Gravitymaster 0 #1 March 16, 2003 Just wondering how many supported the Humanitarian War against Milosevich when President Clinton accused him of "Ethnic Cleansing" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #2 March 16, 2003 yes, I paid my taxes...if anyone knows how to NOT pay (legally)PM me!My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking 0 #3 March 16, 2003 I wonder if Monica's breath smells like Spunk of Clinton....... can we please stop it with the damn war threads?!I swear you must have footprints on the back of your helmet - chicagoskydiver My God has a bigger dick than your god -George Carlin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #4 March 16, 2003 why would you wonder that? wanna taste for yourself do ya? EEEWWWMy photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #6 March 17, 2003 QuoteI did wait... you did? taste it for yourself or support clinton? Im confused LOLMy photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #7 March 17, 2003 supported clinton lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #8 March 17, 2003 ok just making Sure HAHA! My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #9 March 17, 2003 Quoteok just making Sure HAHA! oh and unlike slick willie I know what "is" is Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #10 March 17, 2003 Actually, all bs aside, this is a very interesting question. Yes. With the same reservations I have now about war (any war, any place, any time), I supported him. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #11 March 17, 2003 yes but...oh never mind LOL at body pilots response.... can we define "is' LOLMy photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akaGQ 0 #12 March 17, 2003 Ok perhaps Im out of line for saying this and Im sure this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic but I have a question....last time I checked 69% of americans were for the war effort and such that is going on right now but so many people at the same time are point fingers at G.W. like hes satan or something when at the same time Clinton during his administration fired what was it 20, 21 or something of that nature missles at saddam and such but now that enuf is enuf its like everyone is saying Bush is horrid and blah blah blah. As for me when he addressed the nation the other night and was talking about time and such in my opinion why should we give this idiot more time...hes not gonna destroy all of his weapons he would just keep building more and such which is moredangerous to this country and everyone here. The only thing that kinda disturbed me was when I heard that the pope had a meeting with the prime minister and stated that he didnt feel he should get in the war effort and support us in this due to it becoming a holy way. Did that scare me a little yes it did.And as for North Korea and the 3rd parallelthats another story I say we just nuke the shit out of em and call that quits....that crap shoulda ended after veitnam but then again we were in a war that we really didnt need to be a part of. - GQ ... it was the love of the air and sky and flying, the lure of adventure, the appreciation of beauty ... -Charles Lindberg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #13 March 17, 2003 Yes, I did. My daughter is marrying a man from Bosnia next month, nice guy even if he is a MOSLEM!!!! Actually, a jack moslem similar to a jack mormon?!? Apparently everyone was supporting Clinton in that engagement, don't recall anyone from the left out in the streets protesting then War, hmmppp, what is it good for? Absouletly nuffin....Good Gawd ya'll..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 March 17, 2003 Quote Yes, I did. My daughter is marrying a man from Bosnia next month, nice guy even if he is a MOSLEM!!!! Actually, a jack moslem similar to a jack mormon?!? Apparently everyone was supporting Clinton in that engagement, don't recall anyone from the left out in the streets protesting then War, hmmppp, what is it good for? Absouletly nuffin....Good Gawd ya'll..... Does seem odd doesn't it? I wonder why it was O.K. for Clinton to take unilateral action against Milosevich but GWB is expected to get U.N. approval to take action against Saddam. Perhaps GWB should have just claimed it was a humanitarian effort. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TitaniumLegs 8 #15 March 17, 2003 QuoteI wonder why it was O.K. for Clinton to take unilateral action against Milosevich... He didn't. There have been several UN operations in the former Yugoslavia, the first of which started without American involvement. UN troops were there a couple years before most Americans even knew there was something to be concerned about. The reason Europe backed the operations is that it's in their own backyard. For those who didn't pay any attention to the first half of the last century, the First World War started in Sarajevo, although it would probably have happened anyway. The number 1 cause of the Second World War was the aftermath of the First World War, in particular the war reparations imposed on Germany. Europe is not prepared to let those kinds of mistakes happen again. Pretty much every president in the last half century has had some overseas war, conflict, coup d'etat or what have you to deal with. Some have had UN backing, most have had other nations on their side. (>o|-< If you don't believe me, ask me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #16 