things as definite knowledge, against the better knowledge that it was not (definite knowledge).
That is an imporant distinction, one which you seem not be able to grasp and thus we perhaps should just give this issue a rest.

Oh, so now it’s ‘virtually never 100 certain’? Moving the bar, are we?

Anyhow, I am not familiar with what exactly Clinton said and thus I can’t comment if your comparision (or is that analogy?) and thus your conclusion that I, Rascal, (or others) would call it a lie, sticks.

Well here you go Rascal:

Here’s the exact quote from Clinton so what’s the difference and when is a lie not a lie? I am very curious to see how your “apparent” doublestandard fares in this particular case. What do you say now about Clinton and the German supported effort in Kosovo now that we now the “true facts?”

Traveller:

You were saying…

Traveller Wrote:

[quote]And some people never learn to quit. As usual your statement is an oversimplification of the argument and biased in your favour also.

Had Clinton used such terms as WE KNOW and WE CAN PROVE then the comparison you are now trying to draw might be valid, care to prove that comparison. Thought not !!! [/quote]

[quote]“We know that by the time our air strikes began, the Serb
campaign of executions and expulsions had already started,” he
said. Milosevic was indicted in part because of a massacre of
ethnic Albanians in Kosovo that occurred in January – two
months before NATO bombing started March 24. Using similar
tactics in Croatia and Bosnia earlier this decade, Milosevic
loyalists drove 2.5 million people from their homes and are
believed to have killed about 250,000 of them, Clinton noted. [/quote]

dod.gov/news/Jun1999/n06031999_9906031.html

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.

What about this Rascal and Traveller:

[quote]In Kosovo, [b]the American people were told by the Clinton administration that the U.S. had to act through NATO because hundreds of thousands of