March 24 (Bloomberg) -- A United Nations police vehicle was attacked in the Serbian province of Kosovo, Agence France-Presse reported, citing an unidentified UN spokesman. Two people were killed in the incident, he said.
The attack took place late yesterday and involved at least one gunman, the spokesman said.
The province has been under the control of the UN since 1999 through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led KFOR peacekeeping force.
NATO deployed 2,000 extra soldiers in the province after clashes erupted last week between ethnic Albanians and Serbs, in which at least 28 people were killed.
Evidence that the attacks have targeted mainly civilians can be seen in casualty figures. As mentioned above, after 60 days of bombing and more than 7,000 attacks, Serb military losses were "in the hundreds," while civilian casualties were as high as 1500 killed and 6000 wounded. NATO claims that less than one percent of its bombs miss their targets, so if Serb civilian casualties outnumber military losses, the reason must be that NATO is targeting civilians more than it is the military. link
"that's not what I was doing, but if you gotta spin it that way, then you gotta spin."
I'll call it as I see it.
"Serb civilian casualties outnumber military losses, the reason must be that NATO is targeting civilians more than it is the military."
Dan is going to sites with links to a website called agitprop.com, and cutting a pasting material that calls into question the motives of NATO commanders. Do you believe that NATO is targeting civilian Serbs. You've suddenly become very concerned about Serb civilian casualties. I think we all should be concerned about innocent non combatants dying.
But it seems to me your going to some unnecessary lengths to try to make some kind point about Bill Clinton. Now, you're quoting what may be one of those dreaded lefty college professors? Politics certainly makes strange bedfellows. Why don't you just say what you want to say?
Alright, why do people damn President Bush but not Bill Clinton for the same thing? Why do they claim that we went "unilaterally" into Iraq and then complain about the folks from other countries who have had to die to free Iraq? Why do they say that we should have done something before 9/11 and then complain about being "pre-emptive" in Iraq? Why was it called a "quagmire" when our troops rested so that the supply lines could catch up to them? Why is Clinton wonderful for not doing anything after the first Twin Towers attack, USS Cole, etc., but President Bush is a terrorist for responding to attacks on our soil on 9/11?
There is the "spin" for you and it comes from the democrat side of the discussions. This is why I dislike democrat politics.
"Why is Clinton wonderful for not doing anything after the first Twin Towers attack,"
Someone caught the bombers and the mastermimd, as I recall. The guy that wore the hat that looked like Santa Claus. Clinton didn't but someone did.
Clinton ran bombing runs into Iraq in '98 and all the Republicans did was criticize him. Wag the dog or something. The leadership wouldn't even give him support. Maybe the military got the WMDs back in '98 because no one can them now.
As for spin, Dan, if the Democrats didn't exist, I'm not certain you'd know who to criticize. It's day in and day out with you.
Hey Rick, How are you ? I hope all is well in your world, good to see you.
Just to let you know, The 98' bombing operation FOX was before Monica. I don't remember any Republicans complaining about it perhaps they did, I didn't. Nor do I remember any Democrats complaining about it either. Or decrying "premeptive" "unilateral" action based on false intell. The one thing I criticize Clinton on as far as dealing with Iraq or other threats is not being agressive enough. Lobbing some cruise missles and sorties would never have got rid of this guy. They are politically easier and less messy. They gave us the impression that we were at least doing something when in reality it was doing little. it also sent the wrong message to the terrorists as well.
Are you sure? I thought it was right around that time.
I don't remember any Republicans complaining about it
Some complained a lot, such as Arlen Specter & Trent Lott. Others, like Orrin Hatch & Newt Gingrich publicly stood behind Clintons actions. Some others just "stood behind the troops".
I believe it was the asprin factory in Sudan being attacked when the wag the dog cry went out. I could have them mixed up, the memory is the first to go you know :)
As for spin, Dan, if the Democrats didn't exist, I'm not certain you'd know who to criticize. It's day in and day out with you.
I give you a pass lately because you have backed up the president on some of the claims. The democratic party in general lately seems to be saying anything in it's hate driven quest to get rid of our president Bush. It is sickening to watch.
The 98' bombing operation FOX was before Monica.
