The Bush Administration and Kosovo

[Leafless]

Kosovo didn't even need a sponsorship scandal.

Sponsorship, no, but you might have trouble understanding this...terrorism must be working...right?

[Leafless]

I think you have it backwards....Canada went crying to them for support (Afghanistan)

Granted, support for co-operation from other countries should have been done behind closed doors.

If your view are any bit representative of the official U.S. or NATO view, then I hope Canadian politicians have their ears open wide on this one.

[Ani]

Bush is not a Christian - he is a sobered up born again funamentalist who could never grasp the concepts taught by Jesus...if he could we would have seen evidence of that wisdom by now...as far as the Orthodox Serbs - and Croatians - their bickering has been going on since the big schism - they are still going wacky over which way to cross yourself...what's strange - and I being an old school Russian Orthodox guy baptized in London at the Orthodox Russian Church in exile - is that I resented the Catholics most of my life - then I got a translation of the old Orthodox doctrines - and found out that they were almost the same - so - it's lunacy..for them to fight....I remember a young Canadian Serbian soldier who was trained in Canada - who got a summer job as a mercenary killing Croatians...and I think it was about 75 dollars a head - well this nut - did not have a clue about religion or God - but was more than willing to kill in the name of NOTHING - FUN AND PROFIT. So if there is one Serb that is that stupid then there must be thousands of these crazies in existance.

How utterly crass of you! You don't suppose that bickering might have anything to do with the fact that hundreds of thousands of Serbs lost their lives at the hands of Croatian fascists. The same serbs that in 1941 rejected a deal with Hitler despite being hopelessly surrounded by Axis countries. The same Serbs that stood by their "allies", Britain and France, and did so in the clear knowledge that defiance meant destruction, occupation and the subsequent decimation of their population. All in the name of freedom and liberty for Europe. The same Serbs that despite it all forged a partnership with those same Croatian and Muslim Fascist to establish a stronger and more unified Balkans by forming Yugoslavia in hope that brotherhood would prevail and history would not repeat itself. So yes, maybe they are CRAZY. Crazy for hoping that the power states (their former "allies") would let the Balkans be and not fan old flames when they wanted to manipulate the course of history for their own twisted interests. But certainly not because of your one example of misguided motive and youthful ignorance. And MOST certainly not for being outraged that their Jerusalem is being illegaly snatched out from underneath their feet and being awarded to a band of muslim extremist thugs whose only claim to fame is crime, corruption, terrorism and the ability to breed like rabbits! Ah but no doubt the world will be a better and nobler place.... enjoy the ride.

Daughter of Karadjordje

[kuzadd]

and the protests continue

[UShaditComing]

The Kosovo war was a move by the US to encroach on territories which were once a part of the former Soviet Union and it was a move against Russia. Canada was taken in by the US because they made it a Nato war and that probably had something to do with Canada being wised up enough to not be taken in again with the current Iraq war. Had it not been for the phoney Kosovo war then I firmly believe we would have committed to their Iraq war. Phoney for a few reason but above all the hundreds of thousands of dead shiptars in mass graves, killed by Serbs, turned out to be less than 500 and a lot of them were Serbs. All the Republicans hated that war and all the Clinton supporting Dems loved it. Americans usually only support their own party's wars.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Americans usually only support their own party's wars.

Hmmm.....Why do Canadians support such "wars"? "Taken in".....but what about Iraq?

How convenient.

[UShaditComing]

Hmmm.....Why do Canadians support such "wars"? "Taken in".....but what about Iraq?

How convenient.

Taken in by the US led Nato war in Kosovo for phoney reasons. Nearly all the US rebubs hated that war because it was Clinton's idea and now thery are really sounding off because it was to support mainly Muslims. Now everyone is beginning to realize that it was and is the Serbs who are suffering.

I think it was in the minds of politicians when the US asked for Canadian support with their current Iraq war and that's a big part of the reason why we didn't get into it. John Chretien will always be remembered for his stand on keeping us out of that mess. That makes him great in my opinion. And not to mention that he needed to fall on his sword to keep Quebec in Canada.

