Does anyone else get the willies from the Kosovo action???
- Thread starter snoman
- Start date
Gwinnydapooh
Retired Screen Name
Rich, it's good to see someone caught that. I really meant for that to be the whole thrust of my post. Clinton really believes, somehow, that if only governments have arms and governments have total freedom of action coupled with unlimited resources and docile subjects, they can solve all the problems. I don't think I have to ask what the rest of you think about that.
Also, I want to second Rich's point about the leaders of these countries. We made every effort to get the Iraqis to get rid of Hussein (at least whenever we thought the same "kind" of Arab would end up in power) and it NEVER WORKED. This suggests to me that for whatever reason (maybe the fact that he can make American Presidents reach for their ankles at will?) the Iraqi people support Hussein. I'd be willing to bet that if the Serbs really disapproved of Milosevic, he'd be out by now. No, he's their man. Kill him and another comes out. Did assassinating Kennedy kill the Democratic agenda in 1964? Of course not! This would have the same result.
Also, I want to second Rich's point about the leaders of these countries. We made every effort to get the Iraqis to get rid of Hussein (at least whenever we thought the same "kind" of Arab would end up in power) and it NEVER WORKED. This suggests to me that for whatever reason (maybe the fact that he can make American Presidents reach for their ankles at will?) the Iraqi people support Hussein. I'd be willing to bet that if the Serbs really disapproved of Milosevic, he'd be out by now. No, he's their man. Kill him and another comes out. Did assassinating Kennedy kill the Democratic agenda in 1964? Of course not! This would have the same result.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
The problem with Rich's scenario from the viewpoint of Clinton and his ilk is that it leaves them with little to feel elitist, powerful, and superior about. Give people the tools to solve their own problems? What heresy! This is one place that the proposed foreign policy of the Libertarian Party makes sense. If you think the Kosovans need weapons-send them weapons yourself! Unfortunately, current federal law makes this a felony for private citizens.
Okay...I can feel byself being drawn in...unable to escape....having no exit strategy...this debate is to me like Kosovo in microcosm. 
Alrighty...
1. Swift action as an alluring falsehood.
Hmmm.
The Constitution was written in the 1700s, when it took a month to cross the atlantic, and there was _time_ to debate thoroughly the issue of waging war. Now we the president can dial up the pentagon and have a country obliterated in the amount of time it will take me to type this post.
I am not in favour of military adventurism _at_all_, but I think Spartacus is making too sweeping a statement. Think congress would have voted to go to war with Iran over the hostages? Nope. All that would have done was placed the blame with congress, not on him...it would have done nothing to get those people home.
Remember, at least one Congressmen voted against going to war days after the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor. You distrust the President (any president) to act with reason and sense? I trust congress far far less.
Also, our environment is shaped by our actions. Remember how, in the wake of Vietnam, when our reluctance to do ANYTHING military in response to aggression was broadcast far and wide...remember how all of a sudden we had a host of troubles worldwide? We had told the world that our saber was staying in its scabbard. They knew it, and therefor they felt free to pretty much treat our idle threats as idle threats.
Then Reagan showed up and (like him our hate him) demonstrated on several occasions that he would rattle, then draw, then use the saber. Do you agree with all of what he did? Probably not. But when is the last time Libya gave us crap?
Now, I know...this is can descend into a debate on policy (proactive v isolationist), and I'm resisting mission creep. I don't wanna go there.
Closing point? If we tell the world that our president is not free to act WITHIN REASON without an act of congress we're telling every tinpot dictator out there with an agenda that they are free to pursue it...because we won't stop them...because congress is not gonna go to war over it. That might sound cool at first, but it won't after a few years.
2. Snuff Milo and all will be well.
*snort*
Who is going to take over after him that will be better? This region has ZERO democratic tradition, is a cesspool of hatred and nationalism, and has only shown stability when trampled under the foot of a fierce tyrant. Kill/oust Milo and I'll be singing a Who song:
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
3. The lack of an exit strategy is the most troubling aspect of all of this, followed closely by the philosophical aspect (we'll disarm you and then protect you). Has ANYONE heard of how Clinton intends to get us out?
Mike
Alrighty...
1. Swift action as an alluring falsehood.
Hmmm.
The Constitution was written in the 1700s, when it took a month to cross the atlantic, and there was _time_ to debate thoroughly the issue of waging war. Now we the president can dial up the pentagon and have a country obliterated in the amount of time it will take me to type this post.
I am not in favour of military adventurism _at_all_, but I think Spartacus is making too sweeping a statement. Think congress would have voted to go to war with Iran over the hostages? Nope. All that would have done was placed the blame with congress, not on him...it would have done nothing to get those people home.
Remember, at least one Congressmen voted against going to war days after the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor. You distrust the President (any president) to act with reason and sense? I trust congress far far less.
Also, our environment is shaped by our actions. Remember how, in the wake of Vietnam, when our reluctance to do ANYTHING military in response to aggression was broadcast far and wide...remember how all of a sudden we had a host of troubles worldwide? We had told the world that our saber was staying in its scabbard. They knew it, and therefor they felt free to pretty much treat our idle threats as idle threats.
Then Reagan showed up and (like him our hate him) demonstrated on several occasions that he would rattle, then draw, then use the saber. Do you agree with all of what he did? Probably not. But when is the last time Libya gave us crap?
