Did those of you who opposed the invasion of Iraq also oppose our Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia campaign ?
- Thread starter DT4K
- Start date
I opposed Kosovo. Haven't looked at Bosnia carefully, but I don't think the US should get involved in civil wars.
I might be wroung but in those two cases wasn't the country preforming genocide? I don't think any genocide was occouring in Iraq when we invaded so it's not really the same at all.
Uhhhh, ok. 400,000 bodies discovered in mass graves so far... So, they need to be actively killing people AT THE TIME of the invasion? Like, machete in the air kind of thing?
Of course not, we never went near Rwanda.
Personally, I do support the removal of ruthless dictators and ruthless groups in power. However, I don't support it when it is just some arbitrary decision ignoring so many other nations.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Is Israel vs. the Palestinians a civil war? How about China vs. Taiwan? Kashmir seperatists on both sides nearly causing a nuclear war between India and Pakistan?
I understand your position, but realize that in application such a policy has in real life on ocassion led to outcomes like the Turkish genocide of Armenians or the Khmer Rouge's killing fields.
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
There were atrocities on all sides. It was essentially a civil war. I supported our actions there. I just wonder how those who oppose our involvement in Iraq could justify getting involved in a civil war where there was absolutely no threat to our safety or security. My guess is that the only difference is that one was initiated by a Democrat and one by a Republican.
Saddam has a long history of genocide, torture, rape, political execution, etc.
We have already found mass graves.
Not that that was the argument used though.
In fact, that is my point. Those opposed to the war say they are opposed because Saddam was not actually a threat to us. None of the leaders in the balkans were a threat to us at all.
There is a large differance in getting invloved in a war or genocide to stop it and creating a war.
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
That was a challenge, but I think I get what you are saying.
So you are saying you supported the action in the Balkans because there was already a war going on and it was done for humanitarian reasons?
You realize there was already a war going on in Iraq as well, right?
A civil war between the Sunni's and the Kurds had been ongoing for years.
And Saddam killed thousands of Kurds when he attacked them with chemical weapons.
But my question is more aimed at those who believe we should ignore murderous dictators and only act when it is in our own self-defense. Those of you who may agree that Saddam was a bad guy, but don't think we should have been there because he didn't pose a threat to us. Those people have largely ignored Clinton's war efforts in the balkans and I want to know why they believe that action was justified when it had absolutely nothing to do with the U.S.'s safety or security.
We should not get involved in civil wars. Sometimes a civil war looks like a genocide just because one side outmatches the other. But it's not the same.Genocide would be a majority saying out of nowhere, let's kill the minority, and the goal is full extermination of the minority.
Civil war is when minority says, we want independence, and majority says, we don't think so and start killing minority until they say, all right we don't want independence anymore and the killing stops. The goal here is maintaining territorial integrity.
So genocide is killing for the purpose of killing.
While civil war is killing for the purpose of imposing political will.
Civil war is when minority says, we want independence, and majority says, we don't think so and start killing minority until they say, all right we don't want independence anymore and the killing stops. The goal here is maintaining territorial integrity.
So genocide is killing for the purpose of killing.
While civil war is killing for the purpose of imposing political will.
CrazyHelloDeli
Platinum Member
- Jun 24, 2001
- 2,854
- 0
- 0
Generally speaking, I only support War when there is either a clear and presant danger directed at the US, or it is in our vital interest to intervene. While its a rather ambiguious statement and opens the door for many interpretations, its sums up my feelings toward the use of Force. My logic puts US safety over and above any other non-US countries or regions. So in short:
Kosovo = No, no real threat directed toward the US, nor any major benifit to the interests of the US. Cold and heartless as it might seem, I dont see slaughter of groups of people any direct threat to the US. Our intervening in affairs such as this, I see as only causing hatred of the US for acting as the worlds police. Mind our own buisness without being isolationists.
Iraq One = Yes, because I saw the invasion of Kuwait and precursor to larger operations by Iraq that would cause stability(like the middle east has ever had stability, I use the term lighty) of the region, and ultimately Hurt the US economically with Oil supply problems.
Iraq Two = Initially Yes, Now No. I was operating on the assumption that Iraq had large quantities of WMD's that WOULD have without a doubt, ended up in the hand of a Terrorist group and used on US soil. I believed Bush. I also realize that the war effort is still on-going, and proof of WMD's might be found and at that point I will re-evaluate my stance.
But, I am not so cynical as some of our professional Bush haters, who think Bush lied on purpose about WMD's just so he could make a power grab at Oil. I honestly believe that Bush made his decision based on "intelligence" presented to him that was shown as proof to the existance WMD's in Iraq.
