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: JohnM who wrote (69201)	1/27/2003 5:30:06 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

JohnM, 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. Somalia was the first conflict post cold-war. Previous administrations (Republican and Democratic) had to deal with the Soviet threat (and supported terrible dictators who were on our side - regardless of their human rights records). In that light I laud both Bush 1 and Clinton, but neither pursued the whole issue. Wars without good media coverage - such as Rwanda (Clinton) and Northern Iraq (Bush 1) went without intervention or untimely repsonses. To blankly state 'Republicans in recent decades' and only compare this to Clinton in 98-99 is very simplistic. John

To: JohnM who wrote (69201)	1/27/2003 5:46:36 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	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. John, you are arguing against yourself here. I never said Bush I's reason's for intervening in Iraq originally were anything but realpolitik. As you say, we abandoned the Kurds in their uprising. But, why did we establish the northern no-fly zone to protect them when a million Kurds fled north from Saddam's vengeance? What was the realpolitik reason for that? Not much. The motives were humanitarian, and were driven by pictures on CNN. 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 Like what?