Or the zero US casualties suffered in all of the former nation of Yugoslavia that's the debacle? Could the debacle be that regime change was achieved at a very low financial cost be the debacle they're talking about? Or could it be that the war criminals of the former Yugoslavia were successfully tried in the Hague, rather than being tried at some Judge Ito like show trial, such as what Saddam's getting? Could it be that we had a real coalition that held together going into the former Yugoslavia, rather than just us, Britain, and a coalition of the dwindling that causes them to characterize Kosovo as a debacle? How about the quality of life and the quality of public safety in the former Yugoslavia verses the quality of those things in Iraq? Is the debacle in Kosovo that it's too quiet, too safe, has too high of a standard of living when compared to Iraq or even for that matter to Afghanistan? I guess the debacle must be that things went so well in the former Yugoslavia that hardly anyone notices that there was even a war. I guess you need to preside over a series of real disasters to be known as a great leader.
As long as the western press doesn't mention it several times a week, no one pays any attention whatsoever. Europe could sink beneath the waves of the ocean, and if the press didn't mention it and sensationalize it, most people of the world would hardly notice any effect on their lives. ...and most probably wouldn't even give a shit. Baron Max