[White Doors]

What, exactly, did the US have coming to it, USHADITCOMING?

[M.Dancer]

John Chretien will always be remembered ......

Jean Chretien will be remembered for a long time.....but more likely for other things....

[UShaditComing]

What, exactly, did the US have coming to it, USHADITCOMING?

My name explicitly refers to the REVENGE attacks on 9/11. And once again this doesn't say that the people who died in those attacks deserved to die. Again I put up the parallel with the Dresden firebombing and ask others to tell us if those people deserved to die.

It can obviously be argued both ways because a people could conceivably be held responsible for the acts of their leaders. And although the question of whether I equate the US with Nazi Germany, as was asked by one poster here, has nothing to do with this question, I do in fact believe that the US is the closest thing to the Nazi regime since WW2. I can back that claim up with many examples if someone wants to get into it in detail. Perhaps a new thread with the proper title?

Edited March 7, 2008 by UShaditComing

[White Doors]

My name explicitly refers to the REVENGE attacks on 9/11. And once again this doesn't say that the people who died in those attacks deserved to die. Again I put up the parallel with the Dresden firebombing and ask others to tell us if those people deserved to die.

It can obviously be argued both ways because a people could conceivably be held responsible for the acts of their leaders. And although the question of whether I equate the US with Nazi Germany, as was asked by one poster here, has nothing to do with this question, I do in fact believe that the US is the closest thing to the Nazi regime since WW2. I can back that claim up with many examples if someone wants to get into it in detail. Perhaps a new thread with the proper title?

I see. So while you do not think that the people who actually DIED at the WTC deserved it, you think that flying to 737's into buildings is a justifiable act? So if you could have a do-over the buildings would be empty and the planes would have no one on them? Then you think it got what it deserved?

Wait, you think the USA got what it deserved, but the victims didn't deserve to die? How can that be true? Either they deserved it or they did not. Can you clarify here please?

Also, I would be very interested in why you think the USA is the closest thing to fascism since Nazi Germany.

I would like links, examples and valid comparisoms please.

thanks!

[UShaditComing]

I see. So while you do not think that the people who actually DIED at the WTC deserved it, you think that flying to 737's into buildings is a justifiable act? So if you could have a do-over the buildings would be empty and the planes would have no one on them? Then you think it got what it deserved?

Wait, you think the USA got what it deserved, but the victims didn't deserve to die? How can that be true? Either they deserved it or they did not. Can you clarify here please?

Also, I would be very interested in why you think the USA is the closest thing to fascism since Nazi Germany.

I would like links, examples and valid comparisoms please.

thanks!

Well first of all they weren't 737's and it wasn't 'to' it was 'two'. Now let's continue.

I didn't say that the people who were in the building didn't deserve it. You only read it that way. I asked another question which paralled that question and nobody has had the balls to answer that one yet. It seems quite logical to me that the answer for the WTC would be the same answer for Dresden. The only difference I can see is that one is your side and the other isn't.

What you would like and what I want are two different things my friend. How about if I just compare the US military in Iraq kicking down doors and murdering the civilian occupants or dragging them away in the middle of the night on trumped up charges or no charges at all other than suspicions. Ring any bells for you?

You may also want to draw a parallel to occupied France where freedom fighters killed Nazis who occupied their country. In Iraq it's terrorists (freedom fighters) killing American occupiers who are hated by the people who live in the country.

Edited March 7, 2008 by UShaditComing

[bush_cheney2004]

...What you would like and what I want are two different things my friend. How about if I just compare the US military in Iraq kicking down doors and murdering the civilian occupants or dragging them away in the middle of the night on trumped up charges or no charges at all other than suspicions. Ring any bells for you?

Oh...you mean like Canada in Haiti? Or the Balkans? Or Afghanistan? Or how about that CF-18 "blietzkrieg" in Serbia with the Canuck Luftwaffe? What a concept...Canadian Nazis!

