NationStates Jolt Archive

Bill Clinton forced NATO into bombing Yugoslavia.

There were hundreds of thousands of refugees & civilians killed by NATO bombs in Yogoslavia. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers were captured. NATO troops did not capture "the butchers" of Bosnia, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic.
They've been under indictment by the world court at the Hague for years, but have been living in Bosnia under NATO's protection.

The attacks solidified the domestic support for Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic was a brutal leader. His troops in Bosnia committed acts of genocide, and his ferocity in Kosovo knows few bounds. In Rwandan, there where more than 500,000 people killed in a matter of weeks after the bombings.

Secretary of State, Madeline Albright proposed a peace signing, although Milosevic was already on record for rejecting it. Days after that proposal, NATO ordered its unarmed observers to leave Kosovo. As soon as they left, the Serbs marched in.

A better idea wold have been to send international peacekeepers from the United Nations. With countries like India, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland, which had no stake in the war.

It may even have been better to allow Russian troops to join the peacekeeping; that way Milosevic would have had to overrun his allies and the international community would have united against him.

But instead of trying a myriad of peaceful options, Clinton, Albright, and NATO reached for the old, unreliable one: Send in the bombers.

They didn't bother themselves with international law. International law clearly states that one country can attack another one only when it is itself under attack, about to be attacked, or when the U.N. Security Council grants permission.

Belgrade was not attacking the United States or any of the NATO countries involved in the bombings. And the United States intentionally avoided the Security Council because Russia and China were likely to veto any military action.

Clinton talked about the "moral imperative" the United States has to prevent gross human rights abuses. U.S. Iaw: Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but Congress refused responsibility by approving a measure that supported the President's decision to send in the bombers without any declaration.

Does any of this sound familiar?

We did. However, the duration was shorter and soldiers involved fewer, so there was less time to build a broad-based movement.

I always maintained if the conservatives would have climbed off Clinton's back we liberals would have gone after him (he was a moderate to conservative Democrat).

maybe you have a short memory.

Bill Clinton forced NATO into bombing Yugoslavia.

There were hundreds of thousands of refugees & civilians killed by NATO bombs in Yogoslavia. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers were captured. NATO troops did not capture "the butchers" of Bosnia, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic.
They've been under indictment by the world court at the Hague for years, but have been living in Bosnia under NATO's protection.

The attacks solidified the domestic support for Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic was a brutal leader. His troops in Bosnia committed acts of genocide, and his ferocity in Kosovo knows few bounds. In Rwandan, there where more than 500,000 people killed in a matter of weeks after the bombings.

Secretary of State, Madeline Albright proposed a peace signing, although Milosevic was already on record for rejecting it. Days after that proposal, NATO ordered its unarmed observers to leave Kosovo. As soon as they left, the Serbs marched in.

A better idea wold have been to send international peacekeepers from the United Nations. With countries like India, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland, which had no stake in the war.

It may even have been better to allow Russian troops to join the peacekeeping; that way Milosevic would have had to overrun his allies and the international community would have united against him.

But instead of trying a myriad of peaceful options, Clinton, Albright, and NATO reached for the old, unreliable one: Send in the bombers.

They didn't bother themselves with international law. International law clearly states that one country can attack another one only when it is itself under attack, about to be attacked, or when the U.N. Security Council grants permission.

Belgrade was not attacking the United States or any of the NATO countries involved in the bombings. And the United States intentionally avoided the Security Council because Russia and China were likely to veto any military action.

Clinton talked about the "moral imperative" the United States has to prevent gross human rights abuses. U.S. Iaw: Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but Congress refused responsibility by approving a measure that supported the President's decision to send in the bombers without any declaration.

Does any of this sound familiar?



My friend and his family left Croatia at the start of the war over there but he seemed to think it was neccessary for their to be US involvement, but I'm not sure what to think of everything that went on. I think Yugoslavia and Iraq are a little different circumstances though.

I'm a conservative and I supported the actions the US took in Yugoslavia, despite my low opinion of the President who took them.

