Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff on 9/11 won't support Clark!

I don't know much about Clark. But the extreme left flank of the Democratic Party already hates him because he's ex-military and because he supposedly was behind an incident in Kosovo at the Pristina Airport where NATO forces and Russian forces got a little testy with each other and it almost came to blows. I don't know the details, but apparently Clark actually ordered NATO troops to fire on the Russians, to which a British commander replied "I'm not starting World War III for the likes of you." Hence, they claim Clark is just as much a war-hawk Ameri-cretin as Bush and Co. He will be unacceptable to the Euro-weenies because of this as well. Not that I much care for what they think. If Clark has that much guts, I guess I could live with President Wesley Clark.

But about that guts thing. I agreed with getting involved in Bosnia and Kosovo, simply for humanitarian reasons. People were getting butchered by that monster Milosevic and he needed to be stopped. However, Clinton, deathly afraid of the political fallout from combat deaths, did not want ground troops, and forced Clark and NATO to conduct just an air war. This was most spine-less in my opinion. The air war took a while to bring Milo down, and right up to the end, there were doubts about whether it would work or not. It did work in the end, but how many lives could have been saved with an overt ground intervention. Also, the war did not take Milo down, he survived until he was deposed in a coup a year later. I will say that the war did weaken him though. I have a big ole' Bosnia rant, but I'll save that, because Clark was not really involved in Bosnia. And in the end, I guess it was just Clark following orders, but if I were in his position, I would have insisted on ground troops in addition to air attack. If the goal is to end genocide, the only way to do that is to get between the killers and the victims.

As for Clark's integrity, hey, I'm not going to question it. But I'm not going to question Bush's either. It will be on Clark to prove that Bush is of questionable character. And most Americans don't agree with you on that Biggles. It's just that simple.

I'd calm down a bit too if I were you man. It's okay to disagree with Bush, but your hatred of the man is beginning to border on the irrational. I also see you still don't understand the REAL reason behind the Iraq war. Hint:it didn't have anything to do with oil, money, personal grudges, or any other conspiracy theories. WMD and terrorism had a little something to do with it, but they are just secondary reasons.

Clark will give Bush a much better fight than Dean will, but I still see Bush coming out on top.

 

Biggles glosses over the fact that we used NO ground troops in Europe...

It's clean in comparison because we used a conscript army in Europe, and the soldiers for America that were used were high above the fray and out of harm's way, for the most part.

There were NO ground troops in Europe that were American. There WERE ground troops in Iraq that were/are American.

That's the difference between the two casualty amounts. Biggles would have everyone gloss over this point or marginalize it and look overall at the results of the war.

In my mathematics classes in college, you could attain the right answer, yet get the problem wrong. This was because the formula you used to reach the answer, or the route of the processes you took to extrapolate the euqation and solve the problem was/were incorrect.

Biggles looks at the results while ignoring the processes.

Biggles, you are more intelligent than that. Please, come clean and admit it. The reason you deem Europe a success and Iraq a failure is because of American lives.

We had to risk American lives in this war. In Europe, others allowed us to control their own troops and merely utilize ours for air support and tactical and strategic planning.

I give you more credit than the cockamamey excuses you're hiding behind when comparing the relative success levels in comparison to one another...

 

My uneducated friend there were ground troops in Bosnia...

But to the larger point we did not have a renagade cowboy approach and we did not isolate the US against the rest of the world. Oh, and we were victorious.....

The differences are so clear to the free thinking person that if it was a snake it would have bit you....

But I enjoyed the math mumo-piffle...

Logic....

A war against a dictator killiing 10,000s. We gain international cooperation, international forces and international agreement. We win, the bad guy's gone (funny how this bad guy is found...?)
and no American ives are lost....

A success....?



Now, a war with a dictator killing 10,000s. We piss off our allies, we lie about reasons going to war, we go to war alone, we decalre a premature victory, we understaff the war then we return to our allies begging for help. And 300 (over 100 since W decalered victory) Americans dead. But Halliburton has $10 billion, un-bid contract.

A Bush success...!

The people will speak...

 

I'm already turned off of Clark. The man has been flopping around like a fish the last four years, all over the political spectrum. First he's a Republican, then a Democrat, now he says he was never a Republican. Leiberman's already calling his "conversion" an affair of political expedience rather than principle. Add to that that NONE of the Pentagon brass seem to like him and I smell something fishy. I can understand Clark ticking some people off during his tenure on the JCOS, but when you leave the military without one single solitary friend in the Pentagon, well, that leads me to believe something is amiss.

 

Yes, you are correct.....

How many friends did Bush leave the "military" with...?

 

Thats a pretty quick reversal from your earlier post on this thread, Jetstorm. I don't know a lot about Clark but he is the Clinton's Boy. They are backing and advising him so far so what I think it is is that they put him up to further cloud the Demos picture and at whatever time Hillary decides whether she has a chance to win in 2004 or not Clark will be Hillary's running mate unless the Clintons stab him in the back for a last minute VP candidate who can help her more or if Hillary decides she can't beat Bush in 2004 she will use Clark in whatever manner he can be manipulated to make sure that no other Democrat can beat Bush. If another Demo got elected in 2004 that would spell doom for Billary Clinton in 2008 because an incumbent president always gets his party's nomination to run for re-election.

quote
____________________________________________________
I don't know the details, but apparently Clark actually ordered NATO troops to fire on the Russians, to which a British commander replied "I'm not starting World War III for the likes of you."
____________________________________________________

If this is true shooting some Russians wouldn't have started WWIII but it would have created a huge "international incident" If Clark were President he would have his finger on the nuclear trigger at a moments notice.