3 ms·

It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a

It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a UN peacekeeping effort? Why block it, dictatorships good is their only thinking?

nanis 5y ago
In Bosnia, the Clinton administration and the EU provided cover for the Serbs while pretending to do something. This provided a cause around which Jihad movements could coalesce (along with Chechnya) leading to both the "Jihad travel networks" and improvements in international resource flows to sponsor those. Later, during the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton administration bombed civilians in Belgrade and blew up passenger trains, trying to assert U.S. initiative which they had ceded to the Serbs and their patron Russia.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  You know, the Balkans are in Europe, not North America. So why did Clinton have to get involved at all? Oh, because the UN and European member soldiers are afraid of casualties. Silly me. So don't criticize Clinton or the US.
- atatatat 5y ago
  To sibling: why does anyone have to get involved until it hits their borders/supply chains?
test_epsilon 5y ago
Syria was a half-hearted involvement? So sponsoring insurgencies to destabilize a sovereign country would have been good if only the government was also toppled? Iraq? The whole ISIS genocide rape torture destruction and blood letting thing was slightly inconvenient but I'm sure the people of these places will thank the enlightened noble Europeans and Americans for their gracious aid. I would suggest not continuing to fall for it. It's not that war and intervention can't ever do "some" good. It's that the people behind wars and interventions are never interested in actually helping people. It's purely for money and power.

3 ms·

It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a

by andy_ppp 5y ago

nanis 5y ago
In Bosnia, the Clinton administration and the EU provided cover for the Serbs while pretending to do something. This provided a cause around which Jihad movements could coalesce (along with Chechnya) leading to both the "Jihad travel networks" and improvements in international resource flows to sponsor those. Later, during the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton administration bombed civilians in Belgrade and blew up passenger trains, trying to assert U.S. initiative which they had ceded to the Serbs and their patron Russia.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  You know, the Balkans are in Europe, not North America. So why did Clinton have to get involved at all? Oh, because the UN and European member soldiers are afraid of casualties. Silly me. So don't criticize Clinton or the US.
- atatatat 5y ago
  To sibling: why does anyone have to get involved until it hits their borders/supply chains?
test_epsilon 5y ago
Syria was a half-hearted involvement? So sponsoring insurgencies to destabilize a sovereign country would have been good if only the government was also toppled? Iraq? The whole ISIS genocide rape torture destruction and blood letting thing was slightly inconvenient but I'm sure the people of these places will thank the enlightened noble Europeans and Americans for their gracious aid. I would suggest not continuing to fall for it. It's not that war and intervention can't ever do "some" good. It's that the people behind wars and interventions are never interested in actually helping people. It's purely for money and power.