Deans letter to Clinton, and possible Political fallout.

[maluckey]

It is now reported that Dean once wrote a letter urging President Clinton to unilaterally invole ourselves in a Bosnian civil war because of the death toll, and the fact that U.S. involvement could stop it. Now he stands against involvement in Iraq. He is taking flack because of this. Bosnia was never a threat to the U.S., Iraq arguably was.

I feel that the Governor should explain himself to so that more can understand his point of view, as to why the situations are so different. As of this morning, he has had no comment on this. The other candidates are not going to pass up this one, as Dean constantly hounds them for supporting the Iraqi conflict. Clark will likely take a hard swipe at this one, being intimate with the Bosnian situation. Kerry will certainly take a swipe after the negative ad in Iowa, portraying him as a Republican sympathizer. It can't be good for politics to change opinions so rapidly.

P.S. This is what the previous post was going to say, but I was locked out before having a chance to edit after double clicking.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In these letters, did Dean encourage Clinton to claim another reason, oh say WMDs, because perhaps he knew there would not be the political will to do so?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maluckey
It is now reported that Dean once wrote a letter urging President Clinton to unilaterally invole ourselves in a Bosnian civil war because of the death toll, and the fact that U.S. involvement could stop it. Now he stands against involvement in Iraq. He is taking flack because of this. Bosnia was never a threat to the U.S., Iraq arguably was.

I feel that the Governor should explain himself to so that more can understand his point of view, as to why the situations are so different. As of this morning, he has had no comment on this. The other candidates are not going to pass up this one, as Dean constantly hounds them for supporting the Iraqi conflict. Clark will likely take a hard swipe at this one, being intimate with the Bosnian situation. Kerry will certainly take a swipe after the negative ad in Iowa, portraying him as a Republican sympathizer. It can't be good for politics to change opinions so rapidly.

P.S. This is what the previous post was going to say, but I was locked out before having a chance to edit after double clicking.

The difference was is that the genocide and fighting going on in Bosnia more of a threat to the Stability of Europe and NATO than Hussien thumbing his nose at the Dub was a threat to the US, Israel or even S.A.

 

[tnitsuj]

Clinton also got NATO to go along with the action formally, and thier was support from the majority of the UN for this action even if the actual military operation was not formally under the aegis of the security council.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maluckey
It is now reported that Dean once wrote a letter urging President Clinton to unilaterally invole ourselves in a Bosnian civil war because of the death toll, and the fact that U.S. involvement could stop it. Now he stands against involvement in Iraq. He is taking flack because of this. Bosnia was never a threat to the U.S., Iraq arguably was.

I feel that the Governor should explain himself to so that more can understand his point of view, as to why the situations are so different. As of this morning, he has had no comment on this. The other candidates are not going to pass up this one, as Dean constantly hounds them for supporting the Iraqi conflict. Clark will likely take a hard swipe at this one, being intimate with the Bosnian situation. Kerry will certainly take a swipe after the negative ad in Iowa, portraying him as a Republican sympathizer. It can't be good for politics to change opinions so rapidly.

P.S. This is what the previous post was going to say, but I was locked out before having a chance to edit after double clicking.

The difference was is that the genocide and fighting going on in Bosnia more of a threat to the Stability of Europe and NATO than Hussien thumbing his nose at the Dub was a threat to the US, Israel or even S.A.

Yes. Joining a war where civilians are being killed or uprooted to defend is vastly more justifiable than starting one to rid the world of WMDs... Which... I'm sure... eventually we'll find...

 

[Witling]

A point that hasn't been mentioned here is heavy weapons. The people we perceived as aggressors had heavy weapons to use against civilian populations. Western technology is superbly qualified to take out heavy weapons without much risk to Western life. Iraq requires us to get down and grovel in the dirt.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Whitling
A point that hasn't been mentioned here is heavy weapons. The people we perceived as aggressors had heavy weapons to use against civilian populations. Western technology is superbly qualified to take out heavy weapons without much risk to Western life. Iraq requires us to get down and grovel in the dirt.

So our decisions to use military force should be predicated on our ability to avoid casualties?

 

[Witling]

Hero, you're damn right that our ability to avoid casualties should be a consideration. I didn't expect such insight.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Hero, you're damn right that our ability to avoid casualties should be a consideration. I didn't expect such insight.

I'm glad you weren't President 64 years ago.

 

[Witling]

I wanted to get the previous post in about consideration of casualties being important. Now that that is jammed up against the "Hero," I want to elaborate. Hero, ever "been there and done that?" Well, to the guys who actually do go, the level of casualties measured against the importance of the object is incredibly important. The military will always be willing to spend lives -- that's there nature. But I want them to measure the gain against the loss. The first lesson for every commander is, "Look out for your troops."

No doubt you wrote before you thought!

 

[Witling]

Hero says, "I'm glad you weren't President 64 years ago. "

64 years ago? Let's see, that would be 1940. Well, you can't mean the Pearl Harbor attack, that was in 1941. OK Hero, fill us in, where would I have failed 64 years ago. I'm not a pacifist. I just happen to think that not considering potential casualties is one of the more careless statements I've seen.