quagmire?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104241,00.html

"Most of the 1,500 U.S. soldiers in Bosnia had the day off, and many gathered on an unseasonably warm, sunny morning for a service in the chapel at_Eagle Base (search), near the northern town of Tuzla.


"For us soldiers, this day is eat, drink, watch football and be thankful for everything we have," said Capt. Chuck Draxler, 25, a National Guardsman from Rosemont, Minn.


"This is the first Thanksgiving I've been away, and it's hard," added Draxler, who is married with a 1-year-old son.


Chaplains led troops in Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist and Christian prayers.


"Gathering together in an interfaith service is a symbol of the future for this great land that we serve," said Maj. William Jenkins, a 53-year-old chaplain from Chanooka, Kan.


The Americans are part of a NATO-led force of 12,000 soldiers from 30 nations that monitors the peace process implemented under an accord that ended Bosnia's 1992-95 war between Muslims, Croats and Serbs.


The United States played a key role in the peace accord and U.S. troops have been deployed here since. Pentagon officials have suggested they may end U.S. participation by the end of 2004 as they deal with the much bigger deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Most of the American peacekeepers in Bosnia are from the_Minnesota National Guard (search), in the state's largest deployment since World War II.


Following the religious service, the soldiers sat down for a meal of turkey, cranberry sauce and desserts. They spent the rest of the day relaxing in the spring-like air, working out at the gym and calling home to family.


Maj. Jarrod Krull, 37, from Minneapolis, said this was the second time in his 11-year service that he has been away from home for Thanksgiving.


Krull, who is married and has a 5-year-old daughter, served in the first Gulf War.


"Compared to Iraq, this is heaven," he said. "Here we have e-mail, telephone, we can be in touch with our families. We may not be physically home, but our hearts are home."

Attacking the messenger, are ya, super. . .don't make me say cavem. . .

edit: if you havn't noticed, super, nostatic can take care of himself. . . painting the picture that I'm bullying him isnt going to fly with the principal. . .so to speak.

I've got to go out again. . .so pile it on while you have the chance. :cool:

The Bosnian peacekeeping force has widespread support of the international community. Does the Iraq action? I don't know that I'd try and generalize from one to the other...

Superman, you never did get back to me with that study "showing liberals are smarter". I only bring this up as you really seem stuck on the idea that liberalism is the movement of the learned.

I'll get back to my color by numbers book while I wait:)

We went into Bosnia because no one else would. We went into Bosnia because the dictator there established concentration camps reminiscient of Hitler's camps. We also went into Bosnia because what was then Yugoslavia was a European country, and we didn't want the beforementioned scenario of another Hitler rising on watch of a U.S. who knew history - hence Hitler.

The situation in Bosnia threatened to spill over into other countries as well. In fact, because of Yugoslavia's refugees, the situation did, in fact, spill over into other countries.

Iraq, meanwhile, even with Saddam's regime, is a poor comparison to Bosnia.

You didn't buy the one that has more than two colors, did you? We don't want you to get all frustrated. ;)

Bush is the worst, that is a no brainer - End of thread :cool:

Aurel

Nu-uh

end of thread infinity

end of thread infinity PLUS ONE

neener neener

I know you are but what am I?

btw, that is a rhetorical question.

Besides being more intelligent, our fathers are bigger & stronger plus we have MUCH bigger wangs.:)

I’m going to regret this…

Lets be honest and admit that the international community that we (USA) care about (or not) is Europe (NATO). Of course Bosnia has the support of the “International Community” (Europe), Bosnia is in their back yard and everyone either old enough or smart enough started having flashbacks. The support is overwhelming now though, many did not support military action when it went down, and if it would have gone bad they all could have pointed their fingers at the big bully on the block.

Europe has shown before that they are completely against military action anywhere in the world, unless their butts are on the line. I hope that the same happens in Iraq as Bosnia as far as once things have stabilized (years) everyone can look back and think it was the right thing to do and be glad we did. Other than people’s feelings on war, there isn’t much to compare between the two.

WMD- Sure, it’s not looking good; bad Intel, bad Analysis, possible lies, possible they are eluding us. None of us know and maybe never will. There were many other reasons to go into Iraq that everyone happened to forget the day GW said WMD, sad.

I do not advocate believing the government w/o question and know most of you don’t either, but one source many of you seem to take as Gospel is the media. If you think blindly believing everything the media decides to show and print is better than blindly believing the government, brothers wake up. I think overall our media is well right/left balanced, some more than others but overall ok. The thing is, it’s a business first and foremost, if you don’t think that influences what makes it to print your kidding yourself. So now we have information selected by it’s “newsworthiness”, guess what, so much of it is just plain inaccurate. I’m not saying bias, I’m saying factitiously wrong in part.

