8202. RosettaStone - June 11, 1999 - 4:54 AM PT
bottom: You have a problem with Jews? Why the "Stein" reference. I like Jewish people and take your reference as an insult to them.
Do you also own nazi T-shirts like Jexster?
8203. RosettaStone - June 11, 1999 - 6:01 AM PT
MSNBC reports that the Russians are the first to enter Yugoslavia as peacekeepers. One can almost sense that annoyance at CNN/NATO when they report this. Could it be that they are annoyed that the Russians did it before they got their exclusive shots that Jamie Shea promised them?
8204. RosettaStone - June 11, 1999 - 6:32 AM PT
NOW, IT'S GOING TO GET INTERESTING...
While the mercenaries sit in the hot sun waiting for who-knows-what to cross the border in Yugoslavia, Mother Russia goes on the offensive to protect the Serb nation.
According to www.tass.ru/english, Russia is planning to send up to 10,000 peacekeepers to Kosovo, but not under NATO command. The idea is objected by the Americans who insist on the unified command in the Kosovo province. NATO has already planned the operation and has divided the Kosovo territory into sectors where the Alliance's units are going to be stationed with the NATO generals at the head.
"We are offered to negotiate the participation of the Russian military contingent in one of the sectors under the NATO command. This does not suit Russia. Its stance proceeds from an instruction from the Russian President that the Russian contingent should act independently and in close coordination with NATO," said Leonid Ivashov of the Russian Defense Ministry.
8205. benear - June 11, 1999 - 6:42 AM PT
Message #8195. You are typing in the dark in more ways than one. Tee hee hee. Just couldn't resist, Rosie.
8206. RosettaStone - June 11, 1999 - 6:52 AM PT
OKay, energy creature. I get the joke and had wished I could have deleted that 1 a.m. post this morning when I reread it. I'm getting used to my posts being deleted here.
8207. benear - June 11, 1999 - 7:04 AM PT
Hey, Rosie. I commiserate. Just yesterday The Great Dictator moved one of my posts from one thread to another. Just cause I didn't heed his warning to take it you know where.
The Fray is not a democracy and is subject to post cleansing. You and I should join forces and petition NATO to bomb The Fray. You in?
8208. benear - June 11, 1999 - 7:09 AM PT
Come to think of it, after all those wood burning servers and 13 year old gum chewing tech support people are destroyed, NATO could then come in and rebuild The Fray and it is to be hoped eliminate all the page loading errors. Great added benefit don't ya think?
8209. RosettaStone - June 11, 1999 - 7:22 AM PT
benear: Very funny, but I can't be involved in any conspiracy. I'm on a hit list here because of JadeGold and because I've talked back to Irv. At any point, my posts can be deleted (not just moved to the PigPen like yours were)
Back on topic:
CNN/NATO just reported that Russia says that its troops (stationed in Bosnia and moving through Serbia today to the province's border) won't actually enter the Serbian province of Kosovo on Friday.
8210. Ronski - June 11, 1999 - 7:43 AM PT
I was wondering how the Ruskies got to Serbia, forgetting that they were in Bosnia. I was imagining them being air-dropped from Kalingrad, which the Russians should consider selling to the Germans, once the latter start making some real money again. Of course, it might make the people of Memel a bit nervous, not to mention Gdynia.
8211. RosettaStone - June 11, 1999 - 8:13 AM PT
NATO storm troopers are frantically packing their military trucks and moving into Kosovo. NATO "leadership" desperately wants them to get across the border first. After days in the sun, it's rush, rush, rush for the mercenaries. Dangerous land mines and starving Albanian refugees be damned.
LOL. The photo op is everything in 1999.
8212. ycmeehan - June 11, 1999 - 8:23 AM PT
NOW, IT'S GOING TO GET INTERESTING...
Indeed, indeed!
Russians move into Serbia to foil a coup attempt, after it became apparent that Army and Anti-Slobo elements were poised to move against the Serbian army rulers. Russian troops stationed as UN peace-keepers in Bosnia crossed the border in force this A.M. They were persuaded by elements of the ruling party operating in Bosnia that the Romanian solution was imminent if something was not done.
Having lost confidence in the US congressional allies of a Fascit persuation, the Serbs issued a desperate call on the only asset they have left-The Russian UN contingent in Bosnia who promptly abandoned their designated posts to come to the aid of their allies.
8213. ycmeehan - June 11, 1999 - 8:35 AM PT
Message #8212
Read: Russians move into Serbia to foil a coup attempt, after it became apparent Army and Anti-Slobo elements were poised to move against the Serbia Nazi rulers...NAZI not army. Sorry.
8214. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 8:41 AM PT
"Very funny, but I can't be involved in any
conspiracy. I'm on a hit list here because of JadeGold and
because I've talked back to Irv. At any point, my posts can
be deleted (not just moved to the PigPen like yours were)"
Rose:
Would that you were on citizenship probation subject to removal to Nis for posting more Slerb propaganda.
8215. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 9:04 AM PT
And what was the stated aim of NATO for bombing Serbia?
A victory by any other name Serbs Gain Nothing of Substance Over Rambouillet Terms
8216. ycmeehan - June 11, 1999 - 9:11 AM PT
Colossus,
You can talk to me, no?
