Was Clinton's splended little war in Bosnia legal?

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".

You are recalling the UN (Dutch in particular) pre-December-1995-Dayton-Accord failure to protect anything from the astonishingly barbaric Serbs. Frankly, I cannot imagine how anyone would be surprised about the Dutch Army's inability to protect anything as they are armed primarily with brass tubas and hash-laced brownies.

In 1996, NATO troop entered Bosnia to enforce the Dayton Accords. Unlike the UN before them, they did not "stand by and watch as hundreds and thousands of civilians were slaughtered."

You clearly need to brush up on your history.
 
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".

uhh check..I mean roger...oops, uhm...okay...:lol:I'll start using that right along wiht 'solicitor' and 'holiday'
 
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".

uhh check..i mean roger...oops, uhm...okay...:lol:i'll start using that right along wiht 'solicitor' and 'holiday'


w-i-t-h
 
They were not defenseless! They are the only country to shoot down a F-117 nighthawk (Stealth for those unfamilar with the term) so I would not say they were defensless. Sure they could not withstand an assault from our air force but tell me what country in the world could withstand and air assault fro the US? (China and Russa notwithstanding)
 
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.



We can discuss Reagan sponsored Mil/Ops another time dancing pussy. Right now Clinton's bombing of Europe is on the table. Any ideas come through those earphones?
 
According to Jon Krakauer's bio of Pat Tillman it seems that Bill Clinton authorized operation "Infinite Reach" at the same time he was being grilled about his peculiar sexual urges by the independent council. Infanite Reach was an attack of 66 Tomahawk missiles (one million per missile) on alleged Ben-Ladin training center on 8/20/98. The strike destroyed twenty or thirty buildings and killed six alleged terrorists. More than 30 of the missiles hit the Pakistani side of the border killing two civilians. Eighteen unexploded missiles were salvage and sold to China for about 10 Million US dollars to fund further Ben Ladin sponsored terrorism. In retrospect it seems the former Vietnam semi-draft dodger became the biggest hawk in history when he he was in trouble. Unfortunately for us he was POTUS at the time.
 
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.



We can discuss Reagan sponsored Mil/Ops another time dancing pussy. Right now Clinton's bombing of Europe is on the table. Any ideas come through those earphones?

OK I will clearly state one more time we have not ahd a fully legal war since WW2.

And on a side note Bush ran on the USA not being the police force for the world or into nation building.
Clearly a dig against Clowntoons Bosnia adventure.
 
Last edited:
Legal? No more so than Reagans invasions of a country or two while he was in office.



We can discuss Reagan sponsored Mil/Ops another time dancing pussy. Right now Clinton's bombing of Europe is on the table. Any ideas come through those earphones?

OK I will clearly state one more time we have not ahd a fully legal war since WW2.

And on a side note Bush ran on the USA not being the police force for the world or into nation building.
Clearly a dig against Clowntoons Bosnia adventure.

We didn't have a "fully legal war" in Korea when Truman sent Troops on an executive order. About 36,000 Americans died in that little "police action". The liberal media declared it "the forgotton war" because they couldn't bring themselves to investigate the criminal conduct of a fellow liberal democrat. LBJ created the fake "gulf of Tonkin incident" that got us into VietNam and then set the rules that Americans could win every battle and still lose the war. Bill Clinton sent a hundred missiles flying when his peculiar sexual urges were uncovered and the liberal media set the stage for him to bomb Europe when that diversion didn't work. In the mean time the 9-11 terrorists were....you know..
 
War is a continuation of policy by other means. Karl Von Clausewitz said that, and he was right on the money.

All this bickering over "fully legal war" is bullshit. Reality is that a war is legal when soldiers hit the ground and start breaking things and killing people. You can hand-wring over whether or not Congress or the American people are behind it. Won't change a damn thing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top