Was Clinton's splended little war in Bosnia legal?

whitehall

Diamond Member
Dec 28, 2010
66,731
28,849
2,300
Western Va.
Put your political bias aside and consider the implications of a US president bypassing congress and ordering planes in the air to bomb a defenseless country in Europe. The concept is preposterous but it happened about a dozen years ago. I saw prime time news feeds showing Belgrade Yugoslavia citizens dressed in suits and carrying briefcases on their way to work running for cover as sirens sounded and a police station blew up. For what? To force the surrender of a single man? To deflect criticism about disgraceful conduct? When you have the cooperation of the media anything is possible.
 
probably not , by even the expansive standards floated by the UN when it comes to US democratic presidents ( and the French) but I think he did the right thing. To bad Muslims don't seem to recall any of that....
 
probably not , by even the expansive standards floated by the UN when it comes to US democratic presidents ( and the French) but I think he did the right thing. To bad Muslims don't seem to recall any of that....

Europe as a whole owes yet another debt to the United States for not allowing the Balkans to devolve into chaos.
 
probably not , by even the expansive standards floated by the UN when it comes to US democratic presidents ( and the French) but I think he did the right thing. To bad Muslims don't seem to recall any of that....

Europe as a whole owes yet another debt to the United States for not allowing the Balkans to devolve into chaos.

I am sure the checks in the mail....
 
probably not , by even the expansive standards floated by the UN when it comes to US democratic presidents ( and the French) but I think he did the right thing. To bad Muslims don't seem to recall any of that....

Europe as a whole owes yet another debt to the United States for not allowing the Balkans to devolve into chaos.

I am sure the checks in the mail....

:lol:

Right next to the champagne and beluga caviar..
 
probably not , by even the expansive standards floated by the UN when it comes to US democratic presidents ( and the French) but I think he did the right thing. To bad Muslims don't seem to recall any of that....

Europe as a whole owes yet another debt to the United States for not allowing the Balkans to devolve into chaos.

Er, sorry, what's this? Clinton was in fact very reluctant to intervene in the Balkans. It was the British that pushed for military strikes against paramilitary and government positions. Tony Blair publically forced Clinton into acting through the American media.

Oh and, Sallow. Europe doesn't owe "yet another debt to the United States". The Balkans owes nothing to the United States, the United Kingdom or any other NATO military that took part in that absolute and irredeemable disaster that was the NATO intervention in the Balkans. NATO forces largely stood by and watched as hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered under the very noses of those who were 'supposed' to protect them, but couldn't because the UN didn't want to risk taking sides.

Honestly, it's times like these when one really does despair at how undeniably stupid American's can be.

Oh and, Trajan. It's spelt 'cheque', not "check".
 
Last edited:
probably not , by even the expansive standards floated by the UN when it comes to US democratic presidents ( and the French) but I think he did the right thing. To bad Muslims don't seem to recall any of that....

Europe as a whole owes yet another debt to the United States for not allowing the Balkans to devolve into chaos.

Er, sorry, what's this? Clinton was in fact very reluctant to intervene in the Balkans. It was the British that pushed for military strikes against paramilitary and government positions. Tony Blair publically forced Clinton into acting through the American media.

Oh and, Sallow. Europe doesn't owe "yet another debt to the United States". The Balkans owes nothing to the United States, the United Kingdom or any other NATO military that took part in that absolute and irredeemable disaster that was the NATO intervention in the Balkans. NATO forces largely stood by and watched as hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered under the very noses of those who were 'supposed' to protect them, but couldn't because the UN didn't want to risk taking sides.

Honestly, it's times like these when one really does despair at how undeniably stupid American's can be.

Oh and, Trajan. It's spelt 'cheque', not "check".

Um..yeah..they do Swagger. All of Europe couldn't muster up enough firepower to quell an ongoing genocide? To busy with the morning, afternoon and night guiness to bother?

This was essentially Europe's problem.

And it's "Check" not "Cheque".
 
Europe as a whole owes yet another debt to the United States for not allowing the Balkans to devolve into chaos.

Er, sorry, what's this? Clinton was in fact very reluctant to intervene in the Balkans. It was the British that pushed for military strikes against paramilitary and government positions. Tony Blair publically forced Clinton into acting through the American media.

Oh and, Sallow. Europe doesn't owe "yet another debt to the United States". The Balkans owes nothing to the United States, the United Kingdom or any other NATO military that took part in that absolute and irredeemable disaster that was the NATO intervention in the Balkans. NATO forces largely stood by and watched as hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered under the very noses of those who were 'supposed' to protect them, but couldn't because the UN didn't want to risk taking sides.