The ability of the Slobo gangsters to trump opponents was never so apparent as today. The opposition which was poised to move was thwarted totally by the presence of Russinan troops in Serbia. Think of it: These are troops mandated to serve in a joint UM force in Bosnia. But yet they were persuaded to move in order to save Slobo from his own military. In the end, it won't matter as money talks and the Russians have none.
8217. Ronski - June 11, 1999 - 9:30 AM PT
Unless they sell the Oblast.
8218. justlooking - June 11, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
NPR had a story yesterday reporting that the Russians want to send 10,000 peacekeepers but don't have the money to train or equip them. Men, they can afford to lose. But they're a bit short of money just now. I think they're asking NATO for some sort of subsidy. In which case the idea that they won't be under NATO command is a total face-saving joke. (NPR=National Public Radio)
8219. Ronski - June 11, 1999 - 9:47 AM PT
They will use the same face-saving policy they used in Bosnia.
8220. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 9:54 AM PT
RosettaStone
You had one damn post deleted.
How many times are you going to whine about it?
Move on....please
8221. CalGal - June 11, 1999 - 9:54 AM PT
Did anyone read Krauthammer or Dionne yesterday? I thought they both summed it up pretty well.
Face It, We Won--Dionne
Defining Victory Down--Krauthammer
8222. justlooking - June 11, 1999 - 9:55 AM PT
Yes, but I doubt that they will be permitted to control a sector. Whether they enter first or last they will be an ancillary support group. If for no other reason than because they'll have to depend on the other countries for hand outs.
8223. justlooking - June 11, 1999 - 10:06 AM PT
Cal Gal
Thanks for the links. The Krauthammer didn't link for me but I can go to the WP and look it up.
The commentariat has been interesting. Safire has been pleasantly contrite. I was pretty amazed that in last Sunday's discussion on This Week in Review on ABC the commentators (Cokie et. al.) were very busy congradulating the US on the success of the effort. No one mentioned the horrible price that the Kossovars paid. (And yes, Rosie, the Serb civilians too. Although whatever they suffered, they weren't driven out of their homes and towns and murdered and/or raped by their neighbors.)
8224. Wombat - June 11, 1999 - 10:40 AM PT
The Russians will do in Kosovo what they did in Bosnia. Sell their weapons and equipment to the highest bidder. If they want to be separate from NATO's command structure, they can also be separate from NATO's logistical structure.
8225. HardyHarHar - June 11, 1999 - 11:02 AM PT
I hear the Serbs are proud of their "stand" against NATO...funny.
I'm not very impressed by their "resolve" since the bombing campaign was so civilian-friendly, and they still only lasted between 2 and 3 months.
How long would they have lasted if it were a military-led bombing campaign rather than a political bombing campaign? What if the priority had been maximum destruction and total non-nuclear anihilation? a week? doubful.
Losers.
8226. HardyHarHar - June 11, 1999 - 11:04 AM PT
For the record, I think all of the Serb "paper-target-wearing-pansies" civilians get what they deserve if we leave Slobo in power for a while.
Let 'em languish with the poor, fumbling Russians as their most powerful ally.
8227. Jenerator - June 11, 1999 - 11:06 AM PT
Cal,
For the most part, I like Krauthammer. In the past, every time I provided a link to one of his articles, JadeGold would come in and say "Krauthammer LOL!". I'm glad to see his name used more around here.
8228. RosettaStone - June 11, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
Interesting to see the Russians playing hardball with the "victorious" imperalists. Time to rain on NATO's bloody parade.
I think their moving Russian tanks and troops toward Kosovo keeps everyone honest.
State Department operative Stobe Talbott was so shocked at Russia's display of power that he turned his plane around in mid-air today and headed back to Moscow to find out what was really happening.
Reuters says Washington expressed surprise at the Russian troop movements but it said Moscow had given assurances its force would not move into Kosovo unilaterally.
The Russians said they might negotiate a sector of Kosovo for their peacekeeping directly with Belgrade if necessary.
"Relations with NATO are still frozen. As for the future, we'll see,"
Russian President Boris Yeltsin said.
8229. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
No sectors for the Rooskies, Rosie you pink bitch. We'll blast our way in if necessary and 1200 vodka swilling, unpaid drunks from Bosnia ain't gonna stop us.
8230. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 1:16 PM PT
I'm here to pee on Rosie's parade:
"An authoritative source in Skopje said an elite British rapid deployment force had been put on ``immediate alert'' Friday to head off a possible airborne Russian troop landing at Kosovo's capital Pristina.
But the British force of paratroopers and Gurkhas waiting by helicopters on the Macedonia's border with Kosovo was stood down in the late afternoon after a day of drama.
The British government denied media reports that the delay was forced
by the United States to allow its marines to enter first. ``Fury as we wait for the Americans,'' thundered London's Evening Standard newspaper."
There'll always be an England - Thank God!
8231. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
Hardee Har Har...
I not only have the pleasure of torturing Rose, I found me a real live Slerb loser from Pristina no less.
Dragoslav and I are gonna have a real fine Vidov Dan Holiday!
Am with you. I can count no air campaign a sucess that failed to lase a guided bomb dead center onto one of those bridge dancing "human" targets.
8232. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
Wow. How far the right-wing in this country has sunk -- Rosie says: "I think their moving Russian tanks and troops toward Kosovo keeps everyone honest."
Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his ... er, you know what I mean.
8233. CalGal - June 11, 1999 - 1:26 PM PT
Spinning in that empty vacuum between his ears.
8234. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 1:27 PM PT
Message #8216
No YC I do not speak except to the benighted, ignorant, ass-sucker Slerb apologists and Clinton haters around here. I speak to no one with any sense.
The Russians are freaking out internally. The hot heads, military especially, really don't like to see the free world kicking ass - not Slobo's fithly hole, not Sadaam's. I would bet that Yeltsin didn't even know of this dumb shit move of 1200 unpaid Commies from Bosnia. The Slerbs let them in because they've always realized that when the entire planet (save the GOP, Kadaffi, CalGal, Rosie Stone, BloboFart, 109, and communists) are against them, they need all they help they can get. Even a bunch of drunks from the Red Army.
Boris has been burning
8235. AceofSpades - June 11, 1999 - 1:28 PM PT
Here's some polls for ya, liberals-- since you love 'em so much.
From FreeRepublic:
CNN/GALLUP POLL - AFTER CLINTON'S SPEECH LAST NIGHT
CNN/GALLUP
06/11/99 CNN/GALLUP
CNN just announced Gallup poll AFTER Clinton's speech last night!
Only 47% of those surveyed think Kosovo was worth going to war over! (Gulf War had 80% approval)
A full 55% think the peace will break down.
There has been NO CHANGE in the percentage of people who approve of the way Clinton has handled this war - 55% - the Gallup guy expected that SHOULD have risen!
Only 53% support using U.S. troops as peacekeepers.
8236. HardyHarHar - June 11, 1999 - 1:29 PM PT
Fuck the Russians - two bit has beens.
Basic facts: The 1998 US budget SURPLUS was more than triple the entire Russian budget (a piddly figure which was beyond their meager means to produce in the first place, leading them to beg for loans and stab their little Hitler Youth - Slobber Misuckmydic - in the back by endorsing NATO's victory.)
8237. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 1:31 PM PT
Trial,
Let's be fair to the Right Wing. You won't see the Sisters of Perpetual Defeat, Ace and Boy Niner, in here cheering the Red Army's march, strike that
limp into Kosova.
Rosie is not of the Right Wing. Rosie has more than once raised her filthy sn-tch toward Moscow.
Rosie is a Clintoon Hater to be sure but above anything Rosie is a Slerb - a beastial loser from the Balkans.
8238. HardyHarHar - June 11, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
Lets spin the spin that spins the spin:
Polls indicate that Clinton's decisions surrounding this conlfict are less than "popular."
Clinton is widely believed to be beholden to polls.
Clinton went ahead with what he wanted to do - and achieved it - regardless of the polls.
Who watches the polls? Who is righteous?
8239. HardyHarHar - June 11, 1999 - 1:39 PM PT
8228. RosettaStone - June 11, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
Interesting to see the Russians playing hardball with the "victorious" imperalists. Time to rain on NATO's bloody parade."
Let's see how long that lasts...
Even more interesting will be the sight of the IMF (using the United States' money) playing hardball with the Russians.
"Your people are starving and your Navy can't afford to pay the docking fees at local harbors where it keeps its ships? Show us your repayment schedule again...."
8240. 109109 - June 11, 1999 - 1:42 PM PT
Damn straight!
We're better than those stinkin' Russians and those slovenly Serbs and any more lip and we'll scurry into our little planes and bomb the Finnish Embassy.
USA! USA! USA!
8241. 109109 - June 11, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
Krauthammer has it right:
"Victory? On the eve of the Kosovo war, the president of the United States declares the objective: "To protect thousands of innocent people in Kosovo from a mounting military offensive." This would be done in one of two ways. We would deter Serbia from "ethnically cleansing" Kosovo or, failing that, we would physically -- militarily -- destroy Serbia's ability to do so.
By Clinton's own standard, the war was lost -- irretrievably, catastrophically lost -- in the first week. NATO launched a campaign at once anemic and tentative, a campaign of bombing empty buildings. Slobodan Milosevic responded with the most massive ethnic cleansing in Europe since World War II."
8242. HardyHarHar - June 11, 1999 - 1:56 PM PT
War? There was a war?
I don't recall the US declaring war, I do remember the FRY declaring war on the US. Hmm, now their troops are leaving the area so many of them died trying to keep and our forces are moving in with no resistance.
Sounds to me like the FRY lost and the US won, a war the US wasn't even fighting. Not bad, not bad at all.
8243. 109109 - June 11, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
I think I hear the Gatlin Brothers.
8244. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 2:06 PM PT
Cal --
"Spinning in that empty vacuum between his ears."
Harsh. Funny, but harsh.
8245. HardyHarHar - June 11, 1999 - 2:10 PM PT
Don't know about any Gatlin brothers, I'm a free thinker though, and while I don't pretend to have any special allegiance to Clinton, I'm quite sure the ruling Repulicans wouldn't have done shit about this.
As a tax-paying American, I'm satisfied with our outcome and its cost.
What else could the government want?
What do I care what anyone else thinks of it?
8246. 109109 - June 11, 1999 - 2:13 PM PT
"What do I care what anyone else thinks of it?"
Great. Another Hemingway.