Oh, well, I guess at least that still means I'm less of a hypocrite than many. On both sides.

Iraq was attacked during Clinton's "Operation Desert Fox".

Operation Desert Fox was the military Military codename for the bombing campaign on Iraqi targets on December 16, 1998. It was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The bombing attacks was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, and end the 8 year old oil embargo on Iraq.

We did. However, the duration was shorter and soldiers involved fewer, so there was less time to build a broad-based movement.

I always maintained if the concervatives would have climbed off Clinton's back we liberals would have gone after him (he was a moderate to conservative Democrat).

Fox News - Sunday Feb. 23, 2003; 2:59 p.m. EST

Comedienne-turned-peace activist Janeane Garofalo offered a stunning admission on Sunday, explaining that she and her fellow anti-war protesters didn't stage huge demonstrations when President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan because "it wasn't very hip" to protest the former president.

Less unpopular because these were cabinet wars (like Grenada & Panama) where the President did not require the backing of Congress or America to get in bomb and shoot and get out. They were quick and able to be handled easily by the professional soldiers of the US military. In the case of Somalia where it all turned to shit, they were able to withdraw easily.

Iraq was started as a neccessary, defensive war and gained approval of the American people as a result. America was said to be under threat of WMD attack by Al Queda terrorists linked to Saddam - total BS. The troops were committed without a strategy for victory or exit. The professional army is stretched and barely coping with the stalemate.

Fox News - Sunday Feb. 23, 2003; 2:59 p.m. EST

Comedienne-turned-peace activist Janeane Garofalo offered a stunning admission on Sunday, explaining that she and her fellow anti-war protesters didn't stage huge demonstrations when President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan because "it wasn't very hip" to protest the former president.

Oh and she speaks for all?

Sorry you have to do better then that.

People protested.

There is just more now because the circumstances were different and the amount of troops and money being spent.

Hmmmm probably more then all the others combined?

I agree. Clinton did a lot for my country, but we can't forget that he caused much harm to some other countries.

One reason I suspect why there was little public opposition was compared to Bush, Clinton was a smooth talker. He could lull the public into complicity with his charisma. Bush, on the other hand is rather blunt and annoying to those who don't think like him.

Clinton's military escapades were small in scale, and tended to end quickly. Also, a lot of people were bent out of shape about the attack on Al Shifa. There was some criticism there.

Oh and she speaks for all?

Sorry you have to do better then that.

People protested.

There is just more now because the circumstances were different and the amount of troops and money being spent.

Hmmmm probably more then all the others combined?The truth is wasted on this troll. Why bother. If he can't see the difference between the conflicts, nothing you post will change his mind or open his eyes to the fact that there were protests to the events he refers to. They were just proportional to the amount of time, money and lives expended.

bcuz we wer to busy impeaching him... i like peaches ^_^

Iraq was started as a neccessary, defensive war and gained approval of the American people as a result. America was said to be under threat of WMD attack by Al Queda terrorists linked to Saddam - total BS. The troops were committed without a strategy for victory or exit. The professional army is stretched and barely coping with the stalemate.

Exactly - what many people don't seem to remember is that the original reason for starting the war was WMDs. If we'd started the war purely to oust Saddam and give the Iraqis a better quality of life, there wouldn't have been these protests.
The Bush administration started using the fact that Saddam was an evil man as a weak excuse after the war to justify the lack of WMDs.

Fox News - Sunday Feb. 23, 2003; 2:59 p.m. EST

Comedienne-turned-peace activist Janeane Garofalo offered a stunning admission on Sunday, explaining that she and her fellow anti-war protesters didn't stage huge demonstrations when President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan because "it wasn't very hip" to protest the former president.
Right. Not only does one member of the 'liberal' community speak for all of them, but you take information from such a nice, unbiased source as Fox News.

Wouldn't it be more to point to ask why Conservatives didn't protest Clinton's wars?

Just askin'...

