| Author |
Message |
    
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 693
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:45 am: |     |
So does Clark, so they both have a lot in common with Bush. As do the Democrats who voted to go to war, but now say they didn't really mean GO to war...just...well....they change it from day to day, and I don't know what their latest attempt is.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-14-dean-letter_x.h tm
I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable, logical and consistent explanation for all of this. And I can't wait to hear it. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
Do some more searching of USA Today on this matter for a fair and balanced view.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2711
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
From the letter linked to above:
quote:While I completely agree with you that no ground troops should be committed for other than humanitarian purposes in Bosnia, I would ask that you take the following steps in Bosnia. First, lift the arms embargo as it applies to the Bosnian government. Second, enforce a full embargo of the sort that is now in effect in Iraq on the Bosnian Serbs and upon Yugoslavia. Third, break off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia. Fourth, commit American air power to support the Bosnian government until the situation is stabilized and the civilian murders and atrocities by the Bosnian Serbs have been stopped.
So, the "unilateral" action endorsed was to support the guys we like with arms and air support (which we were doing in Iraq before the war), impose Iraq-like economic sanctions against the offending parties (check), and use diplomatic sanctions (ditto). Oh, and not commit ground troops.
But, those are just my first impressions. If you read it differently, let us know. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 694
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
And not commit ground troops for "other than humanitarian purposes." Is stopping genocide in Bosnia with the use of ground troops a humanitarian purpose? Isn't that what Clinton apologized for NOT doing in Rwanda? I think so.
As I recall, Bob Dole and republicans wanted to arm the Muslims in Bosnia before taking any military action -- 'humanitarian' or otherwise -- and that was rejected.
If air support is the 'only' unilateral action, would everyone on both sides of this debate be happy if Bush had conducted a war from 15K feet in the air as was done in another Balkan country in 1999? Perhaps Bush could have just armed the Kurds to the Nth degree, bombed Baghdad (but oh...those civilians casualties this board frets over) and keep bombing until Saddam was caught?
Further, after you blast the Bosnian Serbs away, how do you take care that the country run itself after that without some sort of presence or 'invasion' of outside interests?
This whole thing reminds me of another Dean gaffe, caught on Meet the Press calling for cuts in Social Security while professing he did nothing of the sort. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 701
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
How many on this board agree with unilaterally going to war like Captain Dean here?
Anyone wish to compare how many died in Bosnia, versus the 300K+ they're digging up in Iraq?
Would you unilaterally have gone into Rwanda....even if they had oil? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1774
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Would you complain so much about Bosnia if a Republican president had gone in? |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Here's a good guideline. You don't unilaterally commit to major military actions having strong quagmire potential unless there is an immediate national security issue. The Israel response to the Arab buildup in 1967 is a good example of a necessary premptive and unilateral action.
Everybody, including the U.N., understands that preemptive and/or unilateral action is sometimes necessary. It issue with Bush is that many do not believe he had sufficient justification to drag us into a war with Iraq. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 704
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
I'm not complaining about Bosnia. If you want to know what I think should have been done, I think the US should have armed the Muslims in this civil war at the least, had Europe done most of the work cuz it was their backyard (same as Kosovo), and still wouldn't give a rip if the UN approved or not. But I wouldn't say Clinton should be let go over it, nor do I think he lied when his ethnic cleansing totals were WILDLY low and off the mark because that was the good-faith intelligence he received.
As an aside -- What I can't understand is all the good work we did for Muslims in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo -- and they still blew us up in Africa, the WTC (twice), and USS Cole. What ingrates.
Just like the ACLU on Limbaugh, consistency from the left on this issue is all I ask. That's the juice behind my pique. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page