8247. AzureNW - June 11, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
NATO put teeth in the paper tiger of international law enforcement in Europe. There can no longer be any question in anyone's mind what NATO means when it says "stop or we'll shoot." The believable threat of that kind of force is necessary where war criminals are democratically elected leaders. It sets a precedent that can be held over the heads of berserkers in the former Soviet republics as they fall apart, and it may get the UN off its butt and on track to stop atrocities in other parts of the world.
As horrible as the bombing of Yugoslavia was, it may yet save a lot of lives.
8248. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT
Niner --
"Krauthammer has it right ... the war was lost -- irretrievably, catastrophically lost -- in the first week."
But ... just yesterday you said we won.
God, I hate it when you can't make up your mind. Now we'll have to call up all the troops and tell 'em to give back the medal.
8249. 109109 - June 11, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
Trial
They won't mind. They still have the Purple Hearts for having to watch the horrible, jarring, and injurious spectacle of our three wandering boys in Serb hands, one with a bruise. Shudder.
And, I said "won" - not won.
8250. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 2:47 PM PT
Niner --
Well, the Purple Hearts are nice. But it's the pink stars, green clovers, and yellow moons that -- no, wait, that's what's in a box of Lucky Charms.
Thank you for your clarification, sir. I shall note it at once: (scribbling furiously) we - "won" - actually - means - we - "irretrievably - catastrophically - lost."
8251. AzureNW - June 11, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
I can't imagine that the fact that the West was planning to carpet bomb Belgrade to stop Serb Christians from beating up on Albanian Muslims is lost on the Muslim world, either. It defuses the growing perception that the West is consistently anti-Muslim, and it brings us closer together as world that can use the laws and resolutions of an international organization like the UN to end disputes.
8252. AzureNW - June 11, 1999 - 2:54 PM PT
I don't see how there can be any question that the NATO allies and the world won and the Serbs lost this showdown.
8253. JJBiener - June 11, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
It all depends on what you mean by the word "won".
8254. 109109 - June 11, 1999 - 3:03 PM PT
Trial
Be fair, my Little Lucky charm.
From my posts:
"As for winning.
It is a simple issue.
To the extent a 'win' is what he have now, let's party.
To the extent a 'win' is commensurate with any of the stated objectives in the early days of the conflict, please . . .
I have said we 'won.' Hopefully, that pleases you. But we won ugly and we won stupid."
8255. ycmeehan - June 11, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
Ronski,
Whatever is for sale including the Oblast, what remains critical is who other than the US and or Europe has the the money to buy?
8256. 109109 - June 11, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
Krauthammer calls it "something that is being called victory."
8257. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 3:12 PM PT
Niner --
Yes sir. (Scribbling furiously) - we - "won" - means - we - "irretrievably - catastrophically - lost" - comma- "let's - party" - comma - and - "hopefully - that - pleases you."
We are indeed pleased at our irretrievable, catastrophic loss, sir. The boys at the O Club shall quaff a pint or two in your honor, sir.
8258. AceofSpades - June 11, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
TrialHack:
We did a smashing job accomplishing NATO Goal Number one, "Preventing Slobo from carrying out his policy of ethnic cleansing."
Didn't we?
Isn't that what we're all so goody-gum-drop excited about? That we prevented Slobo from killing any Kosovars, or driving any out of the country?
8259. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 3:17 PM PT
JJ --
But a simple former active-duty military officer, sir, I rely on simple tests to tell who won and who lost:
The side whose troops wind up occupying the territory of the enemy "won."
The side whose territory is occupied by the enemy "lost."
No doubt your tests are more nuanced, sir. Please enlighten me, sir so that I can spin as well as you.
8260. AzureNW - June 11, 1999 - 3:18 PM PT
Re: Message #8253
I mean gained victory. I don't expect to see anyone try to achieve "ethnic cleansing" in Europe again anytime soon, and I suspect anyone thinking such thoughts elsewhere in the world will be thinking twice. Now everyone knows NATO is the most deadly adversary. They really will bomb you into the dirt without hesitation.
8261. AceofSpades - June 11, 1999 - 3:18 PM PT
Clinton's the Goldilocks President for the Rabid Leftist Fringe. He's not too Conservative-- just conservative enough to win an election. He's not too Leftist-- but leftist enough to make Liberals cream their jeans. He's juuussst right.
And he fights Goldilocks wars -- Not too much risk; not too much reward; juuuuuuust right.
Not too many Kosovars killed or ejected from their homes (almost a million; but then, who cares? They're Kosovars). Not too many Americans killed (Zero-- unless you count the three men who died in an accident, which Clinton apparently doesn't). Juuuuuuust right.
8262. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 3:20 PM PT
Isn't it pathetic?
The Sisters of Perpetual Loss and/or Defeat are mouthing off like Jane Fucking Fonda!
Victory = Serbs out of Kosova
No Combat Losses.
What is it that Ace and Buttboy Niner cannot understand about "Victory"?
8263. AceofSpades - June 11, 1999 - 3:21 PM PT
"But a simple former active-duty military officer"
Our hero. In the rear with the gear.
"I rely on simple tests to tell who won and who lost:"
Yup. Does Clinton say we won? Then we won. Very simple.
Does he "refine" our mission objectives, discarding those objectives we haven't accomplished, and then declare we achieved our mission objectives? If he does, then we won.
Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War were all calamitous losses for the US, of course....
8264. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
Ace --
"He's juuussst right."
Why yes, sir, so said the great people of this wonderful and victorious country of ours. Twice, sir.
Good of you to notice, sir.
8265. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 3:24 PM PT
Commander Ace --
"Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War were all calamitous losses for the US ... "
Why, no, sir. Unless you're using Colonel Niner's special glossary, sir, which I haven't yet got the hang of, of course.
Sir.
8266. AceofSpades - June 11, 1999 - 3:25 PM PT
TrialDrunk:
How come you don't answer direct questions?
I asked you:
Was preventing ethnic cleansing a mission objective at the begining of this war?
and
If so, did we accomplish this objective?
Why do you run like a chickenshit from any question you don't want to answer?
8267. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 3:26 PM PT
Message #8249
The limp dick Vita Loca,109109, my little chihuahua, Taco Bell advert would have been silent if Nato had achieved its objectives with a thousand Nato Deaths!
What a sorry ass we have on the Fray, who else could snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory?
8268. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 3:28 PM PT
And, I said "won" - not won.
And this simple beaner graduated from the same Law School as the Colossus formerly known as Jexster????
8269. colossus - June 11, 1999 - 3:29 PM PT
109109:
"And, I said "won" - not won."
And this simple beaner fart graduated from the same Law School as the Colossus formerly known as Jexster????
8270. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT
HardyHarHar
"As a tax-paying American, I'm satisfied with our outcome
and its cost."
What is the outcome? (Hint, it isn't over) What is the cost? (Hint, it isn't over)
8271. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 3:52 PM PT
John Harris of the WP is on CSPAN at the moment, and just said that Kosovo is part of Serbia.
I suppose we should cut him some slack for extemporaneous remarks, but I'm surprised he said that.
8272. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 3:54 PM PT
Commodore Ace --
Sir, I believe the Kosovars are to return to Kosovo under the protection of our victorious forces, sir. Unless they are all dead, sir, in which case, that would be a problem, sir. But I hear tell a couple of them may still be alive.
However, your Commodoreness, sir, there are unconfirmed reports that the Serbs still in Kosovo are going to leave, which I guess would be ethnic cleansing of a different sort, sir. Perhaps that's the irretrievable defeat Lieutenant General Niner was referring to, sir.
And sir, everything I know about being a chickenshit I learned from you.
Sir.
8273. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 3:58 PM PT
Trialshark
"But a simple former active-duty military officer, sir, I rely
on simple tests to tell who won and who lost:
The side whose troops wind up occupying the territory of
the enemy "won."
The side whose territory is occupied by the enemy "lost." "
Fair enough.
Are you planning to write to President Clinton and inform him that he was wrong when he laid out the reasons for going to war? He should have been honest and said our goal was to occupy the territory of the enemy?
Gee, you think if he had said that he would have garnered any support?
Was he lying when he gave a different list of goals than your list?
8274. aldavis - June 11, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
What has happened on the Fray? Liberals knocking Mother Russia? Weren't you the ones a few years back telling us what a great country it was and how it was so much better than the lousy capitalistic U.S.A.?
Now if we could just get the Liberals to start questioning how wonderful Castro has been for Cuba?
CalGal
Is it your habit to make fun of people who have an illness? It seems that I remember one of your friends on the Fray with a parent with a similar problem. Perhaps we could all look it up and have some fun making fun of that person also.
8275. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
Trialshark
"However, your Commodoreness, sir, there are
unconfirmed reports that the Serbs still in Kosovo are
going to leave, which I guess would be ethnic cleansing of
a different sort, sir."
Excellent point. When the Serbians drive the Kosovar out of Kosovo, we call it ethnic cleansing, and indict those responsible for war crimes. When NATO orders Serbians who have lived all their lives to leave Kosovo, it isn't ethnic cleansing.
It's good to be the winner.
8276. AzureNW - June 11, 1999 - 4:03 PM PT
I read that the Serbs still in Kosovo are going to leave, but no one is forcing them to. In their own words, they are leaving because they fear revenge. That isn't ethnic cleansing.
8277. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 4:06 PM PT
AzureNW
Well, if you read it, it must be true.
The reports I read must be mistaken.
8278. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 4:17 PM PT
Admiral FTC --
Sir, I believe I did not make myself clear, sir. My list was not a list of goals, sir. It was a list of criteria by which this humble soldier determines who won, sir.
If Yugoslav troops were garrisoning Kennebunkport, I should say we lost, sir. I do not believe this is true, sir, unless the Serbs you said are being "ordered" by NATO to leave their homes will be moving in with the ex-Commander-in-Chief, sir.
But on the bright side, sir, I hear the Serbs make a mean pork rind. Sir.
8279. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 4:22 PM PT
Senior Flight Leftenant Davis --
Sir, I do not recall any occasion on which I sir, as a liberal, sir, said or in any way implied that the former Soviet Union was a better country than our great United States of America, sir. In fact, sir, I joined the armed forces and served my country because I believed exactly the opposite, sir.
I am sure you joined the armed forces for the same reason, sir.
8280. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 4:48 PM PT
Trialshark
"Sir, I believe I did not make myself clear, sir. My list was
not a list of goals, sir. It was a list of criteria by which this
humble soldier determines who won, sir."