Now, I know...this is can descend into a debate on policy (proactive v isolationist), and I'm resisting mission creep. I don't wanna go there.
Closing point? If we tell the world that our president is not free to act WITHIN REASON without an act of congress we're telling every tinpot dictator out there with an agenda that they are free to pursue it...because we won't stop them...because congress is not gonna go to war over it. That might sound cool at first, but it won't after a few years.
2. Snuff Milo and all will be well.
*snort*
Who is going to take over after him that will be better? This region has ZERO democratic tradition, is a cesspool of hatred and nationalism, and has only shown stability when trampled under the foot of a fierce tyrant. Kill/oust Milo and I'll be singing a Who song:
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
3. The lack of an exit strategy is the most troubling aspect of all of this, followed closely by the philosophical aspect (we'll disarm you and then protect you). Has ANYONE heard of how Clinton intends to get us out?
Mike
Mike,
You and Colin Powell seem to feel the same way, "getting in may be easy,
but how do we get out?” I agree.
-----
Let's check out another viewpoint. How about a “conspiracy theory”?
Rich stated that “the answer is not to disarm a people (Kosovoan or
American) and *then* offer to protect them with arms controlled only by
governments.” I agree - it is not an “answer” - but it could be an
intermediate “goal”. Milosovic, Saddam, or even Clinton could be mere cogs
in a greater wheel.
(Please bear with me. I’m not a conspiracy nut so the following thoughts are
foreign and new to me. I am not convinced, only questioning; therefore I
am open to all comments...just, please, be gentle...)
-------
Many world events are hard to understand, let alone justify. Could the
wild-eyed radicals be right? Is there is some greater force influencing the
show behind the scenes? Someone simply must influence the selection and
decisions of those posing as political leaders. Are many leaders, by plan or
ignorance, serving the eventual but well-defined goal of a helpless world
dominated by ... by ... by whom?
Ironically enough, many leaders might not even know who is backing them.
Permit me a small example.
-------
Thirty years ago in the Air Force, my shop discovered some critical, new
intelligence information. We were forbidden (by those representing the very
highest level of the U.S. government) to publish this information .
Intermediate levels in this chain of command vociferously backed their
superiors but surreptitiously weakened certain lower-level impediments to
my shop’s goal of publishing our findings. Eventually, through various
devious, regulation-bending maneuvers, we published our document
throughout the intelligence community as a “working paper” - thereby
avoiding high-level opposition by not addressing them.
For years, we (in my shop) proudly believed we had overcome all obstacles
to “do the right thing”. Only after I retired and met some of my former
acquaintances (who served in various agencies) did I learn that
behind-the-scene hiring, firing, re-assigning of various assets, etc. by those
intermediate agencies permitted us to overcome the obstacles before us.
We (my shop) had never known that their behind-the-scenes maneuvering
was the root of our “success”.
Could this apply to various leaders? Could they be supported (with or
without their knowledge) by those who believe “this guy will get us what we
want”? If the leader suddenly shifts values or goals, could they be
assassinated or discredited for that shift (e.g. John, Bobby & Ted Kennedy)?
-------
I have no idea whether Clinton was backed by a drug cartel, or a Tri-Lateral
Commission, or the Arkansas Ladies’ Sewing Circle. But we must be missing
something!
Surely something greater than the Democrats was strong enough to provide
the little extra “push” to get him into the White House. Good Lord, with
Clinton’s well-known lack of common sense, obvious lack of discretion, a
host of obvious skeletons in his closet, and inability to keep his lies straight,
who would select him to represent them without some kind of ulterior
motive? He wrings situational ethics to an end that would be hilarious if it
were not so malicious and self-serving.
There simply must have been someone or some group who, with or without
Clinton’s knowledge, felt he was the best shill for the job. If so, who is
behind our government? Who could provide the resources to have such
cretins as Clinton considered for public office and pay for the incredibly
expensive dog-and-pony show to get him elected.
I have no idea who, if anyone, is behind the scenes. However, if there are
such individuals and groups vying with each other for power - financial,
political, physical, etc. - then these would be our real enemies. Is there any
other rational explanation for “leaders” such as Khomeni, Milosovic, Saddam,
or Clinton or our involvement in Somalia, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia,
etc.?
Regardless of what scenario each of us may imagine, our best defense is to
be armed. If we, as citizens, lose our RKBA, we will no longer be citizens.
We will be mere “subjects” - “grist” for the millers of world domination,
whoever they may be.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 26, 1999).]
You and Colin Powell seem to feel the same way, "getting in may be easy,
but how do we get out?” I agree.
-----
Let's check out another viewpoint. How about a “conspiracy theory”?
Rich stated that “the answer is not to disarm a people (Kosovoan or
American) and *then* offer to protect them with arms controlled only by
governments.” I agree - it is not an “answer” - but it could be an
intermediate “goal”. Milosovic, Saddam, or even Clinton could be mere cogs
in a greater wheel.
(Please bear with me. I’m not a conspiracy nut so the following thoughts are
foreign and new to me. I am not convinced, only questioning; therefore I
am open to all comments...just, please, be gentle...)