It was actually one day before the impeachment vote. This along with such things as Rep. Porter Goss (chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) being unaware that U.S. airstrikes were planned against Iraq until he saw them under way on CNN had many supporting the actions, but questioning the timing.
It involved the U.S. and British forces only and no mandate from the U.N., but there was no cry of unilateralism.
"Tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets of Baghdad, chanting anti-American slogans, in protest of the closure of a Baghdad newspaper."
Speaking of foul media. Here's another pretty nugget from that voice of impartiality, Dan Rather. How does Dan decide to explain why someone would work for Blackwater security and go to Iraq? Desparation because of the the job situation. Of course this was before Fridays news. This is amazing and an example of blatant and repulsive bias. Don't even bother Rick there's no justifcation for it IMO. Rather made his own editorial leap (again). Perhaps that's why his ratings are lower than they have been in 20 years.
The long job slump,” in George Bush’s America, “has left many Americans desperate enough to risk everything for a decent paycheck," CBS’s Dan Rather suggested Wednesday night. So, that is driving people to “risk death in Iraq” by accepting dangerous civilian jobs over there where some end up paying “the ultimate price.”
That man who was killed opposed Bush’s war with Iraq, reporter Bob McNamara emphasized as he asked the widow: “Was he for this war?” McNamara insisted that the man’s “desperation for work” led him to take the job in Iraq, but he was from Delaware where the unemployment rate is well below the national average.
After Rather teased the lead March 31 story on the gruesome murder of four U.S. civilian contractors in Fallujah, in which the bodies where burned, hacked apart, dragged and hung up, Rather asked, over the “Risking Death” heading on screen with video of people in a job application line: “What drives American civilians to risk death in Iraq? In this economy, it may be, for some, the only job they can find. [jump to picture of American family] This family paid the ultimate price."
McNamara to the man’s wife: “Was he for this war?” Mrs. Linderman: “No, I don't think he was.” McNamara: “He was over there to make a living?” Mrs. Linderman: “He was over there to make a living, and that's all there was to it.”    McNamara: “Art Linderman had been out of steady work for over two years.
Not the point Crabs. It's not Blathers job to editorialize why he went there. Perhaps he was out of work for 2 years for other reasons? We don't know because that's not part of the story just Dan's opinion that the guy was there because of the economy.
Undermining CBS’s case that high unemployment is forcing people to risk death in Iraq: The current unemployment rate in Delaware stands at a mere 3.4 percent, much lower than the national average or the rate in Texas.
The guy was a trainer for Hollywood actors. That industry seems to be doing o.k so perhapos there's another reason. Again it doesn't matter because Rather is simply injecting his opinion on the story where it's not supposed to be. Nah, no bias, nope.
Perhaps he was out of work for 2 years for other reasons?
Perhaps he's a drug addict? Perhaps he only likes to work in jobs that place him in dangerous situations? Maybe the emergency unemployment benefits that Dubya extended during his term ran out?
We'll never know.
We don't know because that's not part of the story just Dan's opinion that the guy was there because of the economy.
let's see...so far we have a man who was killed in Iraq as being a lazy, drug addicted veteran of Nam who wouldn't even get a job washing dishes to support his family...
UN Vehicle Attacked in Kosovo; Two People Killed, AFP Reports
March 24 (Bloomberg) -- A United Nations police vehicle was attacked in the Serbian province of Kosovo, Agence France-Presse reported, citing an unidentified UN spokesman. Two people were killed in the incident, he said.
The attack took place late yesterday and involved at least one gunman, the spokesman said.
The province has been under the control of the UN since 1999 through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led KFOR peacekeeping force.
NATO deployed 2,000 extra soldiers in the province after clashes erupted last week between ethnic Albanians and Serbs, in which at least 28 people were killed.
There have been 691 coalition deaths, 591 Americans, 59 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, one Estonian, 17 Italians, two Poles, 10 Spaniards, two Thai and three Ukrainian, in the war as of March 26, 2004.
I dont think either of the conflicts are quagmires.
Vietnam: That was a quagmire.
But if you two gotta spin, then you gotta spin.
that's not what I was doing, but if you gotta spin it that way, then you gotta spin.