Honestly, it's times like these when one really does despair at how undeniably stupid American's can be.

Oh and, Trajan. It's spelt 'cheque', not "check".

Um..yeah..they do Swagger. All of Europe couldn't muster up enough firepower to quell an ongoing genocide? To busy with the morning, afternoon and night guiness to bother?

This was essentially Europe's problem.

And it's "Check" not "Cheque".

Sorry, can you please explain to me how Europe owes the United States for a joint intervention that failed to achieve its objective; and has and no-doubt will continue to flair-up resulting in the slaughter of innocent civilians?

The mustering of enough firepower wasn't the issue. The rules of engagement stipulated that NATO troops could not engage Bosnian, Serb or Croat troops or paramilitary units unless fired upon, and the various military factions of the former Yugoslavia knew this. Seriously, get your facts straight before proceeding to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

It's spelt check in American English, but I prefer to rely on the original noun, which is 'cheque'.
 
Er, sorry, what's this? Clinton was in fact very reluctant to intervene in the Balkans. It was the British that pushed for military strikes against paramilitary and government positions. Tony Blair publically forced Clinton into acting through the American media.

Oh and, Sallow. Europe doesn't owe "yet another debt to the United States". The Balkans owes nothing to the United States, the United Kingdom or any other NATO military that took part in that absolute and irredeemable disaster that was the NATO intervention in the Balkans. NATO forces largely stood by and watched as hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered under the very noses of those who were 'supposed' to protect them, but couldn't because the UN didn't want to risk taking sides.

Honestly, it's times like these when one really does despair at how undeniably stupid American's can be.

Oh and, Trajan. It's spelt 'cheque', not "check".

Um..yeah..they do Swagger. All of Europe couldn't muster up enough firepower to quell an ongoing genocide? To busy with the morning, afternoon and night guiness to bother?

This was essentially Europe's problem.

And it's "Check" not "Cheque".

Sorry, can you please explain to me how Europe owes the United States for a joint intervention that failed to achieve its objective; and has and no-doubt will continue to flair-up resulting in the slaughter of innocent civilians?

The mustering of enough firepower wasn't the issue. The rules of engagement stipulated that NATO troops could not engage Bosnian, Serb or Croat troops or paramilitary units unless fired upon, and the various military factions of the former Yugoslavia knew this. Seriously, get your facts straight before proceeding to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

It's spelt check in American English, but I prefer to rely on the original noun, which is 'cheque'.

:lol:

Rules of engagement is it?

:lol:

Didn't seem to stop the US from bombing the crap out of the former Yugoslavia.
 
Um..yeah..they do Swagger. All of Europe couldn't muster up enough firepower to quell an ongoing genocide? To busy with the morning, afternoon and night guiness to bother?

This was essentially Europe's problem.

And it's "Check" not "Cheque".

Sorry, can you please explain to me how Europe owes the United States for a joint intervention that failed to achieve its objective; and has and no-doubt will continue to flair-up resulting in the slaughter of innocent civilians?

The mustering of enough firepower wasn't the issue. The rules of engagement stipulated that NATO troops could not engage Bosnian, Serb or Croat troops or paramilitary units unless fired upon, and the various military factions of the former Yugoslavia knew this. Seriously, get your facts straight before proceeding to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

It's spelt check in American English, but I prefer to rely on the original noun, which is 'cheque'.



Rules of engagement is it?



Didn't seem to stop the US from bombing the crap out of the former Yugoslavia.

Sallow, if you actually read what I've written, if you're capable of such a thing, you'll notice that I wrote that it was troops who were forbidden from firing on the various military and paramilitary factions unless they were fired upon. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but troops fulfill a ground-based role, not piloting a fast attack jet. Oh, and the United States Navy and Air Force weren't the only militaries bombing positions in the former Yugoslavia. But, perhaps predictably, they managed to get shot-down more than the others.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, can you please explain to me how Europe owes the United States for a joint intervention that failed to achieve its objective; and has and no-doubt will continue to flair-up resulting in the slaughter of innocent civilians?

The mustering of enough firepower wasn't the issue. The rules of engagement stipulated that NATO troops could not engage Bosnian, Serb or Croat troops or paramilitary units unless fired upon, and the various military factions of the former Yugoslavia knew this. Seriously, get your facts straight before proceeding to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

It's spelt check in American English, but I prefer to rely on the original noun, which is 'cheque'.



Rules of engagement is it?



Didn't seem to stop the US from bombing the crap out of the former Yugoslavia.

