I'm just curious how this debt is expected be paid back since the fed doesn't print interest money...its my understanding it only prints the principal.

NATO Mandate?  So Hitler was justitfied in going into Poland because he had an Axis mandate?  You are a funny fellow.

NO, Kosovo was like Georgia, not Iraq.  We did not steal a part of Iraq (we invaded the whole nation and kept it intact).  Nor were the serbs attacking us (you cannot say that about Iraq).

In both Kosovo and South Osetia, a foreign power went into a sovereign nation with no provocation to wrest a province from the grasp of the legitimate government. 

YOu use the crutch of genocide to appease your conscience, but that is the same argument Russia made.  And I dont see you supporting that argument with Iraq (the Kurds, remember them?) or Sudan.  You cherry pick your facts, ignoring the plank in your eye to justify your war mongering, and then turn around and call others to task for doing what you support?

I have said before and say here again.  Liberals are hypocrites.

Thank you for the clarification.  That is not arguable.

Knowing the government (note, not dem or rep), they will just start printing money.  The rhetoric coming from Frank, Schumer and Pelosi sure is indicating that.

Printing out money definitely is not the solution. Our buying power will just weaken and debt will hardly be reduced that way. It will also affect dollar value.

And of course, I trust that everyone realizes there is NO OVERSIGHT!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846_pf.html

Yeah well that's the thing...if the fed only prints the principal...of which they make an instant profit from when its borrowed since I'm sure by now its costs them pennies to print $1.00...there's really no way to ever repay the debt...I'd imagine they pretty much own everything by now.

Precisely.  The truth is that WE, the taxpayers, will be paying this back from our own productivity (as in tax revenue surpluses) for decades to come. 

The Fed can't print our way out of this since the real value of the debt remains the same.  In other words, we can print new dollars, but those devalue ALL dollars, meaning we'd just have to pay off the debt with even more dollars, etc.   Regardless, printing new money is, in effect, borrowing against ourselves in the future.  We still have to work it off.

And this doesn't included the $59 trillion that currently represents unfunded obligations.

I'm going to have to let the facts speak for themselves here.  Your criteria even here supports my assertion.  In that I said a NATO AND UN mandate, which means the MAJORITY of nations felt intervention in the Balkans was a universally good thing.  Something that has been born out by removing the genocidal fascists from power and seeing them tried and executed for their war crimes by an international court of law.

And that is a FAR CRY from preemtively saying "hey, me and a couple of friends think it's a good idea to take over your country!"  That analogy again supports that Iraq is more like Georgia and matches Hitler going into Poland.   Though I wouldn't compare Hitler with Bush, period.  And I don't think you are either.

While I agree with you that is what the Russians did, I really don't believe you're characterizing the Kosovo situation accurately at all.   The UN mandated action, ultimately with RUSSIAN support.  The whole world decided this was the correct course of action and the whole world sends in troops and hardware to support it.

I'd hardly call genocide a "crutch".  And the Russians were clearly lying.

And, actually I supported the Kurds against Saddam and feel America has let them down again and again over the decades.  I also support unilateral UN peacekeeping action in Sudan, Darfur.  In fact, I think these are the sort of humanitarian missions we SHOULD be doing.

Who the heck are you debating here?  I'm not the entire US government, hehe.  And for ANYONE to call me a "war monger" is just utterly ludicrous.  I'm a pacifist by nature.

More importantly, you speak as if you are defending Slobodan Milošević.  Are you from these areas?  Can you give us a different perspective?   I would genuinely like to hear your take.  Since all I have on hand is how the rest of the world sees the Balkan conflicts.

There was no UN mandate - it was a NATO show, and so you are justifying Hungary 1956 and Czheckoslovakia 1968?  I am glad Bush was so warmongering.

WHat Majority?  Did you poll Fiji?  Or is this just another attempt to paint the world as European?  And no one else matters?  You are a good Kerryite.

So we see that (since NATO is not made up of 40 countries) that there was LESS of a mandate to go into Kosovo than Bush had in going into Iraq.  And the truth still stands (and I noticed you avoided it).  Both South Osetia and Kosovo were nations - outside the UN - interfering in the internal affairs of others.

WHile Iraq was UN sponsored (albeit they took 12 years to enforce the mandate).

I am not characterizing anything. I am stating facts.

No, in your opinion.  However Artysim, an avowed liberal on these boards would disagree with you vehemantly.  He has stated (and his sourced facts tend to support his contention) that the Russians were not lying.  Only that you are chosing not to accept the fact you have backed yourself into a corner and are a worse war monger than Bush could even imagine to be.

I am debating you, not the US government.  And you are only a pacifist when the situation suits you as we have seen from your posts.

Nice dodge, but it will not work.  I am defending no one, I am just asking why you are trying to justify one action, and condemn an identical action.  And the difference?  You claim pacifism, yet both are naked acts of agression, the only difference is that you seem you have to support one - because clinton did it, while condemning the other - because Bush did it.  Clearly it is not an issue with you of pacifism or morals or ideals, but pure and simple hatred of one man.  And that appears to be what is making you so hypocritical in your defense, and making your defense look like a propaganda ministers nightmare.  The only way you win, is when you talk to someone ignorant of your hypocrisy.

Actually there was a clear UN mandate.  NATO was charged with handling the operations for the UN because of logistical, military, and politicial issues.  I provided you with clear links to all of that in my response.  You can also just search Google for it.  There is no dispute about how each of these conflicts came to pass.

Your comments about Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, etc. are all non-sequitors.  The UN is comprised of 192 member nations now.  That makes all the difference to me on this and each of the situations you are referring to.

And I repeat, for ANYONE to call me a "war monger" is just utterly ludicrous. I'm a pacifist.

Incorrect.  Here, I'll make it crystal clear for you. 

I support the ones that were mandated and supported by the UN (re: Kosovo and the first Gulf War), but I do not support the naked and opportunistic aggression of the ones that were not (re: the second Gulf War and South Ossetia).

Similarly, I support the Allies involvement in WW2 but not America's involvment in cleaning up the French mess left behind in Vietnam.

I hope that clarifies my position. 

PS Sorry it took me so long to respond.  I actually thought the thread died days ago.

Quaintly selective....is that because the US was the 'last in' in WW2 and 'first in' in 'Nam?

...or was it that 'Nam was the only war you've been alive in to get all indignant over?

Just curious...as I was one of those rarities...a Hippy that despised the treatment of the Vietnam vets/returned soldiers....

Oh...and who died and made the UN God over who is allowed to live and die on foreign soil?

They at best are toothless wimps who fuck off out of messes of their own creation more often than not...

Indeed!

Love it!  I steal your wallet and then pass a law that says the wallet is mine!  AFTER the fact did the UN get involved.  After NATO had creamed them!  What a hypocrite!  At least Bush had a mandate BEFORE Iraq.  Want a link? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html

Want more? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kosovo+war+UN+Mandate

No, they are your logic taken in a different context.  Clearly you only support war when it suits you, and the fact you do support war belies your statement you are a pacifist.  Some wars good, others better.  The only qualification for a "good" war by your statements so far is one that a democrat starts and conversely, the only bad war is one that a republican ends.

See?  you cant even get your facts straight.  Fact 1:  There was no mandate before NATO bombed them.  Fact 2: There was no GW2.  The first one was not over.  A cease fire is not an armistice.

So again, you are attempting to justify your war mongering (and doing a bad job of it) while claiming to be a pacifist.  But I would say what you are generally portraying yourself as - is an opportunist. That is not a derogatory description, just a description.

A pacifist does not beleive in war - period.

One of those NWO/Trilateral guys, it appears.