I found a rather interesting interesting article here:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articl...e.html?id=27549

Ever hear someone (perhaps yourself) say with a smug arrogance"Bush lied and people died"?Well heres an interesting tid-bit that might shut them up(or piss them off, either one really). As shown in the article above, Clinton bombed Albania, using false reports and intelligence as his excuse(What people claimed Bush did.) Its basiclly like a previous Iraq. Except in Iraq, we're trying to keep the peace on all sides, find and destroy terrorist cells, build a stable government, and train their military so it can one day stand on its own.

Clinton just ordered bombings. And he ordered them in on one combatant's side. The bombings also further destablized Albania, and pushed the opposing sides to fight harder. This decision made by Clinton also effects America, as 4 of the "Fort Dix Six" were from Albania.

Now I ask you, whos worse:Clinton or Bush? Please explain your opinion intelligently, without a bunch of swearing and name calling.

Personally, I believe that even if something isn't classified as genocide, it still needs to be stopped. 10,000 is a lot of people. I thought it was interesting how this is an event that very few Americans have heard of, but I thought the article was a bit harsh in accusing the media of covering it up for the sake of bias. I still think this is interesting, although I wasn't a big fan of the phrase "When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died" anyways.

So, what we can surmise from this article is:
War kills people.

To be honest, wars are no better or worse if you support the current administration.
As for Kosovo somehow making Clinton worse than Bush, that doesn't really cut it. I don't support either leader, but it's pretty clear that if we're supposed to rate a president on how many people were bombed, Bush is a long way behind.

Well, I don't think peacekeeping operations count as "just ordering bombings". In the interests of fairness, the conflict didn't stem from the outside influence, as it has done in Iraq.

Instead of blindly defending the president they voted for, people should hold him to a vastly higher level of accountability. Ask yourselves if Clinton or Bush really delivered on the promises they made you, and what you're going to do about it.

Oh yes, I'm sure The Conservative Voice isn't biased a bit.

I scoured Wiki for references to bombings, Kosovo, and Albania. I got 1 return on bombing, but it had to do with the WTC attacks in the 90s. So basically, 0 for 3 on any of those as having any serious significance to his administration.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're making shit up, but assuming its true, at least all Clinton did was order a bombing, not a fucking war.

Now don't get me wrong on this either, people bombing the fuck out of a country is wrong, but sending thousands of your own men to do the fighting on the ground, keeping them there 4 years after "Mission Accomplished" and having no plan as to when the fuck we're gonna leave isn't helpful. In fact, out of all the things you've said we're trying to do in Iraq, the only one I'd agree with is attempting to keep the peace, and even that's halfhearted.


Lets have a look at the other two.

1- Find and Destroy Terrorist Cells: Umm, sorry, swing and a miss. Over 70% of insurgents come from cells outside Iraq, we can't find them if they aren't there.

2- Build a Stable Government: They set up a democracy in what? 2004-05? Sure the streets are still rampant with violence, but the new Iraqi government itself is being attacked, pretty much not at all. They're pissed at us, and over religious conflict, they aren't pissed at the new powers that be. It's time to get the fuck out.

3- Train their military: This one I'll give a little leeway to, we ARE attempting to train police and other peacekeeping forces in Iraq, but the attempts are underesourced at best, and we have no real plans on what to do with them once they're trained. At best we're looking at a very slow, Iraqi version of Vietnamization, and that flew about as well as a lead balloon covered in fat people.

A government doesn't need a military, Japan is one of the most powerful countries in the world, but we could send Sylvester Stalone in with a sharpened popsicle stick and he'd dismantle their tiny little army.

Also, one sided attacks, although unethical and rather distasteful as a whole, DO NOT destabilize countries. Now, we should be minding our own fucking business, but if you get a superpower supporting a war that exists within only a single country on one side, the other end is owned in the worst way. Not only are the Coalition forces not supportive of either end, they aren't even fucking actively participating in a conflict (sure they'll shoot at any insurgents, but that has nothing to do with Iraq's stability). They (and by they I mean the fucking MILITARY) aren't there for any military reason anymore. I get keeping them there for training peacekeeping forces. Hell, I might even support keeping the naval battalions down there. But for gods sakes the infantry is there just to fucking get shot at for the most part.

Pull out the infantry, keep the navy, tell the Iraqis we'll bomb the fuck out of the place if they try to take down the democracy, ???, profit!


Now, as to your formal question. Lets look at this from a logical standpoint, and we'll assume Clinton did bomb Albania. (I believe it, but I find no credible evidence to support it)

-Clinton Bombed Albania, Bush started an entire war in Iraq that he refuses to pull out from.
-Clinton lied about having sex, and assumedly about bombing Albania, which cost 10,000 lives, Bush lied about the terms on which he started a war that's cost thousands of American lives alone, I don't think anyone's had a count for the number of Iraqis killed yet.
-Clinton's presidency has had the greatest economic surplus in the history of America (though admittedly it's disputed whether this was due to his actions or Regan's, who came right before Bush Sr, the president immediately before Clinton), Bush's presidency has had the greatest economic DEFICIT in the history of America, even going so far as to fucking take out of the Social Security fund to help pay for the "war effort."

And that's just the stuff I know about.

Don't believe everything you read, regardless of what side of the political fence you're on.

One thing you should know is that various political leaders and warlords are manipulating or actually have insurgent cells. Insurgents are not neccasarily = terrorists. though the other way round is true enough.

Possibly they do have fanatical zealots as their blind puppets who dont realise [or just no longer care that] their leaders are using them as puppets, but this isnt the majority, even the warmongers and power hungry know that their burn their hands right off if they mingle with them too much.

If the army leaves without the gorv. in some state to protect itself, their screwed and we have another afghanistan.

o ya theres another country the US is dealing with at the same time...not opening that can o' tiger leeches.

I just realized something.

When you look at it comparitively, is the Conservative Voice admitting that we shouldn't be in Iraq?

Obviously, they must have gotten sick of saying no one ever lied, and that the war is totally justified. Now they're just trying to dig up dirt on previous presidencies. Kind of like a campaign trail for the spot of "best president" in the history books.