Cynical Nation

C'mon, don't you recall Reagan's saying that a government program is the closest thing on earth to everlasting life.

Yeah. But there was another great political lesson to be learned during the 80's: Never, ever piss off Claude Pepper.

Oh, come now, certainly the REPUBLICANS wouldn't pass a big cock-up any more than they would later start screaming SEE, GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE JUST DOESN'T WORK! when their failed plan blows up in their faces.

Anyway, CLINTON tried to get universal health care way back -- CLINTON did it first! It's his fault!

Bailey why don't you just sod off and read Kos or Atrios, you big fuckin dope.

Barry,
Sure. It also appears that the president has an excellent understanding of the issues relating to Medicare.

Come on Blue, Bush seems to understand it just as well as he understands all the other important issues...

Thank you Ernest, for your contribution to the growing intellectual footing of conservatism. Ever think of going into radio?

> Ever think of going into radio?

Maybe he already did. He sounds a bit like Mark Levin to me.

Barry, for a conservative you're OK.

"Bailey why don't you just sod off and read Kos or Atrios, you big fuckin dope." (Ernest T)

"Thank you Ernest, for your contribution to the growing intellectual footing of conservatism. Ever think of going into radio?" (BH)

Now that's funny Bailey...a real life example of "the pot calling the kettle black." You haven't made a single sensible, let alone "intellectual" argument here, unless you actually consider advocating America "assisting the Serbs in the ethnic cleansing of the Albanian Muslims," to be an "intellectual argument.

HINT: It's not.

While it may well be true that the Serbs merely responded in kind to the genocide of 3,000 Kosovo Serbs by Albanian Muslims, with the the slaughter of some 10,000 Muslims in the surrounding regions, America had no stake in "assisting" either side in any ethnic cleansing.

Barely, you haven't made a single rational argument to date.

Well JMK, since you are the person to whom it makes logical sense that we support the Muslim slaughter of Serbs because "they have a big oil pipeline!" I wouldn't say your intellectual prowess is on real solid ground.

LOL, now JMK is going to start should "BAILEY DID IT FIRST!" when he's not crying "CLINTON DID IT FIRST!"

Yes, you are a real heavyweight there Jethro.

"Well JMK, since you are the person to whom it makes logical sense that we support the Muslim slaughter of Serbs because "they have a big oil pipeline!" " (anonymous)

Whooops!

Reading comp problems???

Cause I never said, inferred, nor implied that.

In fact, I said exactly the reverse, "...America had no stake in "assisting" either side in any ethnic cleansing...." in response to Bailey's call for America to "assist the Serbs in the ethnic cleansing of the Albanian Muslims,"

I also acknowledged that EVERY nation ALWAYS & EVERYWHERE puts national interests over morality. That is merely a fact of life.

I refuse to state whether I agree with policy or think it's either "good" or "wise," or even a sound policy or not. I really don't care to offer an opinion on that at this juncture.

As I explained to Bailey, America had no rightful interest in the internal squabbles between the originally victimized Serbs, nor the subsequently victimized Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. Certainly we had neither any interest, nor right to support "ethnic cleansing" on either side.

700,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda in less than six months and the world stood by and did nothing, because no other countries felt they had any overriding national interests in Rwanda.

In fact, the UN did nothing and they actually had a small Armed force in the region.

The ONLY reason that America got involved in the Balkans was over the Albanian oil pipeline, which consituted a rightful national interest of America's. It is ONLY for that reason that America got involved in the Balkans and used the pretense of "stopping the Serbian genocide of the Albanian Muslims," which of course, was a fallacy.

The Serbs were the initial victims of Muslim genocide in Kosovo, where some 3,000 Christian Serbs were slaughtered by Albanian Muslims in 1994. The Serbs, as one would expect, responded in kind, by eradicating some 10,000 Albanian Muslims in the region.

We had no more "humanitarian interest" in that little dust-up, then we did in the internal Rwandan struggles between the Hutus and the Tutsis. In short, if that was all that was at stake, we'd have neither any business, nor valid interests in either affair.

If your going to take issue with something I post, at least quote me accurately. Last I checked, "America had no stake in "assisting" either side in any ethnic cleansing," (JMK) does NOT infer, nor imply that "it makes logical sense that we support the Muslim slaughter of Serbs because "they have a big oil pipeline!" (misquote by anonymous)

Please, at least argue with what I actually say.

That really shouldn't be all that hard.

If you can't remember your own words from a different thread, I'm sure not going to waste my time looking for them. But that is EXACTLY what you said.

You are clearly a tinfoil hat Dittohead, so there is no use conversing with you.

As usual, you're dead wrong again Bailey.

Now it's undeniable that YOU'VE endorsed our "assisting the ethnic cleansing of the Albanian Muslims." I've, on the other hand,
always held that, "America had no stake in "assisting" either side in any ethnic cleansing." Just as I clearly stated above.

I've also stated MANY, MANY times, that we got into the Balkans on the wrong side (the Albanian Muslims were indeed the first to engage in genocide against the Christian Serbs in Kosovo), because of overriding economic concerns, which indeed we did.

We DID NOT "assist the Albanian Muslims" in their attempts at "ethnic cleansing" against the Serbs...and indeed, as I said, we had no overriding interest, neither humanitarian, nor any other in the Balkans, except for insuring that the Albanian oil pipeline was completed and preserved.

Perhaps if Rwanda had some overriding economic interests for the West, we and Europe may well have gotten involved there as well.

That military involvement would, of course, have to have been sold as a "humanitarian intervention," but it's real purpose would've been to preserve and defend our rightful economic interests there.

Anyone who doubts that, need only look at the facts - we've consistently (and rightly so, in my view) gotten involved in internal disputes where our own economic interests are involved and have steadfastly avoided those where we have no such interests.

That is a very sound foreign policy, as it insures a return on our military investment.