"that's not what I was doing, but if you gotta spin it that way, then you gotta spin."
I'll call it as I see it.
"Serb civilian casualties outnumber military losses, the reason must be that NATO is targeting civilians more than it is the military."
Dan is going to sites with links to a website called agitprop.com, and cutting a pasting material that calls into question the motives of NATO commanders. Do you believe that NATO is targeting civilian Serbs. You've suddenly become very concerned about Serb civilian casualties. I think we all should be concerned about innocent non combatants dying.
But it seems to me your going to some unnecessary lengths to try to make some kind point about Bill Clinton. Now, you're quoting what may be one of those dreaded lefty college professors? Politics certainly makes strange bedfellows. Why don't you just say what you want to say?
Why don't you just say what you want to say?
Alright, why do people damn President Bush but not Bill Clinton for the same thing? Why do they claim that we went "unilaterally" into Iraq and then complain about the folks from other countries who have had to die to free Iraq? Why do they say that we should have done something before 9/11 and then complain about being "pre-emptive" in Iraq? Why was it called a "quagmire" when our troops rested so that the supply lines could catch up to them? Why is Clinton wonderful for not doing anything after the first Twin Towers attack, USS Cole, etc., but President Bush is a terrorist for responding to attacks on our soil on 9/11?
There is the "spin" for you and it comes from the democrat side of the discussions. This is why I dislike democrat politics.
Deflect and blame. Deflect and blame. The liberal mantra.
"Why is Clinton wonderful for not doing anything after the first Twin Towers attack,"
Someone caught the bombers and the mastermimd, as I recall. The guy that wore the hat that looked like Santa Claus. Clinton didn't but someone did.
Clinton ran bombing runs into Iraq in '98 and all the Republicans did was criticize him. Wag the dog or something. The leadership wouldn't even give him support. Maybe the military got the WMDs back in '98 because no one can them now.
As for spin, Dan, if the Democrats didn't exist, I'm not certain you'd know who to criticize. It's day in and day out with you.
Wag the dog or something...
Clinton's timing was questionable.
Were the results questionable?
What results?
No way of knowing if they bombings of '98 were successful. No inspectors could enter the country.
If Saddam wasn't a direct threat to the U.S. I figure he was always a direct threat to Israel.
If Saddam wasn't a direct threat to the U.S. I figure he was always a direct threat to Israel.
That's for sure.
No way of knowing if they bombings of '98 were successful. No inspectors could enter the country.
If Clinton would have been a leader instead of a poll watcher he would have forced the issue in 1998.
Hey Rick, How are you ? I hope all is well in your world, good to see you.
Just to let you know, The 98' bombing operation FOX was before Monica. I don't remember any Republicans complaining about it perhaps they did, I didn't. Nor do I remember any Democrats complaining about it either. Or decrying "premeptive" "unilateral" action based on false intell. The one thing I criticize Clinton on as far as dealing with Iraq or other threats is not being agressive enough. Lobbing some cruise missles and sorties would never have got rid of this guy. They are politically easier and less messy. They gave us the impression that we were at least doing something when in reality it was doing little. it also sent the wrong message to the terrorists as well.
The 98' bombing operation FOX was before Monica.
Are you sure? I thought it was right around that time.
I don't remember any Republicans complaining about it
Some complained a lot, such as Arlen Specter & Trent Lott. Others, like Orrin Hatch & Newt Gingrich publicly stood behind Clintons actions. Some others just "stood behind the troops".
I believe it was the asprin factory in Sudan being attacked when the wag the dog cry went out. I could have them mixed up, the memory is the first to go you know :)
As for spin, Dan, if the Democrats didn't exist, I'm not certain you'd know who to criticize. It's day in and day out with you.
I give you a pass lately because you have backed up the president on some of the claims. The democratic party in general lately seems to be saying anything in it's hate driven quest to get rid of our president Bush. It is sickening to watch.
The 98' bombing operation FOX was before Monica.
It was actually one day before the impeachment vote. This along with such things as Rep. Porter Goss (chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) being unaware that U.S. airstrikes were planned against Iraq until he saw them under way on CNN had many supporting the actions, but questioning the timing.
It involved the U.S. and British forces only and no mandate from the U.N., but there was no cry of unilateralism.
