Robert,
OK, I will answer your question. As I understand it,
you are pointing out some kind of hypocracy on my part
because I am angry at Clinton for starting this war in
Yugoslavia and the resulting economic problems that will
come, but that I was not mad at George Bush for the
economic problems that came after the end of the Gulf
War. First let me compare and contrast the two situations:
1) Saddam Hussain, an unelected dictator that built the
worlds 4th largest army. First he used it agains Iran
resulting in millions of refugees and over a million dead
Iranians. Of course we didn't care cause we hate Iran.
Then in a bold move he overan Kuwait, a peaceful, pro-USA
country with major oil reserves. His troops were under
orders to continue taking countries such as Bharain, Quatar,
UAE, Saudia Arabia, until they met resistance. However
due to the rapid reponse of the Joint Chiefs, President Bush,
and others, Saddam decided to dig in Kuwait and wait and
see. It was a master grab at oil and his intentions were
to make himself the most powerful man on earth. He would
have succeeded if not for George Bush.
Lets look at Yugoslavia. The nation is a democracy. In
fact, Slobodon Milosevic became President of Yugoslavia by
a greater margin than Bill Clinton. The CIA heavily funded
his opponent, a woman from his own party. It backfired.
Yugoslavia threatened no other nation. They were fighting a civil
war against a terrorist, drug running bunch of Islamic fanatics
known as the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The KLA had its
orgins from the old Ultra Communist government of Albania,
now defunct. There is no government in Albania anymore.
The tactics used by the Yugoslavian National Army (JNA) are
the same tactics used by the United States against Viet Nam
in the south. You go into an area with heavy enemy activity,
you destroy the village, kill the occupants, and declare the
village "saved". Call it ethnic cleansing, call it whatever
you want. In our own American Civil War, the same tactics
were used against the South. In fact, it was General Sherman
who coined the phrase "War is hell", as his army smashed its
way through Georgia in its march to the sea. The Union Army
didn't just burn villages, it burned entire cities such as
Atlanta. This is a fact. War is hell. Both Lincoln and
Milosevic fought to win.
Just because us Americans can sit back and party because we
got 10,000 nuclear weapons and the most powerful military
ever put together by any nation, does not give us the right
to tell all these other nations that they have no right to
defend itself from insurgency just because it looks bad on
CNN. If CNN had covered the American Civil War, what do you
think that might have looked like on TV?
I am not asking you to believe me. In fact, you don't have
to believe anything I say. Just promise me this: That you
will always think for *yourself* and not let Dan Rather or
Peter Jennings tell you what reality is.
-John |
