you might be if ya like tuffguy Dubya...Gore Hits Bush on Balkans Pullback

The New York Times reported on the plan on Saturday. Bush's senior national security aide, Condoleezza Rice, told The Times that in a Bush presidency, peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo would become Europe's responsibility. The United States would focus instead on deterring and fighting wars in the Gulf, Asia and other trouble spots, she said.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 22, 2000

Answers

John Montgomery seems to have it figured out as good as any: Creep Voter's Guide

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), October 22, 2000.

Sounds just like what they decided at Bilderberg.

-- Maurice Strong (HoHoHo@NWO.con), October 22, 2000.

PAX Amaricana! Station American "peacekeepers" in the Balkans, in breakaway Soviet provinces, in Pakistan, in Palestine/Israel, in Africa, in Malaysia, in Taiwan, in Tibet and wherever Al Gore decides American mother's sons should die. Hey, let's even do Viet Nam again.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), October 22, 2000.

...in a Bush presidency, peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo would become Europe's responsibility.

Bush's stance sounds reasonable to me. At this point, why should Europe NOT be held solely responsible for peacekeeping in their own back yard?

Gore said Bush's plan ``could reflect a major and fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. role in the world'' and warned it would lead to the end of NATO and could undermine peace in Europe.

Just how would Bush's plan to pull out the 11,000 US troops left in Bosnia "lead to the end of NATO"? This sounds like a huge leap in logic to me.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), October 22, 2000.

CD:

"Bush's stance sounds reasonable to me. At this point, why should Europe NOT be held solely responsible for peacekeeping in their own back yard? "

We have already tried that approach during the 20th century. Didn't work out too well. For background, I recommend reading "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich [Shirer]" and "All Quiet on the Western Front; [Kramer = Remarque]". There are other sources.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 22, 2000.

Bush is not interested in getting involved in any military activity for humanitarian causes. His whole thing is control over OIL, because it means big money and power. He can't wait to go back to Iraq and finish what his Daddy started, because the end result will be very advantageous for his corporate oil buddies. He will also want to use our military to fight in other areas, but the bottom line will always be to get control of all oil throughout the world, and be able to control the price.

-- (Bush@money.not.people), October 22, 2000.

Bush is deeply involved in a secret international criminal conspiracy to secure a one-world government of frat boys who do cocaine while masturbating in coffins. I read it in Larry Flynt.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), October 22, 2000.

OK, Z1X4Y7. So as to hopefully not be taken out of context again, allow me to rephrase it.

Bush's stance sounds reasonable to me. Considering the fact that the US has already completed all the "heavy lifting", why at this point in time should the Europeans NOT be held solely responsible for shouldering the burden of the peacekeeping mission *which is already in place in the Balkans*?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), October 22, 2000.

Ok CD:

That is better. No need to be formal. Just Z will do. :^)

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 22, 2000.

"Bush is deeply involved in a secret international criminal conspiracy to secure a one-world government of frat boys who do cocaine while masturbating in coffins."

LOL!! That's pretty damn close!

-- (you@got.it), October 22, 2000.

We should be running the world, as others have proven they can't manage their own affairs. We have the right to go into other nations and take over if they cant get their acts together(MOST OF THE WORLD!!!!) Lets go, starting with the Americas. SPEAK LOUDLY AND CARRY A BIG GUN!!!!!!

-- Mr. Jingo (Jingoist@USA.world), October 22, 2000.

That is better. No need to be formal. Just Z will do. :^)

OK, "Z" it is then. Thanks. And likewise, you can call me "C" if you'd like. By the way Z, any thoughts on your attending the spring/summer gathering thingy out on the east coast next year? Would enjoy seeing ya there.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), October 22, 2000.

"C":

Thanks. Meeting everyone would be fun. As for me, I can't say that far in advance. When the folks were yukking-it-up in Vegas, I was in Tennessee. Then I went to DC and Oregon. Just got home recently. I have no idea where I will be in May or June.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 22, 2000.