Speaking about spin....
http://www.pmw.org.il/new/AFD_eng.html
Hard to spin what is simply someone elses words.
Grandpa Dan Zachary 3/29/04 10:48pm
Hard to spin what is simply someone elses words.
The folks in DC try to do so daily.
What did you think about my link? Did you watch the video?
"The folks in DC try to do so daily. "
Spinning? In an election year?
I'm shocked.
Did you watch the video?
Scary that they would start at such very young age teaching them such stuff.
This is a pretty distressing account.
I saw it on AP. It's disgusting.
BTW, good to see you Rick.
I guess all of us are meant for each other, or deserve each other, as the case may be.
What price censorship?
"Tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets of Baghdad, chanting anti-American slogans, in protest of the closure of a Baghdad newspaper."
Rick 4/2/04 5:44pm
So what?
I haven't read anything from the banned newspaper but it seems to me they created one more reason to sow unrest.
If the efforts of coalition forces are so successful, what's the threat of a ragtag weekly?
Try this on for size Rick....
http://www.pmw.org.il/new/AFD_eng.html
Yeah, it's foul. Is that anything that hasn't been seen before?
Was that printed in the paper?
Speaking of foul media. Here's another pretty nugget from that voice of impartiality, Dan Rather. How does Dan decide to explain why someone would work for Blackwater security and go to Iraq? Desparation because of the the job situation. Of course this was before Fridays news. This is amazing and an example of blatant and repulsive bias. Don't even bother Rick there's no justifcation for it IMO. Rather made his own editorial leap (again). Perhaps that's why his ratings are lower than they have been in 20 years.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040402.asp#1
What an absolute bunch of B.S, then again it's Danny Blather.
McNamara to the man’s wife: “Was he for this war?”
Mrs. Linderman: “No, I don't think he was.”
McNamara: “He was over there to make a living?”
Mrs. Linderman: “He was over there to make a living, and that's all there was to it.”   ÂÂ
McNamara: “Art Linderman had been out of steady work for over two years.
Not the point Crabs. It's not Blathers job to editorialize why he went there. Perhaps he was out of work for 2 years for other reasons? We don't know because that's not part of the story just Dan's opinion that the guy was there because of the economy.
The guy was a trainer for Hollywood actors. That industry seems to be doing o.k so perhapos there's another reason. Again it doesn't matter because Rather is simply injecting his opinion on the story where it's not supposed to be. Nah, no bias, nope.
it wasn't editorial...it was what his wife said.
uh huh
Never mind, didn't mean to interrupt you from reading Russ Baker quotes ;)
Perhaps he was out of work for 2 years for other reasons?
Perhaps he's a drug addict? Perhaps he only likes to work in jobs that place him in dangerous situations? Maybe the emergency unemployment benefits that Dubya extended during his term ran out?
We'll never know.
We don't know because that's not part of the story just Dan's opinion that the guy was there because of the economy.
Bingo! They didn't do their work as reports.
all we have is what his widow says.
was...you want to tell that to his widow while you explain that you don't believe what she said?
all we have is what his widow says.
And she's biased. So like I said, we'll never know.
you want to tell that to his widow while you explain that you don't believe what she said?
He went there knowing full well the risks.
I hope the man was smart enough to have life insurance.
Why is a guy unemployed for 2 years?
I'd be washing dishes at a greasy spoon if I had to.
the risk that you might suggest (after his death) that he was a drug addict?
may you never have to find out.
the risk that you might suggest (after his death) that he was a drug addict?
I don't know what he was.
Maybe he was an alter boy? Maybe he liked shooting people with guns? Maybe he liked the smell of desert sand and oil?
may you never have to find out.
FYI: I understand things can be tough sometimes, but we're not in a depression or anything.
the last few years have been called a "recession", yes.
crabgrass 4/3/04 8:20pm
And jobs are still widely available in most areas.
crabgrass 4/3/04 8:30pm
Most likely by choice.
yea...those veterans are so lazy
some can be.
let's see...so far we have a man who was killed in Iraq as being a lazy, drug addicted veteran of Nam who wouldn't even get a job washing dishes to support his family...
nice.
possibly.
we don't know all the details now do we?