Ted,
its amazing how your mind works........you apparently have concluded that the Kosovo and Iraq scenarios are the same.
They are not exactly the same. Iraq is an enemy of this country, attacked our allies. Yugoslavia is not the enemy of the US, and Yugoslavia did not attack our allies.
if Clinton can be aggressive in Kosovo, Bush can be aggressive in Iraq.
I generally don't want the US to start aggressive, offensive wars, except under unavoidable circumstances. Deffensive wars are fine.
It's your position that is inconsistent. On one hand, you show enthusiasm for one unprovoked war, on the other hand you are hinting on a civil war if another unprovoked war is started.
It doesn't matter that both moves may be perceived as bad or inappropriate but rather there simply needs to be consistency. Its all about partisan politics and not what's best for the country. If one party can do it why can't the other.
This was not about my opinion, since I didn't insert it into every post of mine. It is about your opinion, and the inconsistancy, that can only be explained by a partisanship.
if the NATO intervention was wrong, why perpetuate the wrongness by attacking Iraq?
That's how I feel. Thankfully, we are not at war yet, and things may clarify as we go forward. Either the case for offensive action is strengthened by new evidence, or weaken.
But let me ask you the first part of your question: If NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was wrong, why did you, and still are supporting it? If intervention in Iraq is just as wrong, why are you opposing it.
Joe |
