Bombing Serbia in 1999. Good move or colossal blunder?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Rearden Metal, Mar 11, 2006.

Bombing Serbia in 1999. Good move or colossal blunder?

  1. NATO did the right thing.

    5 vote(s)
    22.7%
  2. NATO should have taken a more neutral approach.

    3 vote(s)
    13.6%
  3. NATO picked the wrong side.

    14 vote(s)
    63.6%
  1. With today's events, I'm just curious if people realize yet that NATO picked the dead wrong side in bombing Serbia in order to steal land from the Serbs, in order to give it to Al-Qaida.

    As usual, I knew full well at the time that Clinton was making a colossal mistake. Also as usual, I couldn't find a single person who agreed with me at the time. It's a Cassandra Syndrome thing, I'm quite used to it.

    Anyways, just checking if common knowledge has caught up with me yet on this one. Thanx.
     
  2. Did it make that much difference, overall?
    Whats the basis of your assesment on that one? Near as i can tell, if your refering to arms trafficking through the old trade route corridor , on the one hand, the further west it goes the more important the real estate, on the other hand i think the serbs would be, and probably are just as likely to sell to the highest bidder.
     
  3. Whatever the real reasons the bombing took place, it was always my impression it was to curtail Milosevics nationist ambitions. Actually, that was one of the reasons stated-and heres why;


    [​IMG]
     
  4. People don't realize it because the mainstream media doesn't give it any press- Did you ever hear the left screaming about an illegal war? Of course you didn't.


    For anyone that doesn't think it was a bad move just do some reading about the KLA who was given control and there is your answer.
     
  5. The Serb population was being ethnically cleansed by albanian refugees in Kosovo, that were allowed in by Tito when albania had a civil war. The guests were reproducing in record numbers thanks to a better lifestyle provided by Christian hosts. They would not leave. In 1970-80s albanian gangs began attacking Serb civilians, raping Serb girls. Serbs began to flee to other parts of Serbia. Then KLA started a guerilla campaign against Serb police, i.e. drive by shootings. Milosevich repsonded by bringing in more troops to expunge the fascist gangs. That is when Western media tuned in and began broadcasting about "ethnic cleansing".

    Same happend in Chechnya, in Russia. 400,000 Russians were killed and forced out of the region in 1990's before any war even began. But Western media never reported on it, so nobody knows until today.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya#First_Chechen_War
     
  6. Pabst

    Pabst

    Milosevic was the Abe Lincoln of Yugoslavia.
     
  7. maxpi

    maxpi

    Reardon, I was with you on that one.

    I heard a military expert on a talk show at the time, his take was that the Eastern Orthodox Serbs had been persecuted by the Muslims under communism. The Muzzies had volunteered to be the secret police reporting to Moscow. They could do about whatever they wanted to and they did. The Serbs were in payback mode and they knew first hand about Muslims by that time. I believe that Clinton was in the Kiss-Muslim-Ass-Until-It-Tickles-So-Good- mode probably to keep oil prices down and maybe achieve world peace and give the UN validity, you know all that stuff that leftist ideologues do and Presidents that want a good economy for their record at any price.

    We could have let nature run it's course there IMO. The Serbs are the toughest people on the planet, they defeated Hitler's best troops in WWII without breaking a sweat. I think they could have secured their borders pretty well. They were sure doing a number on the journalists at the time, scores of them never got out of the airport from what I read.

    Muslims are good at starting a fight that makes you look bad when you retaliate in kind, then they get the UN and the press and the human rights folks and the peaceniks all in on it and you wind up like Milosevic on the cover of Time with noboby telling your side of anything. No wonder Bush just started off the war on terror with "for us or against us" style talk, no sense letting all the kooks control the dialogue.
     
  8. It's ironic that all the lefties and peace activists that control the Democrat party were all in favor of this shameful war, conceived by CNN and run by Jamie Rubin. The troops that Clinton promised would be "home by Christmas" are still there, helping al qaeda establish a secure foothold. And don't forget the genius who planned the campaign was Wesley Clark, Clinton's favorite general and ass kisser.
     
  9. The troops are still there?
    Well in that case, it must have been a masterstroke, pre positioning troops to spearhead the war on terror against islamic extremism in the balkans.
    Genius.
     
  10. Let me see if I understand this correctly. It's NOT criminal to go to war unprovoked under a democrat - but IS criminal post 9-11 to go to war w/ radical muslims while a republican is in office?
     
    #10     Mar 13, 2006