[M.Dancer]

In Iraq it's terrorists (freedom fighters) killing American occupiers who are hated by the people who live in the country.

In iraq, 99% of the killing is by terrorists (not freedom fighters) killing other iraqis....they kill them for reasons that are removed from the american occupation or inavsion. They kill them because they can.

But there is hope.....

Since the surge attacks by terrorists have dropped remarkably and Iraqis are turning their back on violence...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

[White Doors]

Well first of all they weren't 737's and it wasn't 'to' it was 'two'. Now let's continue.

I didn't say that the people who were in the building didn't deserve it. You only read it that way. I asked another question which paralled that question and nobody has had the balls to answer that one yet. It seems quite logical to me that the answer for the WTC would be the same answer for Dresden. The only difference I can see is that one is your side and the other isn't.

What you would like and what I want are two different things my friend. How about if I just compare the US military in Iraq kicking down doors and murdering the civilian occupants or dragging them away in the middle of the night on trumped up charges or no charges at all other than suspicions. Ring any bells for you?

You may also want to draw a parallel to occupied France where freedom fighters killed Nazis who occupied their country. In Iraq it's terrorists (freedom fighters) killing American occupiers who are hated by the people who live in the country.

I see now. thank you for the typographical corrections. you are so keeping me on my toes! Are you this efficient in your everyday life?

Ok, they were what, 757's? Does it matter to the model number suffice it to say they were large airlines manufactured by Boeing and had lots of people on them and most importantly, lots of jet fuel? that ok?

Can we move along now? ok, good.

9/11 and Dresden? You want to compare 9/11 and Dresden? You are aware that Dresden occured in WW2? A legal war? You are aware that no legal state of war existed between the USA and the perpetrators of 9/11? Do you not see that as a significant distinction?

Also, Dresden was not without precendent. Germany did the exact same tactic on London earlier on in the war. The only difference was effectiveness. Technology changed alot in those 3 years in between!

Do you really want tyo continue down this kindergarten pathway? I do not think that even you seriously agree with what you are writing?

As far as the US military killing civilains, they were brought up on charges and sent to Jail. Ring any bells for you?

lol

and you save your best for last. The French, were resistance fighters, fighting against the occupiers of their country - ie: the soldiers. There were no soldiers in the WTC attacks. Or does that matter to you?

See all the differences I pointed out to you?

I think I have successfully risen to your challenge. What sort of prize do I get?

[UShaditComing]

In iraq, 99% of the killing is by terrorists (not freedom fighters) killing other iraqis....they kill them for reasons that are removed from the american occupation or inavsion. They kill them because they can.

But there is hope.....

Since the surge attacks by terrorists have dropped remarkably and Iraqis are turning their back on violence...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

I know why people kill each other in Iraq and it's got a lot to do with religious differences. I know they would rather kill Americans but the Americans are harder to get at because they don't come out of their holes (green zone) very often now. I know how and why Saddam had the killing under control and needed a heavy hand with the Kurds and their ambitions to create a greater Kurdistan. The Turks know now too and so does the US because the US helps to bomb them.

Yes, there is hope in Iraq for the US occupation and I've always maintained that the resolve of the Iraqi people to rid their country of the occupiers could only last so long. They want their freedom but they have suffered greatly under US bombs and aggression. Make no mistake, the war will be won by the US and the US is not going away until it is. No president will end it because it is absolutley essential that the US establishes a presence in Iraq and contol over ME oil resources. If you intended to argue any of that then you have the wrong person.

However, be mindful of the fact that the Shiite majority of Iran is now kissing and hugging with Iraq's leaders and Iraq's leaders have a great deal of sympathy for Iran over the US. I look forward to economic and political cooperation between the two countries and a confounding of the US objective by means other than freedom fighters taking out US military types. Sooner or later the ME is going to get it's freedom from US and Western aggression because it's inevitable. The US object is to keep all countries which have ambitions of becoming powerful from doing so. This is what it's all about and that is because of the oil. Nothing more. The US is not interested in next fall's cabbage crop in Iraq.