Or why they don't complain about Iraq :rolleyes: ?

Look, the country was being attacked. I was there in North Europe watching it on the news as it happened. It's got nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq was not invading anyone, the Serbs were. That simple.

To the extent that I understood it, I wasn't too thrilled with Clinton's cruise-missle foreign policy. But I'm not, nor was, I a liberal in the sense the word's used in the US.

Wouldn't it be more to point to ask why Conservatives didn't protest Clinton's wars?

Just askin'...

Too busy working.

You're right; it did end quickly...

Clinton hadn't built a coalition against Iraq; he didn't have a clear war plan
and hadn't given the Pentagon time to develop one. There was no strategic
objective for the attack.

Clinton had told the Pentagon to prepare to launch an assault against Iraq
that week. That was two days before the U.N. report claiming that Iraq was
not cooperating with weapons inspectors was sent to the White House.

He bombed Baghdad for a week and then moved on to other regions of the east.

General: "President Clinton, we just accidentally dropped a bomb on the Chinese Embassy!"

Clinton: "Oh, sh*t!"
Japanese President: "Why'd you stop?"
Dali Lama: Violence is not the answer! (But in this case, I strangely approve...)


:D

To the extent that I understood it, I wasn't too thrilled with Clinton's cruise-missle foreign policy. But I'm not, nor was, I a liberal in the sense the word's used in the US.

Cruise missels don't kill our own (most of the time) so take away loss of US life, take away the billions a week we're spending, and take away the lie that there were WMD and Bush wouldn't be in so much ridicule.

There's a huge point - Clinton may have falsely disclosed the reasons why we needed to attack this country or that, but at least he wasn't caught in the lie (not saying it's ok to not be caught). Bush actually won over a lot of his opposers immediately after 9/11 but then he started the War against the Taliban. Yeah, there was protest but the new sense of urgency and reasoning quieted a lot of it. But when Iraq and it's lies of necessity came out, Bush was left out in the wind - the ironic thing is that Though it's Apparent he lied to the American people about his reasons (and to the world for that matter) the Americans freaking re-elected him.
SOrry, when a President lies about anything it's bad let alone a whole freaking war that we're footing the bill for.

2 wrongs dont make a right !!!

I think the moral of the story is that, party politics aside, American presidents just like dropping bombs on people for dodgy reasons.

Simple answer: we did.

Exactly - what many people don't seem to remember is that the original reason for starting the war was WMDs. If we'd started the war purely to oust Saddam and give the Iraqis a better quality of life, there wouldn't have been these protests.
The Bush administration started using the fact that Saddam was an evil man as a weak excuse after the war to justify the lack of WMDs.

If you think that Iraq (and the world) is better without Sadaam, then rejoice and be happy, don't look for an excuse to complain about Bush. If anyone thinks Iraqis and the world are screwed now that Sadaam is gone, please continue to protest/flame/whatever.

Sorry I stopped reading here:

Hundreds of U.S. soldiers were captured.

Uhm, huh? Exactly three US soldiers were captured. Staff Sgt. Andrew A. Ramirez, Staff Sgt. Christopher J. Stone, and Spc. Steven M. Gonzales were captured while on Patrol in on the Yugoslavia-Macedonia border March 31, 1999. They were released a few days later.

Source (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/04-99/04-02-99/a01wn009.htm)

As to your question, there were protests, primarily by leftists:
http://www.iacenter.org/yugdemos.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/demo-m30.shtml

Wouldn't it be more to point to ask why Conservatives didn't protest Clinton's wars?

That's the better question. And the answer is fairly easy. When was the last time you saw a right wing protest against anything, aside from abortion, in the US? Protest demonstrations tend to be a left wing political tactic.

Uhh, maybe conservatives have jobs and can't stand around all day :D

I've noticed that myself that conservatives don't protest. Can't figure that one out either

I'm curious as to why there is this attempt to equate Bosnia with IRaq?

I mean really, what similarities were there between the two situations?

Besides "we went to war"?