Sallow, if you actually read what I've written, if you're capable of such a thing, you'll notice that I wrote that it was troops who were forbidden from firing on the various military and paramilitary factions unless they were fired upon. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but troops fulfill a ground-based role, not piloting a fast attack jet. Oh, and the United States Navy and Air Force weren't the only militaries bombing positions in the former Yugoslavia. But, perhaps predictably, they managed to get shot-down more than the others.

Yeah..I read what you wrote.

You act as if the US exists in another dimension..it doesn't. We are as much a part of NATO and subject to the same fucking rules as European countries.

So what you wrote..essentially..is bullshit. And because you are trying to serve it on a cracker..don't fucking try to tell me it's palatable.
 
Rules of engagement is it?



Didn't seem to stop the US from bombing the crap out of the former Yugoslavia.

Sallow, if you actually read what I've written, if you're capable of such a thing, you'll notice that I wrote that it was troops who were forbidden from firing on the various military and paramilitary factions unless they were fired upon. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but troops fulfill a ground-based role, not piloting a fast attack jet. Oh, and the United States Navy and Air Force weren't the only militaries bombing positions in the former Yugoslavia. But, perhaps predictably, they managed to get shot-down more than the others.

Yeah..I read what you wrote.

You act as if the US exists in another dimension..it doesn't. We are as much a part of NATO and subject to the same fucking rules as European countries.

So what you wrote..essentially..is bullshit. And because you are trying to serve it on a cracker..don't fucking try to tell me it's palatable.

Er, where have I acted "as if the US exists in another dimension"? And furthermore where on earth did I write/suggest that the United States isn't subject to the same rules as other member countries?

Take as much time as you need, Sallow.
 
Maybe Clinton had the right idea. Don't put ground Troops in jeopardy, terrorism is the key. Bomb the defenseless country into the stone age until a single man surrenders. If the US media supports the concept anything is possible.
 
Maybe Clinton had the right idea. Don't put ground Troops in jeopardy, terrorism is the key. Bomb the defenseless country into the stone age until a single man surrenders. If the US media supports the concept anything is possible.

As opposed to the Bush way..

Fighting tribe to tribe. Losing American Troops. Nation building. Spending loads of cash you don't have. Open ended victory conditions.

Yeah..makes more sense.
 
Maybe Clinton had the right idea. Don't put ground Troops in jeopardy, terrorism is the key. Bomb the defenseless country into the stone age until a single man surrenders. If the US media supports the concept anything is possible.

As opposed to the Bush way..

Fighting tribe to tribe. Losing American Troops. Nation building. Spending loads of cash you don't have. Open ended victory conditions.

Yeah..makes more sense.

Congress (including democrats) gave president Bush the authorization to use ground Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the authorization still stands. Who gave Clinton the authorization to bomb Europe? A socialist in Spain who happened to be commandant of NATO?
 
probably not , by even the expansive standards floated by the UN when it comes to US democratic presidents ( and the French) but I think he did the right thing. To bad Muslims don't seem to recall any of that....

Europe as a whole owes yet another debt to the United States for not allowing the Balkans to devolve into chaos.

I see it the other way, I think they did fall into Chaos and we came in way too late and on the wrong side.

Hell, we were calling the KLA terrorists at the beginning of the year, we were reporting how the KLA were murdering the Serbian Police, We had reports of gang rapes, Moslem teenagers raping Christian Serbian 10 year old girls, when you support that side, your on the wrong side.

But hey, Clinton did sign an agreement with Albania to run a pipeline through a month before he attacked Women and Children in Belgrade.

I still have my copy of Foreign Affairs from before the war. Pretty nice, terrorist today, heros tomorrow.
 
I would love to sit down with Bush and ask him why in the hell did he let the death and destruction continue in Kosovo. What a tragic mess, a black spot on Western History. Clinton began the war and Bush kept his mouth shut and never critisized a thing. I would actually like a pay per view war crimes trial on Bush and Clinton in regards to Kosovo.

Think we still got troops in Kosovo, bet ya we do.

Orthodox Diocese of Raska and Prizren

277.jpg


dcidjakovica11.jpg
 
Put your political bias aside and consider the implications of a US president bypassing congress and ordering planes in the air to bomb a defenseless country in Europe. The concept is preposterous but it happened about a dozen years ago. I saw prime time news feeds showing Belgrade Yugoslavia citizens dressed in suits and carrying briefcases on their way to work running for cover as sirens sounded and a police station blew up. For what? To force the surrender of a single man? To deflect criticism about disgraceful conduct? When you have the cooperation of the media anything is possible.
Legal? No more so than Reagans invasions of a country or two while he was in office.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top