Don't tell anyone that Iran is trying to get it's own nuclear deterrant. If or when they do then the game is over for the US because the US doesn't attack nuclear armed countries. It's essential for continuing US hegemony that that is stopped. There's nothing confusing about all this you know!

[White Doors]

I know why people kill each other in Iraq and it's got a lot to do with religious differences. I know they would rather kill Americans but the Americans are harder to get at because they don't come out of their holes (green zone) very often now. I know how and why Saddam had the killing under control and needed a heavy hand with the Kurds and their ambitions to create a greater Kurdistan. The Turks know now too and so does the US because the US helps to bomb them.

Yes, there is hope in Iraq for the US occupation and I've always maintained that the resolve of the Iraqi people to rid their country of the occupiers could only last so long. They want their freedom but they have suffered greatly under US bombs and aggression. Make no mistake, the war will be won by the US and the US is not going away until it is. No president will end it because it is absolutley essential that the US establishes a presence in Iraq and contol over ME oil resources. If you intended to argue any of that then you have the wrong person.

However, be mindful of the fact that the Shiite majority of Iran is now kissing and hugging with Iraq's leaders and Iraq's leaders have a great deal of sympathy for Iran over the US. I look forward to economic and political cooperation between the two countries and a confounding of the US objective by means other than freedom fighters taking out US military types. Sooner or later the ME is going to get it's freedom from US and Western aggression because it's inevitable. The US object is to keep all countries which have ambitions of becoming powerful from doing so. This is what it's all about and that is because of the oil. Nothing more. The US is not interested in next fall's cabbage crop in Iraq.

Don't tell anyone that Iran is trying to get it's own nuclear deterrant. If or when they do then the game is over for the US because the US doesn't attack nuclear armed countries. It's essential for continuing US hegemony that that is stopped. There's nothing confusing about all this you know!

Why do you look forward to Iran and Iraq having closer ties? Why do you wish the USA to lose power? You think Iran would be a more benevolent super power?

You think Iran would be a responsible Nuclear weapon nation?

You don't think the USA would bomb Iran back to the stone age if they ever tried to use a Nuclear weapon on the USA or one of it's allies? Do you think 10 nuclear weapons and thousands of nuclear weapons are the same thing? Would you prefer the USA to intentionally start a war with a nuclear armed country? Would that be the responsible thing to do?

Is your world view predicated on: USA bad, everyone else good?

Are you a marxist?

thank you!

Edited March 7, 2008 by White Doors

[UShaditComing]

Why do you look forward to Iran and Iraq having closer ties? Why do you wish the USA to lose power? You think Iran would be a more benevolent super power?

You think Iran would be a responsible Nuclear weapon nation?

You don't think the USA would bomb Iran back to the stone age if they ever tried to use a Nuclear weapon on the USA or one of it's allies? Do you think 10 nuclear weapons and thousands of nuclear weapons are the same thing? Would you prefer the USA to intentionally start a war with a nculear armed country? Woudl that be the responsible thing to do?

I'm looking forward to a balance of power which can stop US aggression. That has been lacking in the world since the fall of the Soviet Union and it's pretty obvious that the Us started with Iraq soon after. Nuclear weapons are only deterrants and it's quite obvious that another country would not attack the US with nuclear weapons because they would be quickly annihilated. At the same time the US fully understands that if they attack a nuclear armed country there is a good possibility that that country will succeed in hitting at least one big US city with a nuke. There are a million ways of accomplishing it and the last choice would be a ballistic missile IMO. The US is simply not willing to suffer that sort of revenge attack and so it must stop other nations from gaining the ability to defend themselves successfully against US aggression.

And don't try to tell me that Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe Israel off the map because it's not true. Iran's interest only lies in fairness in Israel/Palestine and an end to the apartheid regime against the Palestinian people.

