Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq

Chronwatch ^ | Saturday, May 28, 2005 | by Evan Sayet

[Katya]

Though the democrats supported Clintons effortst...the far left did not support the war in Kosovo etc. Groups like International ANSWER, protested but did not receive wide spread support.

[Reactionary]

"We didn't bomb the Serbs in Bosnia in '95 to remove Slobodan Milosevic - we bombed them because they were murderous SOB's and it was the only way to knock some sense into their empty heads and bring them to the table." But you wouldn't know that. The liberal swine in the media have actually concinced you that the war in Kosovo was a big, humanitarian event.

[Freee-dame]

bump

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

Whenever I drive by a mob of Iraq war protestors, I yell "I don't remember seeing you out here when we were bombing Belgrade back to the stone age". Of course they don't understand, so I yell....."oh....yeah that was Clinton's war"...."go take a shower".

[PigRigger]

"The #1 reason for the RATS unhappiness is that they are not in charge."

That and the fact they were to afraid to do what had to be done. Clinton was to worried about doing anything that might ruin his perceived legacy.

Ironic isn't it, in doing nothing he defined it in the end.

[savedbygrace]

That is absolutely the correct answer to the question. Few people know it, however.

[Hoplite]

The liberal swine in the media have actually concinced you that the war in Kosovo was a big, humanitarian event.

No, actually President Bush the Elder did that when against the backdrop of Serbian ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, he set the tone of our Kosovo policy by issuing Milosevic the "Christmas warning" in 1992:

In the event of conflict in Kosovo caused by Serbian action, the US will be prepared to employ military force against Serbians in Kosovo and in Serbia proper.

The "Christmas warning" became our de facto Kosovo policy, and it was implemented in 1999.

[MadelineZapeezda]

excellent post.

A little FReeper background thread on Bob Dole and the reasons behind the breakup of Yugoslavia leading to the Balkan conflict.

[Hoplite]

<CONSPIRACY MODE>
<BOMB MODE = "SET UP">

How are you MadelineZapeezda?
All Serb base are belong to us.
Serb are on the way to destruction.
Serb have no chance to survive make your time.
Ha ha ha ha...

</BOMB MODE>
</CONSPIRACY MODE>

[econ_grad]

I agree. But, then why did the administration keep going to the UN. This law kept referring to UN resolutions. Why should our laws be contingent on how the UN thinks? It was a dumb resolution that is meaningless. There was no law in plain language referring "We hereby declare war on Iraq" like it used to be the case.

[econ_grad]

Some people sleep at night, unless of course it is morning where you are when it is night here. Makes sense if you are an European liberal. Your posts define resemble that.

[TomB]

I agree. But, then why did the administration keep going to the UN. This law kept referring to UN resolutions. Why should our laws be contingent on how the UN thinks?

Politics. Bush wouldn't have had the support of some members of Congress if he hadn't gone to the UN. It also had the effect of clearly defining who was with us and who was against us. That is being borne out now with the present difficulties the UN and Kofi Annan is having with OFF.

It was a dumb resolution that is meaningless. There was no law in plain language referring "We hereby declare war on Iraq" like it used to be the case.

So? Where does it say that specific language must be used?

Just because you don't like the wording doesn't mean it isn't legit.

[econ_grad]

I am not saying it is not legit. I am also saying it is not a declaration of war. If it was, why didn't it just say so. It talks about preconditions of war set by some international organization which is beyond the control of US law. In essence, the resolution is meaningless. There must not be any reference of the UN when it comes to our foreign policy, except to withdraw from it.