Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (69169)	1/27/2003 3:45:12 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, Milosevec had no WMDs and there was no serbian jihad threatening the US homeland. Thats the real difference between serbia and iraq. Folks opposed to the iraq war are largely operating out of fear of the unknown--wmd on the battlefield and here in the US. The fear is legitimate. I support the bush policy but i too am afraid, particularly when i look into my grandsons eyes. But to allow this insanity to continue offers no future for him so i support bush policy. The hawks i worry about are those who are not scared. The doves i worry about are the ones who actually believe saddams claims. mike

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (69169)	1/27/2003 3:49:27 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Clinton did do something in Rwanda, though it didn't save a single life: he apologized. One could validly ask whether the US had a single interest in Rwanda that could possibly justify sending, say, one measly regiment of the 1st. Air Cav, to squelch the genocide in internet time. Apparently not. C2@youwantirony!youcan'thandleirony!!.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (69169)	1/27/2003 4:33:56 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, we clearly disagree on Bush I and the Kurds. The reason for the interest, the reason for the involvement was not human rights but a strategic gambit to get rid of Saddam. The speed with which we gave up the Kurds, as with Kissinger in the 70s should be ample testimony. As for whether the Clinton folk did nothing or something in Bosnia, I gather we disagree. I count a great many activities over the time of the administration. Was it as much as I would have liked? Of course, not. Was the intent to stop more ethnic cleansing? Of course. As for Kosovo, we disagree on the triggers that got the Clinton folk in, but whatever they were, the entire rationale was one of stopping ethnic cleansing. Definitely not a strategic interest. I remain convinced of the overall claim that started this exchange, that the Republican admins of recent decades have not undertaken these kinds of ventures for reasons of human rights. The one exception to that rule is Somalia.