I mean, even just sticking to GW's battles, did you see massive Liberal protests against the invasion of Afghanistan? No. So clearly this isn't a partisan issue, as much as you may like to think it is.

Some questions for you though, to help you understand why Bosnia and IRaq were responded to diferently:

Was Bosnia in the middle of a civil war when CLinton went in? And was Iraq?

Was there ongoing genocide when Clinton went in? Was there in Iraq?

Did Clinton tell the rest of the world that Bosnia was part of an "Axis of Evil"?

Did he try to humiliate allies who disagreed with his decision to go to war? Tell them that they were either with them or against them?

Did he clearly state his reasons for going in and have them be properly verifiable and not turn out to have been BS?

Was his decision based on current events and not constantly bring up things that happenend in Yugoslavia over a decade prior? Did he have a history of calling the rulers of Bosnia evil?

Was Bosnia labelled a pre-emptive strike? Did he call for a "Crusade"? Talk about "needing regime change"? Use any other highly charged rhetoric? OR did he just calmly explain why he felt he needed to do it, and then go ahead and do it?


I mean really, besides "in both cases it was a war not approved of by the UN", what similarities can you find between these two wars? I have trouble finding any similarities at all, either in the reasons, the execution, or the way in which it was handled from a diplomacy aspect.

And, as mentioned, there WERE people who protested at the time. Plenty of them.



In other words, you have no case to make on this from a partisan perspective.

Libreals thought Clinton was god.

Libreals thought Clinton was god.
Maybe US 'liberals' did. But not all of us are in the US and not all of use the word 'liberal' to represent the same thing as you.

Don't get people started on Bosnia. Few people knew what was really going on, and only few people understand it now. I don't understand it either. This is nothing like WWII where you know who's with who and where you can easily place your bets. Yugoslavia was nothing like that. You had Serbians, Bosnians and Croatians of different religions and cultures fighting with in the middle of it confused Dutch, French and Americans.

...I remember people complaining about Clinton's wars all over the net, and where I hang out, just about everyone's fairly liberal or at least moderate.

I still have no idea what Cosovo was other than it ticked off a lot of the left and made them grumble about Clinton.

I think what the -real- question should be is why the news was so weak in talking about this that I could be so bloody ignorant about it.

I'm not a liberal, conservative nor moderate but I am a democrat. The bombing of Yugoslavia was one of the reasons I didn't vote for Clinton the second time around. The passage of NAFTA,GATT and lack of immigration control also were major reasons for voting for Nader.
However, I almost voted for him again when I found out he was getting oral sex from a hot babe in the oval office !

Uhh, maybe conservatives have jobs and can't stand around all day :D

I've noticed that myself that conservatives don't protest. Can't figure that one out either

"Conservative protesters more civilized than left" (http://www.westernherald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/14/416da433e4133)

There are some conservatives who protest. Of course the anti-abortion protesters are the most visible, and can be pretty nasty. There were also anti-Gore protests during the 2000 dispute over the election. And the whole Protest Warrior bit.

I mean, even just sticking to GW's battles, did you see massive Liberal protests against the invasion of Afghanistan? No.

There actually were some fairly big ones. The October 26, 2002 supposedly had as many as 100,000 in DC.

http://www.carolmoore.net/photos/dcpeaceprotests2001-2002.html
http://www.isreview.org/issues/26/antiwar_movement.shtml

Fox News - Sunday Feb. 23, 2003; 2:59 p.m. EST

Comedienne-turned-peace activist Janeane Garofalo offered a stunning admission on Sunday, explaining that she and her fellow anti-war protesters didn't stage huge demonstrations when President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan because "it wasn't very hip" to protest the former president.

And we all know how accurate fox news is...

"Conservative protesters more civilized than left" (http://www.westernherald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/14/416da433e4133)



There actually were some fairly big ones. The October 26, 2002 supposedly had as many as 100,000 in DC.

http://www.carolmoore.net/photos/dcpeaceprotests2001-2002.html
http://www.isreview.org/issues/26/antiwar_movement.shtml

Errr... the October 26th protest was agains the impending IRaq war. There was very little protest to the Afghanistan invasion at all except by the pacifists - which you cannot equate to Liberals in general.