I understand.
Many people believe that if you delineate a set of goals, and do not achieve those goals, that you lost. I see that you have a more creative way to determine, after the fact, whether you won or lost.
I've heard that the Vietnamese are not garrisoning Kennebunkport, so I guess we won that one, too.
Can ordinary people use your criteria, or is this just military usage? (My employer set some goals for me at the beginning of the year, and should I fail to meet them, it might be nice to have a backup argument.)
8281. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
Fleet Admiral FTC --
Sir, far be it from me to suggest how you negotiate with the High Command. If you fail to achieve a goal are you fired, sir? Is your pay docked, sir? Have you lost, sir? And sir, did you have any comment regarding the return of the Kosovars, sir?
In any event, sir, I believe you said, that the Commander-in-Chief did not state that his goal was to occupy Kosovo, and from the fact that our forces will now do so, sir, you conclude that we lost the war. I understand your tactical analysis sir, and will inscribe it in the record of the battle thusly:
(Scribbling furiously) The - victorious - Serbian - forces - are - retreating - in - glorious - triumph - before - the - shattered - remnants - of - the - broken - NATO - armies - who - are - advancing - in - utter - disarray.
Thank you sir, for sharing your genius with your humble servant.
8282. AceofSpades - June 11, 1999 - 5:02 PM PT
"Sir, I believe the Kosovars are to return to Kosovo under the protection of our victorious forces, sir. Unless they are all dead, sir, in which case, that would be a problem, sir. But I hear tell a couple of them may still be alive."
Nonresponsive, douchebag. Sir.
Let me use capital letters this time, since you don't seem to understand the question:
DID PRESIDENT CLINTON CLAIM, ON THE EVE OF THE BOMBING, THAT A GOAL OF THE MISSION WAS TO ****PREVENT**** ETHNIC CLEANSING FROM HAPPENING AT ALL?
YES OR NO?
It's a simple question, Douchebag. You needn't write me a paragraph.
YES
or
NO?
Do you understand your choices now, Trial? Your choices consist of
A) YES
or
B) NO.
Are we clear now?
8283. robertjayb - June 11, 1999 - 5:09 PM PT
Hail to the Chief
By Mary McGrory
Thursday, June 10, 1999; Page A03
Do you think that now, after the bombing has stopped and peace is unmistakably at hand, President Clinton's critics will stop pounding him?
In the week since Slobodan Milosevic ran up the white flag, the anti-Clinton din has been deafening. Is everyone glad that the NATO experiment in stopping tyranny is ending in success? Well, not everyone. The collateral damage, as the Pentagon likes to call unintended casualties, has been enormous. Conventional wisdom has been clobbered. It's in worse shape than bombed-out Belgrade.
In punditland, all is consternation. Everyone knows that airpower alone cannot achieve a goal. So how could we win, using only high-altitude bombers? The impression you get from the enclaves of the armchair warriors is that it would have been better to have the war go on than to destroy a cliche so widely held.
Clinton could pick up a paper at any time during the period while the Serbs had their fainting fits, their vanishing spells and their hysterics over packing up and moving out in a week, and read how wrong he had been. Nobody, heaven knows, was saying anything nice about his having hung in and at length being rewarded by light at the end of the tunnel. No, the columnists and carpers were saying how misguided he had been to tip his hand about not sending in ground troops--great harrumphing and a lot of righteous rant about the immorality of waging war on the cheap and sparing politically expensive casualties.
8284. robertjayb - June 11, 1999 - 5:15 PM PT
Hail to the Chief...continued..
Yes, most of them might grant he had intervened for the right reasons, but how could he take any satisfaction in winning when he didn't have Plan B if the bombing had failed? The people who won't take yes for an answer know for a fact that a successful outcome was not warranted because from the first, the commander in chief was misguided. He had been told by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and national security adviser Sandy Berger that Milosevic would cringe at the thought of the bombs and crumble when they fell. It took 72 days to penetrate that dense skull, while the carpers envisioned a summer of bombing and another winter in the field for the refugees. Instead they can go home.
There was only one thing worse than Clinton's war, as House Republican Whip Tom DeLay liked to call it. That was Clinton's peace. Can you imagine anything worse than an agreement worked out with the Russians? What was Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott thinking? Hear veteran Cold Warrior Dmitri Simes, head of the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, spitting bullets. Talbott had "delivered a devastated beggar nation to the negotiating table."
Did anyone tell Simes that Viktor Chernomyrdin is one of the few people in the world to whom Milosevic speaks? Did someone point out to him when Talbott and the president of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, took up their pens to sign an agreement reached with the intercession of Boris Yeltsin, the third pen at the table was in the hand of Chernomyrdin. In other words, he was indispensable. Would it have been better not to have peace so that we could continue to gloat over our old Kremlin adversaries?
8285. aldavis - June 11, 1999 - 5:16 PM PT
Trialshark
Did I fail to use the big L when i mentioned Liberals. I am so sorry. I always do that when discussing lib Libertarians, which I think is a fairly accepted practice. You know, TS, there is an old saying, "If the shoe fits, wear it."
There was never any question that NATO could kick the shit out of Serbia or any nation on earth, if they took a mind to. There is also no question that if Milosovic stays in power and Kosovo remains part of Serbia, and the KLA is disbanded, that it was a hollow victory.
