You may find it interesting to take a look at some relevant information about tisch

You may find it interesting to check some helpful info dedicated to codigo fuente ruleta

I don’t have a mental timeline in my brain but if memory serves this went on for years between 92 and 95. The culmination of this was the infamous massacre at Sbrneica (sp?) where the Dutch UN battalion abjectly surrendered in return for their own safe evacuation, abandoning the Muslims to summary execution.

This is why I carry on here to the probable irritation of some and the amusement of others. Seems to me the whole rest of the West (with some exceptions) has become a bunch of adolescents who are happy to leave their own external defense to the US while indulging themselves in tantrums about the way it’s done.

Which is another reason why I want to pull out our ground troops from ROK. It’d serve the same purpose as a bucket of cold water in the face, not just for ROK but also to the rest of the West as well.

Here’s another bit of anecdotal evidence in support of my view:

http://jetiranger.tripod.com/B.....id=1077733

Written by GI Korea, a blog written by a US soldier stationed in Korea; many of you are no doubt already familiar with it.

The more libertarian Republicans (like former economics professor Dick Armey) and the isolationist paleoconservatives were very lukewarm on Bosnia– just like they were pretty lukewarm on Iraq, incidentally.

The theocons, neocons, and many of the traditionalists and fusionist conservatives (such as National Review) generally supported action in Bosnia, at least lifting the arms embargo to Bosnia. Same groups that supported the Iraq action.

Main difference with Iraq is that more of the realists supported it as something more in line with US strategic interests, and more of the leftish idealists opposed it as… something that too directly could aid selfish US strategic interests.

Make that House Republicans and you’re correct, Mac. But Senate Republicans not only supported the President in those interventions, but actually forced him to act in the case of Bob Dole’s cricitisms of Clinton’s inaction in Bosnia.

“Funny how DJ and others criticize Bush?€™s incoherent policy on N Korea while talking in positive terms about Clinton?€™s.

People seem to downplay what really made Clinton?€™s approach work (at least in the short term). Clinton made it clear he was willing to smack KJI with a very big stick.”

I don’t understand this statement at all. Whenever did Clinton indicate this? When he sent Madeleine Albright to drink toasts with KJI?

Maybe you mean the “crisis” that occurred between the Clinton administration and NorK, in Clinton’s first term, as regards NorK’s nuclear program (?) That was “resolved” by Jimmy Carter’s surprise visit — but remember Kim Il Sung was still alive then and running the show.

Supposedly the US was “ready to go to war” back then. I doubt it, I think what is meant when people say this is that Clinton was listening to his advisors who were then telling him that it was politically importantand expedient for him to “appear” t to take a hard line. And of course he did this without consulting and coordinating closely with ROK, a key factor in beginning the current strain in the US-ROK alliance IMO.

But the same considerations that now dictate against any US preemptive strike on NorK nuclear facilities were in existence (and essentially the same) back then. So I just don’t see how anyone can say with a straight face that Clinton was “straining at the bit” to “smack anybody down” — at any time.

It took years, and endless massacres by the Serbian nationalists in Bosnia and Kosovo, for him to finally take any US military action there — and even then, he refused to risk any US ground troops involvement.

Clinton just had no taste for using US military power, which was certainly obvious to any other nation in the world that watched him (and of course they watch us extremely closely).

Now you can take any view you want about this, either pro or con (certainly much of the world was “pro”, they loved him for it, as they felt it gave them a veto power over what the US could do. Witness the standing ovations he got at the UN).

But — it seems to me an undeniable fact.

The irony is that the US government realizes this is a global problem and tries to solve it through a multi-lateral approach, while SK government treats this as a “American” problem. Just proves that mental retardation is a global phenomena.

People seem to downplay what really made Clinton’s approach work (at least in the short term). Clinton made it clear he was willing to smack KJI with a very big stick.

I really wonder if DJ supports NK communism. I can’t think of any historical precedent that show appeasement works. Is he delusional or a follower if the Kim Il-Sung clan?

The North’s goal is to turn public sentiment in the South against the US. Its hopes for long-term survival, and eventual hegemony over the entire peninsula, hinge on it.

DJ, by claiming the US is at fault for the breakdown in the six-party talks, only helps the North in this sense, hindering the whole process.