March 17, 2003 Funny the rest of the world and the UN were also not on board for that either. But when its a different administration the protests seem louder. Glen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 March 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteI wonder why it was O.K. for Clinton to take unilateral action against Milosevich... QuoteHe didn't. There have been several UN operations in the former Yugoslavia, the first of which started without American involvement. UN troops were there a couple years before most Americans even knew there was something to be concerned about. Yes he did. There was no vote for the action by the U.N. Security Council. QuoteThe reason Europe backed the operations is that it's in their own backyard. For those who didn't pay any attention to the first half of the last century, the First World War started in Sarajevo, although it would probably have happened anyway. The number 1 cause of the Second World War was the aftermath of the First World War, in particular the war reparations imposed on Germany. Europe is not prepared to let those kinds of mistakes happen again. I disagree. I think Europe is making the same mistakes they made when they tried to appease Hitler. Answer this question: If Saddam doesn't have WMD, then why is he threatening to use them if America attacks? QuotePretty much every president in the last half century has had some overseas war, conflict, coup d'etat or what have you to deal with. Some have had UN backing, most have had other nations on their side. Then why is it SO important this time for GWB to have U.N. approval over and over? Be honest!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #18 March 17, 2003 QuoteSome have had UN backing, most have had other nations on their side. As the United States has other nations on it's side, as well... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sunman 0 #19 March 17, 2003 Quoteso many people at the same time are point fingers at G.W. like hes satan or something when at the same time Clinton during his administration fired what was it 20, 21 or something of that nature missles at saddam and such but now that enuf is enuf its like everyone is saying Bush is horrid and blah blah blah. Exactly. Don't you know that it's only okay for a bleeding heart liberal to bomb somebody, and that it's only fashionable to protest war when there's a republican behind it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #20 March 17, 2003 You people have short memories. When Clinton ordered those attacks there WERE very vocal protests. Protesters accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" , in reference to a movie called Wag the Dog that had just come out, which portrayed a plot to make a fake war in eastern Europe in order to distract the public's attention from a president's sex scandal. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sfc 0 #21 March 17, 2003 The USA was a bit slow on getting involved in this one, I think they were shamed into helping out their NATO allies who were really concerned about having peace in Europe, but this is not altogether suprising when you consider that Serbia doesn't have any oil wells and they make even worse cars than Ford and GM. flame me......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #22 March 17, 2003 QuoteYou people have short memories. When Clinton ordered those attacks there WERE very vocal protests. Protesters accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" , in reference to a movie called Wag the Dog that had just come out, which portrayed a plot to make a fake war in eastern Europe in order to distract the public's attention from a president's sex scandal. Actually, I have a very good memory. There was some vocal opposition to Clinton launching an attack, but certainly not nearly on the scale we are seeing today. I don't remember people in the streets all over the world. I also don't remember Clinton being berated into going to the U.N. for approval after approval. I really see no comparison between the two. Be honest.. why do you think there's so much protest worldwide now, when it didn't exist on the same scale then. Be honest... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #23 March 17, 2003 QuoteI don't remember people in the streets all over the world. I do. QuoteI also don't remember Clinton being berated into going to the U.N. for approval after approval. That's because the UN jumped on board almost immediately with their approval. QuoteBe honest.. why do you think there's so much protest worldwide now, when it didn't exist on the same scale then. Be honest... Honestly, because there was no perceived economic benefit to our involvement there. People believe that the Iraq war is about oil. Whether you think that or not doesn't matter. It is the perception. Even if Bush is being completely altruistic, there exists a reasonable doubt. Whereas with Bosnia, we had no perceived ulterior motive. Also, let's remember that Bosnia was in the middle of commiting ethnic cleansing and was already at war. Iraq is not. If Hussein were currently in the process of gassing the Kurds like he did 15 years ago, there would be much less protest about us going in to stop it. In Bosnia, everyone knew and it was clear that they were in the process of killing civilians. In Iraq, we are supposedly acting to prevent that, not to stop something