-------
Many world events are hard to understand, let alone justify. Could the
wild-eyed radicals be right? Is there is some greater force influencing the
show behind the scenes? Someone simply must influence the selection and
decisions of those posing as political leaders. Are many leaders, by plan or
ignorance, serving the eventual but well-defined goal of a helpless world
dominated by ... by ... by whom?
Ironically enough, many leaders might not even know who is backing them.
Permit me a small example.
-------
Thirty years ago in the Air Force, my shop discovered some critical, new
intelligence information. We were forbidden (by those representing the very
highest level of the U.S. government) to publish this information .
Intermediate levels in this chain of command vociferously backed their
superiors but surreptitiously weakened certain lower-level impediments to
my shop’s goal of publishing our findings. Eventually, through various
devious, regulation-bending maneuvers, we published our document
throughout the intelligence community as a “working paper” - thereby
avoiding high-level opposition by not addressing them.
For years, we (in my shop) proudly believed we had overcome all obstacles
to “do the right thing”. Only after I retired and met some of my former
acquaintances (who served in various agencies) did I learn that
behind-the-scene hiring, firing, re-assigning of various assets, etc. by those
intermediate agencies permitted us to overcome the obstacles before us.
We (my shop) had never known that their behind-the-scenes maneuvering
was the root of our “success”.
Could this apply to various leaders? Could they be supported (with or
without their knowledge) by those who believe “this guy will get us what we
want”? If the leader suddenly shifts values or goals, could they be
assassinated or discredited for that shift (e.g. John, Bobby & Ted Kennedy)?
-------
I have no idea whether Clinton was backed by a drug cartel, or a Tri-Lateral
Commission, or the Arkansas Ladies’ Sewing Circle. But we must be missing
something!
Surely something greater than the Democrats was strong enough to provide
the little extra “push” to get him into the White House. Good Lord, with
Clinton’s well-known lack of common sense, obvious lack of discretion, a
host of obvious skeletons in his closet, and inability to keep his lies straight,
who would select him to represent them without some kind of ulterior
motive? He wrings situational ethics to an end that would be hilarious if it
were not so malicious and self-serving.
There simply must have been someone or some group who, with or without
Clinton’s knowledge, felt he was the best shill for the job. If so, who is
behind our government? Who could provide the resources to have such
cretins as Clinton considered for public office and pay for the incredibly
expensive dog-and-pony show to get him elected.
I have no idea who, if anyone, is behind the scenes. However, if there are
such individuals and groups vying with each other for power - financial,
political, physical, etc. - then these would be our real enemies. Is there any
other rational explanation for “leaders” such as Khomeni, Milosovic, Saddam,
or Clinton or our involvement in Somalia, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia,
etc.?
Regardless of what scenario each of us may imagine, our best defense is to
be armed. If we, as citizens, lose our RKBA, we will no longer be citizens.
We will be mere “subjects” - “grist” for the millers of world domination,
whoever they may be.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 26, 1999).]
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Dennis-
Well thought out and stated. My take on conspiracy theories:
One need not attribute power consoldation to one individual or group in the shadows in order to make sense of many of the conspiracy theories out there. One need only look to human nature and the fact that power is a highly addictive drug which results in consistent behavior across individuals.
From the Town Council to the President's office to NATO to the UN. Individuals and organizations need to justify their existence. After some length of time in power, those whom they serve begin to take on a lower life form (in their minds)...they see us as errant children without their insight into the "big" picture.
Little wonder that a WACO might happen as a result? Small marvel that agency heads might wish to protect us from ourselves with cameras on street corners, no-knock warrants, and disarmament? Minor surprise that the most powerful elected official in the world might consider it his birthright to conduct the affairs of state with a 20 year old intern kneeling under his desk? No brainer that a banking agency might wish to know the source and use of every penny in the economy? I think not.
On the international or interagencey scene, we are reminded that each of these leaders, moving amongst his "peers" is even more subject to human frailty. Thus, Klinton gets an erection for Milosovitch and decides to do something about it; Milosovitch wants Albanian blood because his authority's been challenged; Certain ATF officials decide to create a storm troop agency despite it's lack of mandate, training or moral license to do so.
The common thread....powerful individuals soon forget the root source of their power and come to see us as minor obstacles to their *individual* plans for a better world. In fact, at the highest levels (eg: Kosovo), they couldn't care how many of our people are placed in harm's way, except to the extent that it affects their place in history.
Bottom line: These guys don't need to act in concert to create the *appearance* of complicity. Indeed, they may have diametrically opposing views. However, by each giving in to the temptation for greater *individual* power, they look to many of us to be clones acting under a shadowy puppet master.
The answer to these problems is found in only one document in recorded history: The Constitution of the United States of America.
Now, somebody *please* stop me...before I fall off this soapbox!
Rich
Well thought out and stated. My take on conspiracy theories:
One need not attribute power consoldation to one individual or group in the shadows in order to make sense of many of the conspiracy theories out there. One need only look to human nature and the fact that power is a highly addictive drug which results in consistent behavior across individuals.
From the Town Council to the President's office to NATO to the UN. Individuals and organizations need to justify their existence. After some length of time in power, those whom they serve begin to take on a lower life form (in their minds)...they see us as errant children without their insight into the "big" picture.