Kosovo = No, no real threat directed toward the US, nor any major benifit to the interests of the US. Cold and heartless as it might seem, I dont see slaughter of groups of people any direct threat to the US. Our intervening in affairs such as this, I see as only causing hatred of the US for acting as the worlds police. Mind our own buisness without being isolationists.
Iraq One = Yes, because I saw the invasion of Kuwait and precursor to larger operations by Iraq that would cause stability(like the middle east has ever had stability, I use the term lighty) of the region, and ultimately Hurt the US economically with Oil supply problems.
Iraq Two = Initially Yes, Now No. I was operating on the assumption that Iraq had large quantities of WMD's that WOULD have without a doubt, ended up in the hand of a Terrorist group and used on US soil. I believed Bush. I also realize that the war effort is still on-going, and proof of WMD's might be found and at that point I will re-evaluate my stance.
But, I am not so cynical as some of our professional Bush haters, who think Bush lied on purpose about WMD's just so he could make a power grab at Oil. I honestly believe that Bush made his decision based on "intelligence" presented to him that was shown as proof to the existance WMD's in Iraq.
Fallacious and simplistic. Genocide IS the imposition of political will -- Serbia, Pol Pot, Hutus/Tutsis, Europeans in the New World, Stalin and collective farming. Even in Nazi Germany, the demonization of the Jews was done for political purposes, and that eventually turned into the Final Solution. No genocide that I can think of has ever been conducted solely for the purpose of extermination without a goal in mind. The two concepts are so closely intertwined to make any distinction purely academic and completely useless for real decision making.
Yes I opposed that war and bombing campaign too.
It was the bombing of a soveraign country that had an internal war going on. You bombed the whole freaking country back into the stone age because the muslim bosnians wanted independence and started fighting. they have been there for about 300 years after the serbs had been fighting the turks for a few hundred years before, and now you want your own freaking country??? HELL NO.
good old muslim fighters from chechnia and afghanistan came to "help them" and started the whole thing. guess that got skipped over than, since all that the tv was showing here, was the poor bosnians dieing. what about the etnic serbs in that area that were first forced out?
Kerry, Daschle, and Biden: All yes votes for Bosnia.
I had a link a while back...cant find it now.
Go figure...
I had a link a while back...cant find it now.
Go figure...
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,530
- 3
- 0
At least according to you and those like Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn.
The War in Bosnia would have more than likely spread to neighboring countries and could have led to an all out war in Europe. It was in our and Europes best interest to put a stop to it. Of course when I was led to believe that there was vast Stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq, an advanced Nuclear Weapons Program under way by Iraq's Military and Direct links between Al Qaeda and Hussien I also supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
I wasn't saying criticism of the president should be discouraged. Only that the same statement could be made either way.
You honestly believe the war in the Balkans was going to spread to all of Europe?
If so, I understand your position.
I didn't really see that war spreading anywhere outside the immediate region.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,530
- 3
- 0
Well it could have spread to Macedonia,Azerbaijan, Albania and possibly Romania which could have drawn Greece (mainly through Macedonia) into the conflict and which could have caused friction between them and Turkey (Turkey supporting the Muslims in Albania and Azerbaijan) Also with Azerbaijan being drawn into the conflict that might have gotten Russia and some of the countries bordering Azerbaijan involved. It's not really that hard to see how things could have really gotten out of control!
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
LOLOriginally posted by: MrYogi
you need to change your username immediately. does not really suit you.
Well, it's my real name. It means peace in Sanskrit. That's what you get for being born in 1971 to hippie parents who were active anti-war protesters, participated in the Kent State riots, went to Woodstock, hung out with Joe Walsh, and are life-long democrats.
Yes, it could have.
And I do understand that one of the differences is that it was more of a joint effort. So that is a valid reason to distinguish between the two.
It seems though that the majority of the opposition to Iraq is based on the belief that they were not a threat to the U.S.
I have heard many people say we should not go to war unless our own national security is at stake and in the case of the Balkans, that does not seem to apply. That is why I wanted to hear opinions on this.
I also believe that while some of you like Red Dawn are able to think logically and hold consistent views based on the situation, I also believe that there are many who simply oppose the war in Iraq because it is being waged by a Republican and that for those people, that is the only difference between Iraq and the Balkans.
I'm sure though, that there are also many conservatives who support the war only because it is a Republican in office.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 20K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700
- Started by igor_kavinski
- Replies: 275
Facebook
Twitter