Hell, Canada was the first to sign up to join your in Afghanistan, and I (along with the majority of Canadians) supported that from the begining.

Bill Clinton forced NATO into bombing Yugoslavia.

There were hundreds of thousands of refugees & civilians killed by NATO bombs in Yogoslavia. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers were captured. NATO troops did not capture "the butchers" of Bosnia, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic.
They've been under indictment by the world court at the Hague for years, but have been living in Bosnia under NATO's protection.

The attacks solidified the domestic support for Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic was a brutal leader. His troops in Bosnia committed acts of genocide, and his ferocity in Kosovo knows few bounds. In Rwandan, there where more than 500,000 people killed in a matter of weeks after the bombings.

Secretary of State, Madeline Albright proposed a peace signing, although Milosevic was already on record for rejecting it. Days after that proposal, NATO ordered its unarmed observers to leave Kosovo. As soon as they left, the Serbs marched in.

A better idea wold have been to send international peacekeepers from the United Nations. With countries like India, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland, which had no stake in the war.

It may even have been better to allow Russian troops to join the peacekeeping; that way Milosevic would have had to overrun his allies and the international community would have united against him.

But instead of trying a myriad of peaceful options, Clinton, Albright, and NATO reached for the old, unreliable one: Send in the bombers.

They didn't bother themselves with international law. International law clearly states that one country can attack another one only when it is itself under attack, about to be attacked, or when the U.N. Security Council grants permission.

Belgrade was not attacking the United States or any of the NATO countries involved in the bombings. And the United States intentionally avoided the Security Council because Russia and China were likely to veto any military action.

Clinton talked about the "moral imperative" the United States has to prevent gross human rights abuses. U.S. Iaw: Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but Congress refused responsibility by approving a measure that supported the President's decision to send in the bombers without any declaration.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Erm, first of all, they did. Lots of people protested it. In the second place, so to did a lot of Republicans. I seem to recall Republican senators and Congressmen commenting on how this was an unneccessary war that we could have negotiated our way out of. . .a tune that sounds suspiciously familiar to certain much-derided politicians of late.

What is the moral of this story? If you're trying to prove some kind of hypocrisy on the part of Dems, then sure you will find hypocritic Dems. We hardly have a monopoly on the pipeline of them, though.

And we all know how accurate fox news is...

Indeed, notice how they quote four words, and fill in the rest themselves? Hmm...just that this guy cited Fox News puts his thread into perspective (if his ignorance of the facts wasn't enough).

The primary Republican complaint, as I recall, was that Clinton was trying to distract the public from his affair with Monica... not about it being unjust. Strangely enough.

Indeed, notice how they quote four words, and fill in the rest themselves? Hmm...just that this guy cited Fox News puts his thread into perspective (if his ignorance of the facts wasn't enough).

I am as left wing as hell but even I cringe whenever they have Janeane Garofalo debate somebody intelligent on the right, she is just not a well educated or well spoken debater. I'd much rather have a Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon as the celebrity leftist spokesperson. I bet she really did say it wasn't hip to protest clinton, thats just the kind of thing she would say. I kind of had to give up on Air America Radio because it was way to shallow and scatter brained with people like her, randy rhodes and mike malloy.

The liberals vanished.

There was no Barbra Streisand or Michael Moore documentaries. Sean Penn
never bought ad space to protest outrage over Clinton. Outspoken liberal
celebrities like Susan Sarandon & Tim Robbins declared that they did protest
Clinton's attacks during that time, yet there is no record of it.

Only four Democrats in all of Congress bothered to protest. In the House,
there was only one, Barbara Lee of California. In the Senate, just three: Russ
Feingold of Wisconsin, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, and Jeff Bingaman of
New Mexico.

What reason did Clinton have?

