I spend a decent amount of time in the Balkans. Indeed, in January I stayed in the newly reopened Hotel Jugoslavia in Belgrade which was bombed as a part of the NATO campaign. Interestingly, even though my Bosnian girlfriend spent her childhood in Sarajevo being bombarded by Serb artillery, she doesn't think Belgrade should have been targeted by Nato.
Clinton went into Kosovo after criticism for not getting involved with Rwanda and Bosnia. Clinton didn't have to go in there and he didn't have to get involved in 1999. However, these circumstances presented an opening. Involvement in Serbia was enacted around the time of the Clinton Doctrine whereby it was stated that the US would act multilaterally with the UN when possible, but unilaterally when necessary. As part of the National Security Strategy, it also suggested that the US would act in circumstances they were "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources".
Much like the Monroe doctrine was used for the attempts on Cuba, the actions in Serbia/Kosovo set a precedent whereby the US can undermine international law, treaty and process.
You can go on if you want but to be honest, I'm only killing time here really.
You've just changed your stance dramatically. Just this morning, it was ridiculous and disgusting to insinuate that the US was looking out for corporate interests. Now it's perfectly true and acceptable.
Where did I suggest that? I'm happy to see ISIS blown off the face of the earth. Who controls the oil isn't my decision. Ideally, the oil would be controlled by Iraqi citizens but it appears you'd rather the Americans control it, even though "America doesnt need iraqi oil at all. Not one bit of it".
Are you threatening me? :blink:
Calm down, it's Sunday afternoon and this is a horse racing forum.