Little wonder that a WACO might happen as a result? Small marvel that agency heads might wish to protect us from ourselves with cameras on street corners, no-knock warrants, and disarmament? Minor surprise that the most powerful elected official in the world might consider it his birthright to conduct the affairs of state with a 20 year old intern kneeling under his desk? No brainer that a banking agency might wish to know the source and use of every penny in the economy? I think not.
On the international or interagencey scene, we are reminded that each of these leaders, moving amongst his "peers" is even more subject to human frailty. Thus, Klinton gets an erection for Milosovitch and decides to do something about it; Milosovitch wants Albanian blood because his authority's been challenged; Certain ATF officials decide to create a storm troop agency despite it's lack of mandate, training or moral license to do so.
The common thread....powerful individuals soon forget the root source of their power and come to see us as minor obstacles to their *individual* plans for a better world. In fact, at the highest levels (eg: Kosovo), they couldn't care how many of our people are placed in harm's way, except to the extent that it affects their place in history.
Bottom line: These guys don't need to act in concert to create the *appearance* of complicity. Indeed, they may have diametrically opposing views. However, by each giving in to the temptation for greater *individual* power, they look to many of us to be clones acting under a shadowy puppet master.
The answer to these problems is found in only one document in recorded history: The Constitution of the United States of America.
Now, somebody *please* stop me...before I fall off this soapbox!
Rich
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Rich, great post.
Coronach,
OK, who's going to cross the Atlantic and get us? The Russians can't even maintain their navy. It is rusting at the docks and has been for years. Their air force is divided into two separate organizations-one for territorial defense and one for extraterritorial offense. Guess what? It ain't able to maintain its aircraft at operational levels. Is Milosevic going to get in his aircraft carrier and come get us?
What about the Russian strategic nuclear forces? Well, no boomer sub has been spotted operating inside or outside of Russian territorial waters for years. They can't even pay for the dismantling required on ICBM's by treaty. Read what is known about the state of their remaining ICBM's. In their heyday the launch reliability of their birds was none too good-they relied on quantity over quality.
The Chinese are developing the capability to reach the western coast of the US with ICBM's. Read what I said in my previous post.
Who else do we need worry about in the conventional military sense? Invasion by Canada or Mexico? The military looks at capability to determine level of threat. All of the countries with any capability to bring CONVENTIONAL military force to bear against the US are friendly and allies to boot. I'm not talking about threatening US "interests" here. I'm talking about direct military attack on the US.
As far as my Iran scenario goes, this is what it would have accomplished. 1)Reaffirmation of the constitutional delegation of power and responsibility. 2) The pragmatic result of saving Jimmy Carter's butt no matter what Congress did as a result
3) I personally believe that the Congressmen would have realized that they were squarely behind the eight ball and as a result, declared war.
There is no credible military threat in the world besides strategic nuclear attack against the US that requires emergency powers by the President. Any other threat would be seen coming with enough time to allow Congress to function in its constitutionally delegated role.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-- William Pitt 1783
Coronach,
OK, who's going to cross the Atlantic and get us? The Russians can't even maintain their navy. It is rusting at the docks and has been for years. Their air force is divided into two separate organizations-one for territorial defense and one for extraterritorial offense. Guess what? It ain't able to maintain its aircraft at operational levels. Is Milosevic going to get in his aircraft carrier and come get us?
What about the Russian strategic nuclear forces? Well, no boomer sub has been spotted operating inside or outside of Russian territorial waters for years. They can't even pay for the dismantling required on ICBM's by treaty. Read what is known about the state of their remaining ICBM's. In their heyday the launch reliability of their birds was none too good-they relied on quantity over quality.
The Chinese are developing the capability to reach the western coast of the US with ICBM's. Read what I said in my previous post.
Who else do we need worry about in the conventional military sense? Invasion by Canada or Mexico? The military looks at capability to determine level of threat. All of the countries with any capability to bring CONVENTIONAL military force to bear against the US are friendly and allies to boot. I'm not talking about threatening US "interests" here. I'm talking about direct military attack on the US.
As far as my Iran scenario goes, this is what it would have accomplished. 1)Reaffirmation of the constitutional delegation of power and responsibility. 2) The pragmatic result of saving Jimmy Carter's butt no matter what Congress did as a result
3) I personally believe that the Congressmen would have realized that they were squarely behind the eight ball and as a result, declared war.There is no credible military threat in the world besides strategic nuclear attack against the US that requires emergency powers by the President. Any other threat would be seen coming with enough time to allow Congress to function in its constitutionally delegated role.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-- William Pitt 1783
Rich,
I tend to agree with you. Greed and lust for power seem to be the primary
motives of nearly all our so-called representatives. It is they who “bear
considerable watching”.
At an even lower level than city councils, I have watched our local volunteer
fire department self-destruct at least twice. In both cases, the problems
were caused by members of restricted intelligence trying to take power for
themselves or destroy whatever power someone else may have enjoyed.
Here at TFL, nearly everyone seems to understand that to settle our various
differences on other questions, we must first ensure our liberty. I guess that
concept is what makes the Second Amendment the “Keystone Amendment”.
I vehemently agree that our greatest political yardstick must be the U.S.
Constitution.