There wasn't a 9/11 for Bill Clinton that led into the bombing of Iraq and those
other countries. Clinton bombed Iraq declaring there were Weapons of Mass
Destruction, but now George Bush gets called a liar when they found no
evidences of WMDs.

Hypocracy!

The liberals vanished.
There wasn't a 9/11 for Bill Clinton that led into the bombing of Iraq and those
other countries. Clinton bombed Iraq declaring there were Weapons of Mass
Destruction, but now George Bush gets called a liar when they found no
evidences of WMDs.
Hypocracy!

I'm really not that informed about recent history but I was under the impression that it was George Bush (George W. Bush's dad) who attacked Iraq originally. I was also under the vague impression that Iraq had invaded Kuwait and was using chemical weapons on them.

I'm really not that informed about recent history but I was under the impression that it was George Bush (George W. Bush's dad) who attacked Iraq originally. I was also under the vague impression that Iraq had invaded Kuwait and was using chemical weapons on them.

there was a constant low level war waged against iraq during the entire clinton era. it was one of the big issues for the left at the time (anti-allofclintonswars, freeing political prisoners, anti-neoliberalism, etc). it's just that the american left is rather small, compared to the rightwingers that make up the democratic party and the ridiculously right rightwingers of the republicans, so nobody talked much about it.

Why ask rhetorical questions?

The liberals vanished.

There was no Barbra Streisand or Michael Moore documentaries. Sean Penn
never bought ad space to protest outrage over Clinton. Outspoken liberal
celebrities like Susan Sarandon & Tim Robbins declared that they did protest
Clinton's attacks during that time, yet there is no record of it.

Only four Democrats in all of Congress bothered to protest. In the House,
there was only one, Barbara Lee of California. In the Senate, just three: Russ
Feingold of Wisconsin, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, and Jeff Bingaman of
New Mexico.

What reason did Clinton have?

There wasn't a 9/11 for Bill Clinton that led into the bombing of Iraq and those
other countries. Clinton bombed Iraq declaring there were Weapons of Mass
Destruction, but now George Bush gets called a liar when they found no
evidences of WMDs.

Hypocracy!


NO, clinton originally bombed Irag because They invaded Kuwait. Then there were isolated bombings of ground-to-air radar sites as they would illegally turn on and lock american jets as targets - this breaking the rules of dismantlement of the national military, they fired upon the ground targets. when did clinton bomb irag due to WMD?

Libreals thought Clinton was god.
I think it was actually more of a case of Republicans thinking that Clinton was Satan!

I remember Michael Moore doing a TV show where he called Clinton "the greatest Republican President since Ronald Reagan". He also said that Clinton had attacked seven separate nations without provocation.

Michael wasn't that big then. If he had been a bigger figure, I'm sure he would have pissed off the Clintons.

NO, clinton originally bombed Irag because They invaded Kuwait. Then there were isolated bombings of ground-to-air radar sites as they would illegally turn on and lock american jets as targets - this breaking the rules of dismantlement of the national military, they fired upon the ground targets. when did clinton bomb irag due to WMD?

I think you'll find that Iraq invaded Kuwait in Bush (41)'s Presidency.

And we all know how accurate fox news is...

Fox News is rarely inaccurate, just as CNN/CBS etc. It's just the manner in which they deliver the news. You can make any news seem good or bad, or emphasize the good or the bad in all

Bill Clinton forced NATO into bombing Yugoslavia.

There were hundreds of thousands of refugees & civilians killed by NATO bombs in Yogoslavia. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers were captured. NATO troops did not capture "the butchers" of Bosnia, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic.
They've been under indictment by the world court at the Hague for years, but have been living in Bosnia under NATO's protection.

The attacks solidified the domestic support for Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic was a brutal leader. His troops in Bosnia committed acts of genocide, and his ferocity in Kosovo knows few bounds. In Rwandan, there where more than 500,000 people killed in a matter of weeks after the bombings.