I would not suggest running through the streets kissing young ladies.
by the way, I well remember V.J. Day and the celebration on Market St. in San Francisco. All I ended up with were about 20 sailor hats. My older sister, I think, got a little more than that.
8286. robertjayb - June 11, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
Hail to the Chief...continued
Clinton has had to import any praise he has heard so far. Tony Blair thought it was a good show, and Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder thought so well of the whole thing that he sought to have the accords named after a castle in Germany where he was briefly involved in the proceedings.
Any day now, the hecklers are going to have to face it: Bill Clinton has had a foreign policy triumph. He has saved NATO; he has stopped ethnic cleansing. He did it with no help from the Republicans. They declined to sanction the bombing. The Republican presidential candidates have shown no class at all. They sounded small and silly when they heard the news that Milosevic was throwing in the towel.
The Republicans ought to consider the liberating effects of saying they were wrong, and congratulating Clinton. They have behaved so badly for so long they can hardly stand themselves. They should try to figure it wasn't just Clinton that won, but the country, that we have been spared unspeakable anguish and pain. If in the end we had had to invade Kosovo, we would have endured enormous casualties, divisions, and heartache.
Clinton is the luckiest man alive, we've been shown again. But the country is lucky, too. His critics hate him so much, they can't see straight, but there's no way of getting away from the fact that, now, preposterous as it seems, Bill Clinton deserves a salute as commander in chief.
8287. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 5:20 PM PT
Trialshark
"If you fail to achieve a goal are you
fired, sir?"
If I fail to achieve a goal on my list I will be fired.
"Is your pay docked, sir?"
Absolutely.
"Have you lost, sir?"
I would call that losing.
"And sir, did you have any comment regarding the return
of the Kosovars, sir?"
??
"In any event, sir, I believe you said, that the
Commander-in-Chief did not state that his goal was to
occupy Kosovo, and from the fact that our forces will
now do so, sir, you conclude that we lost the war."
You read wrong. He did state what his goals were, and he did not achieve them. He did (or shortly will) achieve the occupation of the country. This doesn't mean he lost. It means we achieved something other than our original goals.
8288. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 5:24 PM PT
Space Commander Ace --
Sir, no, sir. I do not believe the Commander-in-Chief said that a goal of the mission was to prevent ethnic cleansing from happening at all, sir.
I believe that the Commander-in-Chief said our goals were (1) to demonstrate NATO's opposition to Serbian aggression; (2) to deter the continuation and escalation of Serbian aggression by imposing a price for such aggression; and (3) to damage Serbia's capacity to commit further acts of aggression.
I know, sir, that since you have already stated that our splendiferous armed forces have achieved a victory in Kosovo, that you are just testing me sir. Or perhaps you have a wicked hangover, sir. But thank you for the opportunity to chat with you again, sir.
You are ever an officer and a gentleman, sir.
8289. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
Trialshark
I see.
So you think Krauthammer lied.
Is there a transcript to resolve this question?
8290. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 5:32 PM PT
Group Leader Davis --
"You know, TS, there is an old saying, 'If the shoe fits, wear it.'"
Sir, yes, sir. Although for several years I wore combat boots, which were the authorized footgear with my uniform. Darned uncomfortable, sir, but far superior to having to wear the shoes of a Soviet sympathizer, as you suggested, sir.
Or of a coward who never served in the armed forces, sir. Not that any of the fine military minds with whom I have conversed today are cowards, sir. No, sir.
"I would not suggest running through the streets kissing young ladies."
Sir, my young lady is at home. And I plan to kiss her on my return there, sir.
8291. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 5:34 PM PT
Trialshark
I see that Krauthammer put his statement in quotes, as if Clinton actually said the words. I see that you paraphrased.
If Krauthammer made up the quotes, I would think one of the media watchdogs would be calling him on it. Have they?
Can you give us a reason why we should accept your paraphrase of your recollection of Clinton's words over a nationally recognized columnist who quoted the President?
8292. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
Undisputed Ruler of the Seas FTC --
I am glad to see you do not believe we lost, sir. I would be concerned were that so, sir.
Pardon me for asking, sir, but what goal given to you at the beginning of this year by the High Command will you be fired for failing to achieve sir? And is that a goal given to you *this* year, or as a basic condition of your employment, sir?
Herr Oberst Krauthammer may or may not be lying, sir: I do not know his sir, and could not comment on his truthfulness. Although his comment about irretrievable defeat strikes me as being incorrect, sir. I believe you will find my statement of the Commander-in-Chief's stated goals at the start of the war to be accurate, sir. In fact, sir, I believe you will find that the Commander-in-Chief stated that the burning of Kosovar villages and the murder of Kosovar civilians, sir, had already begun sir; which would make preventing it from happening in the first place a difficult task, sir.
Unless there's a way to unburn the villages and resurrect the dead, sir. And I am aware of none, sir.
8293. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT
Exalted Fleet Commander and Neptune of the Deeps FTC --
Sir, if you would prefer text enclosed by quotes, sir: "Our strikes have three objectives. First, to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's opposition to aggression and its support for peace. Second, to deter President Milosevic from continuing and escalating his attacks on helpless civilians by imposing a price for those attacks. And third, if necessary, to damage Serbia's capacity to wage war against Kosovo in the future by seriously diminishing its military capabilities."
