Skip to comments.We Bombed the Wrong Side in Kosovo
Posted on 05/29/2004 12:24:36 PM PDT by Destro
click here to read article
About time someone else saw what I've been trying to get across for years.
Slobo understood the threat that islamofascists posed firsthand and was doing something about it.
You are absolutely right. Clinton wanted to be politically correct and make the Islamofascists like us. What a moron !!
Is Saran and mustard gas sold over the counter now?
Although Medved is Jewish, his ancestors came from Serbia. He still seemed to be loyal to Serbia.
I aree, we attacked the wrong people on phony charges and now are too dishonest to admit we are wrong. Bill Clinton is mainly at fault but George Bush has continued the policy.
Dumont's arrival in July 2002 should have raised red flags. He was put on an international wanted list in 1999 after escaping from a Sarajevo prison, where he was serving a 20-year sentence for the murder of a Bosnian policeman during a robbery. He was in Bosnia fighting alongside other Muslims.
You're right. We were on the wrong side. But I'm sure the EU still thinks we were on the right side.
You wouldn't want Bill Clinton to bomb his future political constituents, would you?
There is no doubt that the reasons given for the NATO attack were wrong. Serbia was just trying to hold the country together.
I am wondering if the real reason was to get NATO bases in Kosovo since it is the flashpoint between Islam and Europe. This relieves pressure on Russia to protect Serbia, which was what started WWI.
I have never heard of Carlton Meyer or G2mil, but it appears to be a liberal website, at least to me.
From the letters to the editor section has one revealing entry from a former marine. The reply from Meyer is not his complete answer; just various comments I found of interest. Just my opinion; means nothing to anyone else.
As a former Marine, I can appreciate problems with supply lines and possible worst case scenarios. What I cant appreciate and find unconscionable is the fact that a former Marine is writing articles that are then mailed out to the most liberal mailing list I have ever seen. My uncle in California is on that list and forwarded me this article. Statements like Iraqis show little gratitude since the United States caused most of the damage with bombings and a ten-year trade embargo. are a typical twisting of the true state of affairs that true state being that Saddam Hussein raped his own country to build palaces instead of investing in infrastructure. That he placed his own comforts first and failed to provide for his people.
The worst part is, supposing that you wanted to clarify your statements, is that you can't reach these people on the list anything positive you might have to say just wont be sent to the list. Instead of your article in between something from MoveOn.org and an article praising Michael Moore, they will stick someone else, some other MARINE CORP EXPERT that seems to say that what we are doing is wrong, that the war is unwinnable.
Ed: All the "Saddam is a demon" propaganda has confused reality. Iraqi women could go to school, drive cars, and wear Western dress only because the Baathists forced Muslim men to accept progress. Meanwhile, the US openly funded terrorists in Iraq, especially the Kurds in the North but also some Shiite groups, to destabilize Iraq, which took an economic toll as well.
And as for killing political opponents and suppressing the Shiites, the USA has proven far more brutal in keeping the peace in Iraq than Saddam. Possession of a Bible or preaching Christianity will land someone in jail in Saudi Arabia, while the Baathists protected Iraq's 600,000 Christians and their churches from Muslim radicals, while their foreign minister was a Christian himself.
So why does everyone assume Iraq's poor economic state is Saddam's fault? Saddam never "gassed the Kurds" as G2mil readers learned last December. I recall when Tim Russert interviewed the President a few months ago and Bush struggled to justify the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. At one point Bush said: "We all know Saddam was a madman, right Tim." The spineless interviewer responded: "Of course, Mr. President.", which is why the President chose him. You'll note there are no longer hard questions at news conferences like those posed by Sam Donaldson two decades ago. Why, because troublemakers lose their access to news conferences and free rides on Air Force 1.
Saddam was not a madman, reckless and ambitious is a better description. He was interviewed on "60 Minutes" just prior to the invasion and was lucid, polite, and was seeking some way to avoid the coming invasion.
Carlton Meyer is the editor of G2mil
I'm Jewish, and I saw clearly the demonization of Serbia in the same way that I see Israel demonized. Except Serbia has no nukes, so Clinton felt free to bomb. It was disgusting, and a real eye-opener as to how quickly "liberals" will engage in genocide once they believe they have the power to get away with it.
While the Bush Administration dances around their lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction...
Absolutely. The US and NATO should NEVER have bothered Milosevic and the Yugoslavian breakup. It was an internal matter--a civil war. As head of state, Milosevic knew what he was up against. Clintoon's interference in the internal affairs of Yugoslavia prevented Milosevic from ending the civil war. Ah, lest we forget, Clintoon needed press distraction from another erupting sexual scandals. And the matter with Milosevic provided just that regardless of all the international laws broken.
Yeah...if it wasn't for that comment, I agree with everything. We were disussing some of this on another thread.
It's amazing what went on in this war that the media didn't cover. Bush and the US military shut down al-Sadr's anti-American rag and Kerry complains, calling Sadr a legitimate voice. I didn't hear a peep out of Kerry or the libs when Clinton intentionally targeted Serbia TV, killing 20 civilians...as they also went after more than 46 private radio/TV transmitters.
From the bombing of Train #373 to the Chinese Embassy (killing 3 people)...and the intentional targeting of "public" utilities and electrical grids (all Geneva violations), the US media and the Left reamined silent. As journalist scoured the grounds of pre/post war Iraq looking for the latest American atrocity, our mainstream media was suspiciously absent in Serbia and Kosovo...even though they were there to cover the refugee crisis (which they helped use to support this war).
Christianne Amanpour had the nerve to say that the US media was carrying the water for Bush in Iraq...when the truth is, the US and international media completely believed without reservation, everything coming out from the KLA perspective of events. From Racak to the 100,000 mass graves claim, the US media propagandized on behalf of the CLinton WH. I remember clearly how US journalists were on the ground during the refugee exodus, claiming it was a result of forced expulsion...when the truth was, people were leaving because the US/NATO bombs were coming.
Unlike Iraq, the US media didn't take us into the Serb cities and hospitals to see what a 78-day aerial bombardment can do to a country. Of course, what did we expect...it would've been called a great failure, since Slobo didn't even leave power for almost a year later, even though we thoroughly destroyed much of the civilian infrastructure. Regardless of what one thinks about the war in Kosovo/Serbia...the media treated it far different than the way they've treated the war in Iraq. A war with much clearer implications on US security.
Exactly. And I always wonder how people are going to react when the time comes for the US to defend some southwest region from secession...simply because a minority population eventually attains majority status. There's a reason why the term balkanization is also now being used in American geo-politics. It's coming our way.
Seems like groups at war with each other forever have no difficulty in conning Uncle Sap to become involved and do the heavy lifting.