I guess our biggest hope is that the greedy power brokers will be too selfish
and greedy to unite as we are trying to do.
Thanks for your views, Rich.
PS. Rather than a soapbox, you’ll need a pretty big gazebo. There will be a
lot of folks standing with you. And it has a railing! Oboy!
I tend to agree with you. Greed and lust for power seem to be the primary
motives of nearly all our so-called representatives. It is they who “bear
considerable watching”.
At an even lower level than city councils, I have watched our local volunteer
fire department self-destruct at least twice. In both cases, the problems
were caused by members of restricted intelligence trying to take power for
themselves or destroy whatever power someone else may have enjoyed.
Here at TFL, nearly everyone seems to understand that to settle our various
differences on other questions, we must first ensure our liberty. I guess that
concept is what makes the Second Amendment the “Keystone Amendment”.
I vehemently agree that our greatest political yardstick must be the U.S.
Constitution.
I guess our biggest hope is that the greedy power brokers will be too selfish
and greedy to unite as we are trying to do.
Thanks for your views, Rich.
PS. Rather than a soapbox, you’ll need a pretty big gazebo. There will be a
lot of folks standing with you. And it has a railing! Oboy!
Well, while we're on the subject of conspiracy theory, here's a pet of mine that's been mulling around in my noggin the last week or so that I posted to another thread, but actually fits in here at this point as well:
Billy keeps us embroiled in Europe (as a favor to his masters, the PRC), using up as much ordinance as possible. The PRC, in the meantime, are channeling arms through Russia into Serbia to test out how well our "secrets" work. Once they're satisfied that the weapons work, they trundle into Taiwan and the Spratly Islands, while the rest of the world is focused on Kosovo. The US has no arms to shield Taiwan with, and Billy starts a "negotiating process" with the PRC until he's done in office, dropping the whole clusterpuck in his predecessor's lap, or the whole Y2K/Serbian conflict/economic collapse (when his smoke and mirrors Clintonomics takes a header) causes a FEMA/"jackbooted thug"/martial law response and he becomes, basically, King Klinton.
I know it's a little rough around the edges, as far as conspiracy theories go, but many of the same basic themes that I'm hearing keep popping up, and Bubba's power-boner falls right into place.
------------------
Don LeHue
The surest sign of poor craftsmanship is wrinkles in the duct tape.
Billy keeps us embroiled in Europe (as a favor to his masters, the PRC), using up as much ordinance as possible. The PRC, in the meantime, are channeling arms through Russia into Serbia to test out how well our "secrets" work. Once they're satisfied that the weapons work, they trundle into Taiwan and the Spratly Islands, while the rest of the world is focused on Kosovo. The US has no arms to shield Taiwan with, and Billy starts a "negotiating process" with the PRC until he's done in office, dropping the whole clusterpuck in his predecessor's lap, or the whole Y2K/Serbian conflict/economic collapse (when his smoke and mirrors Clintonomics takes a header) causes a FEMA/"jackbooted thug"/martial law response and he becomes, basically, King Klinton.
I know it's a little rough around the edges, as far as conspiracy theories go, but many of the same basic themes that I'm hearing keep popping up, and Bubba's power-boner falls right into place.
------------------
Don LeHue
The surest sign of poor craftsmanship is wrinkles in the duct tape.
It's amazing watching this administration putting out two stories at the same time. They say there are no "plans" for ground troops. The whole point of this "war" is to get Milosevic (sp?) to agree to a peace plan which will be enforced by... ground troops. What do we get if we win? "Peacekeepers" that will get shot at by both sides. Even if we win, we lose.
I'm convinced that the only way to end this civil war once and for all is to kill off one side. The guys fighting the civil war on both sides are willing to do just that. We aren't.
[This message has been edited by Tim Burke (edited March 28, 1999).]
I'm convinced that the only way to end this civil war once and for all is to kill off one side. The guys fighting the civil war on both sides are willing to do just that. We aren't.
[This message has been edited by Tim Burke (edited March 28, 1999).]
This morning I was watching ABC's "THIS WEEK". The possability of ground troops seems very likely. Sen. McCann said "If we're in it, let's win it" and it seems many members of congress are expressing the same view. Tim Burke is absolutely right, any UN (read US) ground troops are going to be a target for both sides. There is no exit statagy. In fact no one seems to know exactly what would constitute "winning" in Kosovo. The US has stepped on its d**k big time.
Be prepared people, This is going to get very ugly.
Be prepared people, This is going to get very ugly.
I don't consider myself a military genius, but the only way to end this situation in Kosovo is with ground troops. Bombs failed to work in VietNam and Iraq was defeated by our Armor. We will have to go in first before the rest of Europe will get involved.
We have spent most of this century bleeding in european wars ( I even include Viet Nam as we were fighting to protect French interests)
I believe it is time for us to let the europeans fight their own wars, we should pull out our troops, build star wars and beef up our navy and airlift to allow us to strike anywhere. Let the Germans, Italians, French and Japanese defend themselves. We have paid too high a price in lives and teasure.
The balkans are a trap and will get us involved into something worse than Viet Nam.
My father once told me that when Republicans start wars they are over quickly and decisevely. When the democrats start wars we go in ill prepared and loose a lot of lives before the situation turns in our favor.