I believe you will agree that my paraphrasing was accurate, sir.
8294. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 5:52 PM PT
Trialshark
" I am glad to see you do not believe we lost, sir. I would
be concerned were that so, sir."
What did I say to give you this impression? I need to take it back, or point out the error of your inference.
"Pardon me for asking, sir, but what goal given to you at
the beginning of this year by the High Command will you
be fired for failing to achieve sir?"
My statement about failing to meet a goal can be parsed more than one way. I meant that, should I fail to meet any of my listed goals (as did Mr. Clinton, if Krauthammer is correct), I would undoubtedly be fired.
I was given five goals at the beginning of the year. If I miss them all, I will be fired. If I make some, and miss some, it will depend. One goal is to learn Bloomberg. I'm guessing I could fail to meet this and retain my employment. Another goal is to document a system. If I fail to meet that one, I'm toast. It occurs to me that I cannot recall my other goals, and this is probably not a good thing. (Note to self: read that list of goals soon)
"And is that a goal given
to you *this* year, or as a basic condition of your
employment, sir?"
A goal given to me *this* year.
8295. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 5:53 PM PT
continued
"Herr Oberst Krauthammer may or may not be lying, sir: I
do not know his sir, and could not comment on his
truthfulness."
It is irreconcilable (IMHO) to your recollection.
"I believe you will
find my statement of the Commander-in-Chief's stated
goals at the start of the war to be accurate, sir."
I believe I will do no searching, so if I find that, it will be because you find it. I see a statement in quotes from Krauthammer. I see a paraphrase from you. Please do not take offense if I tell you that a quote trumps a paraphrase.
8296. FreeToChoose - June 11, 1999 - 5:57 PM PT
Trialshark
What is happening?
Did you just put your recollection of Clinton's words in quotes?
Are you suggesting that they are an exact quote? If so, can you provide a cite?
If you are putting quotes around your words, you need to explain yourself.
8297. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 6:00 PM PT
Ruler of the Seas and Guardian of the Deeps FTC --
Sir, I was no doubt misled by my faulty intepretation of your comment: "This doesn't mean he lost. It means we achieved something other than our original goals." Please feel free to take back your remark or point out my error, sir.
I am relieved to hear you will not be relieved (er -- you know what I mean, sir) if you fail to achieve one of your goals. I have enjoyed serving with you in this man's Fray, sir, and believe the High Command would be most unfair were it to penalize you so harshly.
8298. Trialshark - June 11, 1999 - 6:03 PM PT
High Fleet Admiral FTC --
"What is happening?"
Your humble servant has provided what you ordered, sir: an exact quote wherein the Commander-in-Chief set forth our goals at the beginning of the war. I hope you are not unduly angered by getting exactly what you asked for. Sir.
"Did you just put your recollection of Clinton's words in quotes?"
Sir, no, sir.
"Are you suggesting that they are an exact quote? If so, can you provide a cite?"
Sir, yes, sir. Here, sir.
"If you are putting quotes around your words, you need to explain yourself."
Fuck you.
Sir.
8299. FreeToChoose - June 12, 1999 - 1:16 PM PT
Trialshark
Thanks for providing the source. In the spirit of the season, let's give the CIC a report card.
"First, to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's opposition to aggression and its support for peace."
INCOMPLETE
This is actually a generous grade. NATO was formed to respond to aggression against its members. There was no such aggression in this case. You have made the argument that this incident could spill over into a broader conflict. We will give you the benefit of the doubt, and won't give you the F we originally considered.
With all the conflicts in recent years, to award a grade on a *single* action, that isn't even completed, would be premature.
"Second, to deter President Milosevic from continuing and escalating his attacks on helpless civilians by imposing a price for those attacks."
D-
You did exact a price, but no one, absolutely no one, disagrees that Milosevic continued and escalated his attacks on helpless citizens. Indeed, the cessation of such attacks is more attributable to the lack of targets than to the price for such attacks. Some would argue this deserves an F, as you did not achieve your goal by any stretch of the imagination, but you did try. And we want to reward you for effort.
"And third, if necessary, to damage Serbia's capacity to wage war against Kosovo in the future by seriously diminishing its military capabilities."
C+
You did blow up a lot of stuff. And some have suggested that military capabilities have been diminished by 30% or so. We understand why you consider this significant. But no one has even hinted that, should NATO walk away, the Serbian army would be unable to wage war against the Kosovar. That was the goal. You only partially completed it.
8300. FreeToChoose - June 12, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
Trialshark
It is also interesting to review some other items from that speech:
"However, I have concluded that the dangers of acting now are clearly outweighed by the risks of failing to act: The risks that many more innocent people will die or be driven from their homes by the tens of thousands; the risks that the conflict will involve and destabilize neighboring nations. "
A reasonable interpretation of this statement is that acting at that time would prevent "tens of thousands" from being driven from their homes.
" At the end of the 20th century, after two world wars and a cold war, we and our allies have a chance to leave our children a Europe that is free, peaceful and stable. But we must, we must, act now to do that because if the Balkans once again become a place of brutal killing and massive refugee flights, it will be impossible to achieve."
If we take this statement literally, he is saying that it is impossible to make Europe a peaceful place.