Did those of you who opposed the invasion of Iraq also oppose our Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia campaign ?

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the venom spewed by republicans about our president during bosnia would give rise to calls of treason by todays standards.

the venom spewed by democrats about our president during Iraq would give rise to calls of treason by yesterday's standards

how is that a defense? your saying that the democrats say things that could be treasonous by (pick a more or les random time)1800 standards.. and since the republicans said things that are far worse during clinton, they go far beyond treason by 1800 standards. whats your point

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Shanti
If so, why?
If not, could you explain why you feel the bombing in the Balkans was justified while the invasion of Iraq was not.
EDIT: changed title. My knowledge of the geography of the region is limited.

Did'nt those have UN approval? Did'nt and don't we share with participating members in troop allocaltion and costs associated? Could'nt we have gone for one more resolution with enough arm twisting and deal cutting giving 60-100 days for Iraq to comply or real war will be delared?

This is the real issue for most who are anti-war. Many on the right are also opposed..from Lawence Eagleburger to Pat Buchanan to Justin Romano over at antiwar.com for this reason. Not only has the presidents attitude squandered goodwill and future collective action it's costing us tax payers a fortune and will for a very long time.

Of course then you have some isolationists like Ron Paul (R-TX) who think foriegn intervention is all wrong...And from what I understand we were this way prior to WWII as a nation. Remember the shinning city on the hill idea? Personally I'm leaning this way too after seeing all the debalces we cause. Bosnia, serbia, haiti, somala and kosovo are all still a mess. But I could be purseuaded to stop genocide too if it's a consistant policy like in rawanda china etc.. not hust iraq cause it's easy and they have a booty once the fighting stops.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Shanti
If so, why?
If not, could you explain why you feel the bombing in the Balkans was justified while the invasion of Iraq was not.
EDIT: changed title. My knowledge of the geography of the region is limited.

Did'nt those have UN approval?

I don't think so - If my memory serves, I think it was an action by NATO outwith the UN.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Shanti
If so, why?
If not, could you explain why you feel the bombing in the Balkans was justified while the invasion of Iraq was not.
EDIT: changed title. My knowledge of the geography of the region is limited.

Did'nt those have UN approval?

I don't think so - If my memory serves, I think it was an action by NATO outwith the UN.

Cheers,

Andy

I think Bonia had UN and Kosovo only NATO because time was a factor. Regaudless it was a shared effort by a international diplomatic body with rules and such. Bush of course, was unwilling to go this route mainly because of control issues of both command and Iraqs boody/rebuilding contracts afterwards and Iraq has been the neo-conservative wet dream since before Bush took office. 9-11 provided the catalyst and they had to strike while the iron was hot.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Shanti
If so, why?
If not, could you explain why you feel the bombing in the Balkans was justified while the invasion of Iraq was not.
EDIT: changed title. My knowledge of the geography of the region is limited.

Did'nt those have UN approval?

I don't think so - If my memory serves, I think it was an action by NATO outwith the UN.

Cheers,

Andy

I think Bonia had UN and Kosovo only NATO because time was a factor. Regaudless it was a shared effort by a international diplomatic body with rules and such. Bush of course, was unwilling to go this route mainly because of control issues of both command and Iraqs boody/rebuilding contracts afterwards and Iraq has been the neo-conservative wet dream since before Bush took office. 9-11 provided the catalyst and they had to strike while the iron was hot.

Sorry I thought you were referring to the recent action in Serbia/Kosovo and not the Balkan campaign earlier.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: MrYogi
you need to change your username immediately. does not really suit you.

LOL
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.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the venom spewed by republicans about our president during bosnia would give rise to calls of treason by todays standards.

the venom spewed by democrats about our president during Iraq would give rise to calls of treason by yesterday's standards

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.

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.

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!

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.

Well, I'm sure there are people who oppose the war just because it was the idea of Dubya and Co., but I still believe that this war was not necessary at this moment. There are too many other areas around the world that are in need of a action against its government or groups going against the government.

I think the administration should have stuck with tracking down Osama Bin Laden. He did attack us and continues to be a threat as long as he is out there. As of now it does not seem to be much of an issue, although I remember reading somewhere that pressure is being put on Pakistan to increase efforts to find him.

Pakistan is another nation the administration should really try and please. Pakistan is the only Islamic nation that actually has nuclear weapons and it definately does not have the most stable government.(military rule does not equal stability)

 

[MrYogi]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you need to change your username immediately. does not really suit you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LOL
Well, it's my real name. It means peace in Sanskrit.

1) that name does not suit you
2) dude, thats a girl's name.