Why are you opposed to the liberation of Iraq but you were so much in favor of Clinton's war on Milosivec, in which we clearly did not have as much of a righteous cause?
The reasons should be obvious. For one, the Balkan conflict was an active war that had been going on for 3 years, before Nato intervened. People were being killed on CNN everyday, ethnic cleansing was going on, concentration camps with images of people starving. That war was in a state of expansion, from Slovania, to Croatia, to Bosnia and eventually to Kosovo, with all the signs of it moving to Macedonia, Albania and probably Greece. All this in Europe's backyard with Russia in support of the Serbs (remember the Russian division that took the airport in Pristina as Nato troops were marching in) and no chance of
passage of a UN resolution, given Russia's stance.
Remember that the Kosovo campaign was in response to action by the Serbs.
Iraq is not an active war...it is a presumed threat, with lots of constraints keeping it in check. It should be obvious that Iraq can be contained diplomatically and by a forceful display, such as Bush has undertaken. We don't need to put people's lives at stake in Iraq. There is no question that it can be contained with little to no risk to our people, the countries in the region, Iraqis, etc...and this takes away from terrorists a great recruiting tool, plus it does not burden the US with a lenghty occupation which all pundits have said would have a very uncertain outcome.
Al |