Clinton and most of the anti Viet Nam war crowd were only interested in saving their own necks during Viet Nam. The present administration has contempt for the military and doesn't really care about the grunts and marines who will bleed in a useless war.
Personally, I believe that Clinton wants to become world leader after he leaves the white house, probably envisions himself as the first world president or some such.
Geez do I ramble on.
[This message has been edited by K80Geoff (edited March 28, 1999).]
We have spent most of this century bleeding in european wars ( I even include Viet Nam as we were fighting to protect French interests)
I believe it is time for us to let the europeans fight their own wars, we should pull out our troops, build star wars and beef up our navy and airlift to allow us to strike anywhere. Let the Germans, Italians, French and Japanese defend themselves. We have paid too high a price in lives and teasure.
The balkans are a trap and will get us involved into something worse than Viet Nam.
My father once told me that when Republicans start wars they are over quickly and decisevely. When the democrats start wars we go in ill prepared and loose a lot of lives before the situation turns in our favor.
Clinton and most of the anti Viet Nam war crowd were only interested in saving their own necks during Viet Nam. The present administration has contempt for the military and doesn't really care about the grunts and marines who will bleed in a useless war.
Personally, I believe that Clinton wants to become world leader after he leaves the white house, probably envisions himself as the first world president or some such.
Geez do I ramble on.
[This message has been edited by K80Geoff (edited March 28, 1999).]
Now that our "strategy" discussion is starting to shift from an air campaign to ground troops, I wonder how many of you caught the recent testimony of Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm, commander of U.S. Southern Command.
He recently told Congress that despite the Clinton administrations claims of success, our 5 year military mission in Haiti is a failure. He recommended that the U.S. terminate its military presence there because the country is collapsing into chaos. It seems that the troops are engaged primarily in "force protection". In other words, they are too busy protecting themselves to effectively keep the peace.
As we look ahead to our possible role as "peacekeepers" in Kosovo, we might ask ourselves exactly what we intend to do in that capacity.
Consider that the Clinton administration has often been described as "poll-driven". Public support of our bombing campaign is shaky at best, even if you want to grant those taking these surveys the benefit of the doubt, which I do not. As others posting here have, IMHO, correctly pointed out, our troops are probably going to be shot at by both sides if we go in there. So how long will it take, or should I ask, how many Americans coming home in body bags will it take, before public opinion takes a nose dive? Will this jukebox administration stay the course if if it does?
If our troops go in and make a genuine attempt to keep order, there will be casualties. I don't think the American people will tolerate that for long. If they just go in and engage in "force protection", the situation there will just deteriorate and nothing will get accomplished.
Clinton has no more elections to win. He has this "legacy" thing he's holding onto desperately, and that really scares me. This is probably his last shot at getting that little niche in history for himself. No matter the cost.
He recently told Congress that despite the Clinton administrations claims of success, our 5 year military mission in Haiti is a failure. He recommended that the U.S. terminate its military presence there because the country is collapsing into chaos. It seems that the troops are engaged primarily in "force protection". In other words, they are too busy protecting themselves to effectively keep the peace.
As we look ahead to our possible role as "peacekeepers" in Kosovo, we might ask ourselves exactly what we intend to do in that capacity.
Consider that the Clinton administration has often been described as "poll-driven". Public support of our bombing campaign is shaky at best, even if you want to grant those taking these surveys the benefit of the doubt, which I do not. As others posting here have, IMHO, correctly pointed out, our troops are probably going to be shot at by both sides if we go in there. So how long will it take, or should I ask, how many Americans coming home in body bags will it take, before public opinion takes a nose dive? Will this jukebox administration stay the course if if it does?
If our troops go in and make a genuine attempt to keep order, there will be casualties. I don't think the American people will tolerate that for long. If they just go in and engage in "force protection", the situation there will just deteriorate and nothing will get accomplished.
Clinton has no more elections to win. He has this "legacy" thing he's holding onto desperately, and that really scares me. This is probably his last shot at getting that little niche in history for himself. No matter the cost.
I have been puzzled and wondering about Clinton's motives. I, too, have used the "historical legacy" rationale.
I believe K80Geoff nailed it! We have kept thinking he is dead ended...can't be President after this...Congressman and Senator doesn't have enough juice nor the prestige for WC's imperious personality. The damned UN!!!
Why has he continued to subordinate the USA to the UN thru treaties, executive orders, US military activity? He is jockeying for a UN position! Bet ya!
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
I believe K80Geoff nailed it! We have kept thinking he is dead ended...can't be President after this...Congressman and Senator doesn't have enough juice nor the prestige for WC's imperious personality. The damned UN!!!
Why has he continued to subordinate the USA to the UN thru treaties, executive orders, US military activity? He is jockeying for a UN position! Bet ya!
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Rich Lucibella
Staff
DC-
UN position? It definitely fits! If so, Bill is fruitier than I thought.
Jimmy Carter, (a truly fine human being, though terrible President) might be able to pull off the "Emissary at Large" trip. Bill Clinton will be forgotten by the international community before his successor's oath is finished....with good reason. Carter may be excused as an idealist...Bill is just another self serving lightweight.
Rich
UN position? It definitely fits! If so, Bill is fruitier than I thought.
