stop spam wrote in message ...
Eunometic wrote:
The US has a history of using islamic based insurgence as a wedge
against various European countries.

Any proof to this absurd claim? The one you tried to use below doesn't fly.

The behaviour of the US during the Yugoslave/Bosnian/Kosovo issues

The US came in because the Europeans had allowed, through their own
inaction, a local mess to become so bad they couldn't handle it
themselves. The Europeans were very upset to find out their local
militaries were incapable of doing much of anything, and perhaps there
was a good reason after all for the US's defense budget.

If this is the type of thanks the US receives after it was invited in by
the Europeans to clean up their own mess in their back yard, then
perhaps next time we'll let you go it alone.

That would be another one of those "invitations" that were preceded by
intense lobbying and pressure.

The US was chumping at the bit to have a go at a military intervention
and at the time was following a policy of agitating its Allies to take
more responsibillity globally (ie spend more money to unburden the US)
in implementing what was US policy anyway.

I don't see that ANY western european, US or NATO involvement was
required at all. It was confined to being a civil war that would most
likely have ended in dissolution of Yugoslavia along slightly
different (and better borders). It did not threaten neightbouring
countries and flows of refugees could be handled by population
transfers within the borders of the former Yugoslavia. It was far less
bloody than the butcherous American Civil war. What it seems to have
boiled down to is an unjustified intervention on vastly exaggerated
human rights grounds that was really about appeasing the muslim
populations in the Middle East and Turkey for strategic reasons.
There are in my opinion more people dead becuase of NATO intervention
than without it.