Secretary of State, Madeline Albright proposed a peace signing, although Milosevic was already on record for rejecting it. Days after that proposal, NATO ordered its unarmed observers to leave Kosovo. As soon as they left, the Serbs marched in.

A better idea wold have been to send international peacekeepers from the United Nations. With countries like India, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland, which had no stake in the war.

It may even have been better to allow Russian troops to join the peacekeeping; that way Milosevic would have had to overrun his allies and the international community would have united against him.

But instead of trying a myriad of peaceful options, Clinton, Albright, and NATO reached for the old, unreliable one: Send in the bombers.

They didn't bother themselves with international law. International law clearly states that one country can attack another one only when it is itself under attack, about to be attacked, or when the U.N. Security Council grants permission.

Belgrade was not attacking the United States or any of the NATO countries involved in the bombings. And the United States intentionally avoided the Security Council because Russia and China were likely to veto any military action.

Clinton talked about the "moral imperative" the United States has to prevent gross human rights abuses. U.S. Iaw: Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but Congress refused responsibility by approving a measure that supported the President's decision to send in the bombers without any declaration.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Those two War Criminals are NOT living under NATO protection.
Actually, the Serbian people overthrew Milosevic after the bombings, so there goes the big story of support.
Why do you bring Ruanda into the subject?
And Milosevic rejected the presence of UN peacekeepers in Kosovo. It was after that, and after the serbs started an ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo that the bombings started. Oh boy, that was a mess.

And i don't know about the USA, but there were lots of leftists protesting around here.

NO, clinton originally bombed Irag because They invaded Kuwait.

As already pointed out, Iraq did not invade Kuwait under Clinton But under Bush 41.

Then there were isolated bombings of ground-to-air radar sites as they would illegally turn on and lock american jets as targets - this breaking the rules of dismantlement of the national military, they fired upon the ground targets.

They were hardly isolated. Check the timeline here (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/19/iraq.world.reax/)

when did clinton bomb irag due to WMD?

Operation Desert Fox began December 16, 1998, and according to Clinton himself, targeted Iraqs WMD programs.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html)CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

As already pointed out, Iraq did not invade Kuwait under Clinton But under Bush 41.

They were hardly isolated. Check the timeline here (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/19/iraq.world.reax/)

Operation Desert Fox began December 16, 1998, and according to Clinton himself, targeted Iraqs WMD programs.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html)

I'm glad that someone knew this. There are quotes by Clinton discussing his reasons and yes he said it was because of WMDs. Most people believe he created these attacks to take away media focus on his impeachment.

Americans were too interested in Clinton's sex life than his war crimes. Shows like Saturday Night Live & The Daily Show continue to blast Bush for this war, but back in the day they only focused on Clinton getting a bj.

I'm glad that someone knew this. There are quotes by Clinton discussing his reasons and yes he said it was because of WMDs. Most people believe he created these attacks to take away media focus on his impeachment.

Americans were too interested in Clinton's sex life than his war crimes. Shows like Saturday Night Live & The Daily Show continue to blast Bush for this war, but back in the day they only focused on Clinton getting a bj.


So, I'm confused. Are you calling the Democrats hipocrites for the fact that the Republicans were then saying that Iraq's WMD programs were not worth a few missiles.... but now feel it was worth 1200+ American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars?


Or was it a "liberal media" conspiracy that was keeping the focus on his penis? Or the American public's for not giving a shit about Iraqis then?


I guess you weren't paying much attention then, but many people DID protest the bombings. Where much of the difference lies is in the fact that mobilizing large protest groups takes some time. When an issue is a short campaign like Desert Fox that was over very quickly and started with almost no public warning - then there isn't the time for a national debate that leads to large-scale protests. Not like the leadup to this war.


And yes, wars get treated differently domestically than a bombing campaign. There are reasons for that including the fact that nobody is worried about having friends and families sent over to die.


Blaming Michael Moore for not having the clout then to make a movie like he did this time around is also a dumb thing to try and do. He was a relative unknown to most people until Bowling for Columbine was released in 2002. Desert Fox was years before that, and for the record he was VERY outspoken against Clinton's actions then - he just didn't get the press.