Jimmy Carter, (a truly fine human being, though terrible President) might be able to pull off the "Emissary at Large" trip. Bill Clinton will be forgotten by the international community before his successor's oath is finished....with good reason. Carter may be excused as an idealist...Bill is just another self serving lightweight.
Rich
Rich...
We've all heard the BS that he will go to Hollywood after...but for what? Seriously, what could he do? Politics removed, Hollywood is pure capitalism.
He has no demonstrable business skills; has never had a real job; has always been on the public fiscal teat in all his positions since college. Therefore...what benefit could he be to some Hollywood studio?
A trophy ex-Pres on the BoardDir? Someone to show-off at parties? He can't be a lawyer.... The only thing that sets him apart from mediocrity is his name.
I dunno, unless I'm missing something its Trailer Park City for him
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
We've all heard the BS that he will go to Hollywood after...but for what? Seriously, what could he do? Politics removed, Hollywood is pure capitalism.
He has no demonstrable business skills; has never had a real job; has always been on the public fiscal teat in all his positions since college. Therefore...what benefit could he be to some Hollywood studio?
A trophy ex-Pres on the BoardDir? Someone to show-off at parties? He can't be a lawyer.... The only thing that sets him apart from mediocrity is his name.
I dunno, unless I'm missing something its Trailer Park City for him
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
I agree with DC, I live in Billy boy's home town, Hot Springs Arkansas. There is a small contingent of the lunatic left that would welcome his return with open arms, but I think even they will eventually find it too embarrasing to be seen with him. There are many members of his extended family (cousins and such) that find it VERY embarrasing to have people mention their relation to the president (sm case "p" intentional" There are many people, teachers and coaches who pretend that they never knew him. It is no longer fashionable to be known as a FOB (Friend of Bill)I could name names here, but I think that would be inappropriate.
My point is, if this is what it's like in his home town, what's it going to be like elsewhere? Don't you think Bill knows this? Don't you think he knows that the second he becomes a liability rather than an asset, that Hillary is gonna drop him like a live snake? Bill doesn't own a home in Arkansas and it doesn't look like he can find a home anywhere else either.
Considering all this, wouldn't he want to stay in office as long as he can? Wouldn't he do ANYTHING to stay in the big chair?
------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
My point is, if this is what it's like in his home town, what's it going to be like elsewhere? Don't you think Bill knows this? Don't you think he knows that the second he becomes a liability rather than an asset, that Hillary is gonna drop him like a live snake? Bill doesn't own a home in Arkansas and it doesn't look like he can find a home anywhere else either.
Considering all this, wouldn't he want to stay in office as long as he can? Wouldn't he do ANYTHING to stay in the big chair?
------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
Okay, let’s run with this for a moment. Does anyone think Bill Clinton is too
modest to have dreams of being the leader of the world? Agreed - he has
dreams. I would guess he would have at least the following goals - most of which
he could pursue simultaneously.
Secure an American power base by making the Democratic Part the most
powerful political party in the world - and beholden to Bill (literally,
philosophically, publicly and behind the scenes):
1. Unite every conceivable minority by pandering to their desires, thereby gaining
a majority of sheeple to vote and respond to polls “correctly”.
2. Control the legislature by getting sympathetic Democrats elected.
3. Control the executive branch.
a. Get Gore elected President - followed by other appropriate selections.
b. Install sympathizers into every possible long-term (career) position of power
and influence in the executive branch - especially those offices which can create or
support “policies”.
c. Use the Dept of the Treasury/IRS to investigate, intimidate, weaken,
demoralize, and destroy opposition.
d. Use the Dept of the Treasury/BATF as an unregulated para-military force.
e. Use the NSA, FBI, and other LEO organizations for domestic surveillance.
f. Complete the transformation of American Law Enforcement into a paramilitary
force in the name of “officer safety” or fighting the “drug war” or any other
pretext.
g. Create animosity between Law Enforcement and the citizens. This will create a
more dedicated Law Enforcement and a more subjugated populace.
h. Ensure the “appropriate” officers are promoted to leadership of U.S. Forces.
4. Control the judicial branch. Once the legislative and executive branches come
into line, gain control of the judicial branch by attrition. Retirements happen, and
those people who threaten Bill or create problems seem to be fatally
accident-prone! There WILL be openings.....
5. Control business and finance by bribery, favoritism, inside information,
under-the-table deals, pork barrel projects, etc.
6. Control the mass media, TV, radio, Hollywood, newspapers, journals, etc.
This is nearly complete already.
7. Control future generations by “appropriate” education in schools.
a. Control what is taught, denigrate our Forefathers as inept, outdated, radicals.
b. Ensure the Constitution is a “living document” to be “modernized” as needed to
suit “American goals” (the New World Order).
c. Ensure education is “soft”, preach “self-value” and destroy any long-term
concepts such as thrift, self-discipline, hard work, etc....
d. Ensure children understand the dinosaur mentality of the parents no longer
applies to today’s children - children are too bright to suffer under their parents’
ignorance.
8. Through education and public policy, increase the dependency of the people on
governmental largess: welfare, tax breaks, health care, retirement programs, etc.
9. Perhaps most importantly, circumvent troublesome Constitutional protections
by executive order, re-interpretation of Constitutional intent, or blatantly ignoring
them.