already in progress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #24 March 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteI don't remember people in the streets all over the world. QuoteI do. Then apparently your memory is different than mine. The protests against war with Iraq have spurred some of the largest protests since Vietnam. When Clinton went into Iraq, I remember a few hundred Freepers protesting in D.C. but that was about it. Certainly not on this scale. Why the difference? QuoteI also don't remember Clinton being berated into going to the U.N. for approval after approval. QuoteThat's because the UN jumped on board almost immediately with their approval. Can you give me the U.N. Security Council Resolution number? QuoteBe honest.. why do you think there's so much protest worldwide now, when it didn't exist on the same scale then. Be honest... QuoteHonestly, because there was no perceived economic benefit to our involvement there. People believe that the Iraq war is about oil. If there's no economic benefit, how can it be about oil? If it's about oil, how come we didn't go into Iraq during the first Gulf War? How come we didn't take over Kuwait if it's about oil? Quote Whether you think that or not doesn't matter. It is the perception. Who was this impression created by? Why was this impression created? QuoteEven if Bush is being completely altruistic, there exists a reasonable doubt. Why is there doubt? Who created the doubt? QuoteWhereas with Bosnia, we had no perceived ulterior motive. Agreed QuoteAlso, let's remember that Bosnia was in the middle of commiting ethnic cleansing and was already at war. Iraq is not. Apparently you haven't been reading some of the accounts of torture coming out by many whom have escaped Iraq. Apparently you aren't aware of the estimated million people Saddam has put to death. QuoteIf Hussein were currently in the process of gassing the Kurds like he did 15 years ago, there would be much less protest about us going in to stop it. Why do you think he stopped gassing the Kurds? Do you think he would still be gassing them if he wasn't under the world's spotlight? QuoteIn Bosnia, everyone knew and it was clear that they were in the process of killing civilians. In Iraq, we are supposedly acting to prevent that, not to stop something already in progress. But it is in progress and if the U.S. were to pull all our troops from the Middle East, don't you think it would continue on an even broader scale? Why aren't millions protesting in the streets for Saddam to leave Iraq so the Iraqi people can be free? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 15 #25 March 17, 2003 Quick rundown of the Bosnia timeline It all started with UN resolution 713 and the was followed up by the Dayton accourds. Once 713 was broken the country was in violation of international law so the UN sent in peacekeeping forces. The US joined a while after the UN troops were on the ground so there was no need for a security counsel resolution. >If it's about oil, how come we didn't go into Iraq during the first Gulf War? The US military command was quoted as saying they wanted to, but were pressured by the allies to stop their drive into Iraq.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Michele 1 #18 March 17, 2003 QuoteSome have had UN backing, most have had other nations on their side. As the United States has other nations on it's side, as well... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sunman 0 #19 March 17, 2003 Quoteso many people at the same time are point fingers at G.W. like hes satan or something when at the same time Clinton during his administration fired what was it 20, 21 or something of that nature missles at saddam and such but now that enuf is enuf its like everyone is saying Bush is horrid and blah blah blah. Exactly. Don't you know that it's only okay for a bleeding heart liberal to bomb somebody, and that it's only fashionable to protest war when there's a republican behind it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #20 March 17, 2003 You people have short memories. When Clinton ordered those attacks there WERE very vocal protests. Protesters accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" , in reference to a movie called Wag the Dog that had just come out, which portrayed a plot to make a fake war in eastern Europe in order to distract the public's attention from a president's sex scandal. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 0 #21 March 17, 2003 The USA was a bit slow on getting involved in this one, I think they were shamed into helping out their NATO allies who were really concerned about having peace in Europe, but this is not altogether suprising when you consider that Serbia doesn't have any oil wells and they make even worse cars than Ford and GM. flame me......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 March 17, 2003 QuoteYou people have short memories. When Clinton ordered those attacks there WERE very vocal protests. Protesters accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" , in reference to a movie called Wag the Dog that had just come out, which portrayed a plot to make a fake war in eastern Europe in order to distract the public's attention from a president's sex scandal. Actually, I have a very good memory. There was some vocal opposition to Clinton launching an attack, but certainly not nearly on the scale we are seeing today. I don't remember people in the streets all over the world. I also don't remember Clinton being berated into going to the U.N. for approval after approval. I really see no comparison between the two. Be honest.. why do you think there's so much protest worldwide now, when it didn't exist on the same scale then. Be honest... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #23 March 17, 2003 QuoteI don't remember people in the streets all over the world. I do. QuoteI also don't remember Clinton being berated into going to the U.N. for approval after approval. That's because the UN jumped on board almost immediately with their approval. QuoteBe honest.. why do you think there's so much protest worldwide now, when it didn't exist on the same scale then. Be honest... Honestly, because there was no perceived economic benefit to our involvement there. People believe that the Iraq war is about oil. Whether you think that or not doesn't matter. It is the perception. Even if Bush is being completely altruistic, there exists a reasonable doubt. Whereas with Bosnia, we had no perceived ulterior motive. Also, let's remember that Bosnia was in the middle of commiting ethnic cleansing and was already at war. Iraq is not. If Hussein were currently in the process of gassing the Kurds like he did 15 years ago, there would be much less protest about us going in to stop it. In Bosnia, everyone knew and it was clear that they were in the process of killing civilians. In Iraq, we are supposedly acting to prevent that, not to stop something already in progress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 March 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteI don't remember people in the streets all over the world. QuoteI do. Then apparently your memory is different than mine. The protests against war with Iraq have spurred some of the largest protests since Vietnam. When Clinton went into Iraq, I remember a few hundred Freepers protesting in D.C. but that was about it. Certainly not on this scale. Why the difference? QuoteI also don't remember Clinton being berated into going to the U.N. for approval after approval. QuoteThat's because the UN jumped on board almost immediately with their approval. Can you give me the U.N. Security Council Resolution number? QuoteBe honest.. why do you think there's so much protest worldwide now, when it didn't exist on the same scale then. Be honest... QuoteHonestly, because there was no perceived economic benefit to our involvement there. People believe that the Iraq war is about oil. If there's no economic benefit, how can it be about oil? If it's about oil, how come we didn't go into Iraq during the first Gulf War? How come we didn't take over Kuwait if it's about oil? Quote Whether you think that or not doesn't matter. It is the perception. Who was this impression created by? Why was this impression created? QuoteEven if Bush is being completely altruistic, there exists a reasonable doubt. Why is there doubt? Who created the doubt? QuoteWhereas with Bosnia, we had no perceived ulterior motive. Agreed QuoteAlso, let's remember that Bosnia was in the middle of commiting ethnic cleansing and was already at war. Iraq is not. Apparently you haven't been reading some of the accounts of torture coming out by many whom have escaped Iraq. Apparently you aren't aware of the estimated million people Saddam has put to death. QuoteIf Hussein were currently in the process of gassing the Kurds like he did 15 years ago, there would be much less protest about us going in to stop it. Why do you think he stopped gassing the Kurds? Do you think he would still be gassing them if he wasn't under the world's spotlight? QuoteIn Bosnia, everyone knew and it was clear that they were in the process of killing civilians. In Iraq, we are supposedly acting to prevent that, not to stop something already in progress. But it is in progress and if the U.S. were to pull all our troops from the Middle East, don't you think it would continue on an even broader scale? Why aren't millions protesting in the streets for Saddam to leave Iraq so the Iraqi people can be free? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 15 #25 March 17, 2003 Quick rundown of the Bosnia timeline It all started with UN resolution 713 and the was followed up by the Dayton accourds. Once 713 was broken the country was in violation of international law so the UN sent in peacekeeping forces. The US joined a while after the UN troops were on the ground so there was no need for a security counsel resolution. >If it's about oil, how come we didn't go into Iraq during the first Gulf War? The US military command was quoted as saying they wanted to, but were pressured by the allies to stop their drive into Iraq.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
PhreeZone 15 #25 March 17, 2003 Quick rundown of the Bosnia timeline It all started with UN resolution 713 and the was followed up by the Dayton accourds. Once 713 was broken the country was in violation of international law so the UN sent in peacekeeping forces. The US joined a while after the UN troops were on the ground so there was no need for a security counsel resolution. >If it's about oil, how come we didn't go into Iraq during the first Gulf War? The US military command was quoted as saying they wanted to, but were pressured by the allies to stop their drive into Iraq.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