All this isn't brain surgery you know!

[M.Dancer]

know they would rather kill Americans but the Americans are harder to get at because they don't come out of their holes (green zone) very often now.

You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. The green zone is in Baghdad....

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicS...amp;Language=en

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_...a/iraq_us_raids

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05330222.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq;_ylt=As.FL...nrls_dx.BNX6GMA

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L039891.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_on_...oKCuIP1z1aShMgF

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04904888.htm

Just some reported activity in the last couple of days

[M.Dancer]

And don't try to tell me that Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe Israel off the map because it's not true. Iran's interest only lies in fairness in Israel/Palestine and an end to the apartheid regime against the Palestinian people.

I am reminded of the monkeys that organ grinders use....I'm alos reminded of the organs they grind...

[White Doors]

I'm looking forward to a balance of power which can stop US aggression. That has been lacking in the world since the fall of the Soviet Union and it's pretty obvious that the Us started with Iraq soon after. Nuclear weapons are only deterrants and it's quite obvious that another country would not attack the US with nuclear weapons because they would be quickly annihilated. At the same time the US fully understands that if they attack a nuclear armed country there is a good possibility that that country will succeed in hitting at least one big US city with a nuke. There are a million ways of accomplishing it and the last choice would be a ballistic missile IMO. The US is simply not willing to suffer that sort of revenge attack and so it must stop other nations from gaining the ability to defend themselves successfully against US aggression.

And don't try to tell me that Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe Israel off the map because it's not true. Iran's interest only lies in fairness in Israel/Palestine and an end to the apartheid regime against the Palestinian people.

All this isn't brain surgery you know!

So Ineedanewjacket didn't say he wanted Israel wiped off the map?

neat!

Question, do you believe the holocaust really happened?

ps: The all of the soviets was in 1989. The USA invaded Iraq in 2003.

Are you old enough to remember 1989? Are you old enough to remember 2003?

What is your definition of 'soon after'?

Edited March 7, 2008 by White Doors

[UShaditComing]

So Ineedanewjacket didn't say he wanted Israel wiped off the map?

neat!

Question, do you believe the holocaust really happened?

ps: The all of the soviets was in 1989. The USA invaded Iraq in 2003.

Are you old enough to remember 1989? Are you old enough to remember 2003?

What is your definition of 'soon after'?

Ahmadinejad did not say that Israel should be wiped from the map. Read my lips or find the exact quotation and stop telling lies.

Yes, I remember 1989 and I remember the Gulf war which was the first US war against Iraq. I say US war because that's what it really was. Did you forget? That should answer your question on what is soon after.

What could this posibly have to do with the holocaust? The only connection I could imagine is that the Zionist cause depends heavily on sympathy for holocaust victims and that's why we still hear them bemoaning the facts after over 60 years. Without that who would be able to support a vicious apartheid regime against another people who have every ritght to live on their own lands? And try not to confuse Zionists with Jews or Israelis. There is a distinction you know.

Or have I got you all wrong and it's really you who doesn't believe in the holocaust?

[UShaditComing]

Please try to educate yourselves a little on what Ahmadinejad quoted as being said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

This sort of cheap demonization propaganda is as bad as the Iraqis throwing babies out of their incubators onto the cold floor lie.

[bush_cheney2004]

This sort of cheap demonization propaganda is as bad as the Iraqis throwing babies out of their incubators onto the cold floor lie.

No.....we can do much better. Wars are always packaged and sold. Even the great wars for Empire and Commonwealth.

Fear the HUN!

[White Doors]

Please try to educate yourselves a little on what Ahmadinejad quoted as being said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

This sort of cheap demonization propaganda is as bad as the Iraqis throwing babies out of their incubators onto the cold floor lie.

lol, from your own link

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Bronner stated: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[14]

A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:

He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.[23]

The same idiom in his speech on December 13, 2006 was translated as "wiped out" by Reuters:

Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.[24]

anything else?

lol