Secure an international power base:
10. Trade American assets (technology, favors, etc.) to gain favor with other
governments.
11. Ensure individual political states lose power to the United Nations by using
international “peer pressure”, trade and commerce policies, financial policies, and
secret deals with individual leaders.
12. Threaten to use and/or use U.S. forces to gain international favors and place
“appropriate” people into positions of power in other countries and in the United
Nations.
13. Use U.S. military for some surveillance, intimidation, force, and to create
“patriotic” conflicts and “emergencies”.
14. Use the NSA, CIA, DIA for international surveillance and “enforcement”.
15. Secure international acclaim by bringing America to its knees, unarmed,
unable to control its own territory, commerce, government, etc
16. Bring America into the United Nations as the major power and financier, but
subject to the treaties, policies and dictates of the United Nations.
-------------
Folks, I could go on but you get the idea. Many of these seem to be in progress.
Some already were set up or actually working when I retired from the USAF in
1979.
modest to have dreams of being the leader of the world?
Agreed - he hasdreams. I would guess he would have at least the following goals - most of which
he could pursue simultaneously.
Secure an American power base by making the Democratic Part the most
powerful political party in the world - and beholden to Bill (literally,
philosophically, publicly and behind the scenes):
1. Unite every conceivable minority by pandering to their desires, thereby gaining
a majority of sheeple to vote and respond to polls “correctly”.
2. Control the legislature by getting sympathetic Democrats elected.
3. Control the executive branch.
a. Get Gore elected President - followed by other appropriate selections.
b. Install sympathizers into every possible long-term (career) position of power
and influence in the executive branch - especially those offices which can create or
support “policies”.
c. Use the Dept of the Treasury/IRS to investigate, intimidate, weaken,
demoralize, and destroy opposition.
d. Use the Dept of the Treasury/BATF as an unregulated para-military force.
e. Use the NSA, FBI, and other LEO organizations for domestic surveillance.
f. Complete the transformation of American Law Enforcement into a paramilitary
force in the name of “officer safety” or fighting the “drug war” or any other
pretext.
g. Create animosity between Law Enforcement and the citizens. This will create a
more dedicated Law Enforcement and a more subjugated populace.
h. Ensure the “appropriate” officers are promoted to leadership of U.S. Forces.
4. Control the judicial branch. Once the legislative and executive branches come
into line, gain control of the judicial branch by attrition. Retirements happen, and
those people who threaten Bill or create problems seem to be fatally
accident-prone! There WILL be openings.....
5. Control business and finance by bribery, favoritism, inside information,
under-the-table deals, pork barrel projects, etc.
6. Control the mass media, TV, radio, Hollywood, newspapers, journals, etc.
This is nearly complete already.
7. Control future generations by “appropriate” education in schools.
a. Control what is taught, denigrate our Forefathers as inept, outdated, radicals.
b. Ensure the Constitution is a “living document” to be “modernized” as needed to
suit “American goals” (the New World Order).
c. Ensure education is “soft”, preach “self-value” and destroy any long-term
concepts such as thrift, self-discipline, hard work, etc....
d. Ensure children understand the dinosaur mentality of the parents no longer
applies to today’s children - children are too bright to suffer under their parents’
ignorance.
8. Through education and public policy, increase the dependency of the people on
governmental largess: welfare, tax breaks, health care, retirement programs, etc.
9. Perhaps most importantly, circumvent troublesome Constitutional protections
by executive order, re-interpretation of Constitutional intent, or blatantly ignoring
them.
Secure an international power base:
10. Trade American assets (technology, favors, etc.) to gain favor with other
governments.
11. Ensure individual political states lose power to the United Nations by using
international “peer pressure”, trade and commerce policies, financial policies, and
secret deals with individual leaders.
12. Threaten to use and/or use U.S. forces to gain international favors and place
“appropriate” people into positions of power in other countries and in the United
Nations.
13. Use U.S. military for some surveillance, intimidation, force, and to create
“patriotic” conflicts and “emergencies”.
14. Use the NSA, CIA, DIA for international surveillance and “enforcement”.
15. Secure international acclaim by bringing America to its knees, unarmed,
unable to control its own territory, commerce, government, etc
16. Bring America into the United Nations as the major power and financier, but
subject to the treaties, policies and dictates of the United Nations.
-------------
Folks, I could go on but you get the idea. Many of these seem to be in progress.
Some already were set up or actually working when I retired from the USAF in
1979.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
1. Well, gee, "Dittos", guys.
2. Yes, Bill's going to Hollywood. There is a new movie coming out (pun intended), entitled, "President Weirdlove, or, How I stopped worrying and learned to love the cruise missile".
3. Back when I was a pup, there was an English fella who proclaimed "Peace In Our Time". Not long after came Dunkirk. Me? I'm sittin' around and waitin'. And emailing and letter-writing and bitching.
Best regards to all, Art
2. Yes, Bill's going to Hollywood. There is a new movie coming out (pun intended), entitled, "President Weirdlove, or, How I stopped worrying and learned to love the cruise missile".
3. Back when I was a pup, there was an English fella who proclaimed "Peace In Our Time". Not long after came Dunkirk. Me? I'm sittin' around and waitin'. And emailing and letter-writing and bitching.
Best regards to all, Art