Have you ever had intimate details about an event/story and then read about it in print? Frustrating is not the word, and that’s about events that happen where they could easily be accurate if some cared enough to either find out the correct details or not alter them for journalistic (hack) reasons.

Point is, what we see and “know” is very incomplete and often inaccurate. A reporter doing a story on our solders is most likely to report about the 10 guys that don’t want to be there and morally object to the conflict than 1000 guys who feel they are a part of a good cause and are glad to be doing their part. “Solders angered at unjust war” Sure it maybe news worthy, but does it come even close to the whole story?

On Topic- Four more years GW, if he doesn’t F-things up! (and no, I don’t really think he has, yet)

Damn, I try to stay out of these threads but you guys just dragged me in like some oppressive force.

If I may, I'd like to correct this just a smidgeon...the USA came to the aid of the British only AFTER FDR was re-elected. You see, there was quite an anti-war movement back then as well as now. Charlie whazzizname, that 1st guy to fly a plane cross the Atlantic, was a leader of the protestors. FDR held his cards close...until after he'd won his re-election...and then there was barely time to avoid the Brits from having to learn how to speak German. FDR didn't really care about London's problems with being bombarded from the air as much as he cared about being re-elected. Once the election was over, he decided to do the right thing...if only his other decisions were as "right"...

Oh Ryan.... You ARE going to regret that. Trying to use logic and perfectly sane reasoning on this crowd in this forum?

clearly Ryan was forced to post under duress, as the black helicopters have gotten to him.

Actually in an age where the mainstream media is clearly controlled by something/somebody, weblogs have emerged as an alternative source of information. While you can claim, "yeah, but how about authenticity, vetting, etc?", Ryan's post (rightly) points out that you aren't getting the real deal with CNN, Fox, NPR et. al. So perhaps take in as much as you can and decide for yourself what makes sense.

The bigger issue is that there is no such thing as "objective reporting". Just as there is no such thing as "photo realism". ALL media contains some bias from the creator. Period. The only variable is the angle and degree of distortion.

Poor old island. He keeps on bringing that spork of his to the gunfight.

I think most of the appropriate details have already been posted but I will at least make my two top nominations.

Reagan by far is one of the worse of this century. From his support of latin american narcoterrorists to funneling billions of dollars and arms to radical muslim terrorists like bin laden he got a lot of what haunts us today started. In fact most of bush's current cabinet is like a who's who of reagan's 80s criminal cabinet who got the whole neocon ball rolling.

By carrying out the coup de grace of evil I will give bush the second place spot until someone else comes along and bumps either of these crooked bastards from the top of my list.

Even if sane leaders can ever gain control of our nation again I think the following graph points out that we will be living with these loser's legacy for decades to come.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1081825309.jpg

Too bad that 350 doesn't realize that the economic legacy of a president follows his term. President Reagan's policies were responsible for all the tech development that drove the economic engine of the late 90's and early 00's. President Clinton was lucky enough to ride the Reagan wave while getting Oval office blow jobs. By taking his eye off the economic ball and instead focusing on his own two balls, Clinton allowed the downturn to occur.

Anyone who believes different is just another political Gump.

Gawd Mark Wilson, that is such horse***** its unbelievable. Clinton balanced the budget which helped to free up all that money that the FedGov wasn't soaking up by borrowing. Even Greenspan has said that what Bush is doing is not good for the economy.

Oh Island911 some day I hope I can cum up to your level talking like a porno star. Crawl back into your cave.....as you just berate what others say instead of good solid data or opinion.

BTW I am neither a liberal or a conservative....but I hate being misled and lied to. You seem to just believe in Bush, go for it.

Geoff

Mark
I agree, plus it is also a bit more difficult to balance the budget when you have rebuild the military because you took over from a President that has done their best to destroy it, then almost immediately go to war because of our perceived weakness. ie..Reagan/cold war, Bush/Iraq, Bush/Iraq, Afghanistan. Otherwise, at least for the last 20 yrs or so, most folks vote for whomever promises them more of someone else's money. The only time we ever elect a Republican is when we become so weak that the populace is more scared than greedy.

Thank god reagan wasted trillions on the military or mexico would have invaded us by now or our nation might be vulnerable to some other type of foriegn attack . . . :rolleyes:

Anyone who thinks all that crap was required to bankrupt russia gives communism way more credit than it deserves.

I guess the bankruptcy of our nation is looming in the form of trillions of dollars of debt.