For the record, I spoke out against the bombing campaign then just as I spoke out against this war. It did not get the national attention at the next election that it deserved, because a) it was over, b) Clinton wasn't running so you had two candidates with clean slates, and c) everybody seemed more interested in penises.

Comparing that to this election which was, in part, a referendum on this war is disingenuous.

NO, clinton originally bombed Irag because They invaded Kuwait. Then there were isolated bombings of ground-to-air radar sites as they would illegally turn on and lock american jets as targets - this breaking the rules of dismantlement of the national military, they fired upon the ground targets. when did clinton bomb irag due to WMD?


Please, please, please do some research and learn a few things before speaking.

1) The kuwait issue was long dealt with by the time Desert Fox came around.
2) There were NEVER any "rules to dismantle the national military", only to do away with WMD.
3) Turning targetting radar on and painting a US warplane was responded to because it was deemed a hostile act - not because Iraq was not permitted to have radar.
4) Clinton DID use the WMD excuse to bomb Iraq.
5) People did object to these tactics.

While we are at it though, since you seem to need the history lesson:

1) There was never any UN reolution to put the no-fly zones in place. Technically, under international law those overflights were violations of Iraqi sovereign airspace.
2) The initial UN resolutions to end the Gulf War included phased sanction relaxation tied to the disarmament process. Hussein got pissy when the US never lived up to that side of the bargain despite his obvious (and duly verified) disarmament efforts.
3) Albright made it clear that the US would never live up to the UN resolution when she stated that sanctions would NEVER be relaxed as long as Saddam was in power. This clearly showed that the sanctions were being used - illegally - in a manner which they were not put in place for. Saddam said "well fuck you too" at that point, which led to the standoff that lasted the last five or so years before this war.
4) the inital treaty also included a statement that there would be a concerted effort to make the entire Middle East a WMD-free zone. This was critical to making the deal as they were asking Iraq to disarm when Iran, Libya, Syria, etc. (his rivals) all had active programs. This would have left him at a disadvantage. The US never lived up to that until very recently. Clinton made almost NO efforts on this issue at all. Neither did Bush1. And, of course, NOBODY has ever asked Israel to give up their nukes...


Clinton was as much a factor in screwing up the Iraq situation as anyone - I've said this often. But I still think it could have been solved without going to war. I've said that a lot too!

Bush, "They have weapons of mass destruction."
Clinton, "They have weapons of mass destruction."

Bush - "He lied, this is about oil."
Clinton - ?

If Bush's reason for the attack was about oil, then
what was Clinton's real reason?

Bush, "They have weapons of mass destruction."
Clinton, "They have weapons of mass destruction."

Bush - "He lied, this is about oil."
Clinton - ?

If Bush's reason for the attack was about oil, then
what was Clinton's real reason?
Bush's reasons were not about oil. It was a contract for profits for Haliburton. Also to help Bush get elected, it worked.

Clinton bombed them because they could have been a danger had he not bombed them. He didn't start a war because he didn't have a rationale to do this. He also believed America's credibility would be underminded if he did so.

Bush, "They have weapons of mass destruction."
Clinton, "They have weapons of mass destruction."

Bush - "He lied, this is about oil."
Clinton - ?

If Bush's reason for the attack was about oil, then
what was Clinton's real reason?


Why do you contine to try and equate Desert Fox with the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Can someone please explain why conservative Republicans are so insecure, that even after taking control of the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, and the majority of governorships they STILL feel compelled to spend their time going after Bill Clinton and whining about not being treated fairly?

Do you folks stand for anything except opposing Clinton and liberals?

Can someone please explain why conservative Republicans are so insecure, that even after taking control of the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, and the majority of governorships they STILL feel compelled to spend their time going after Bill Clinton and whining about not being treated fairly?

Do you folks stand for anything except opposing Clinton and liberals?
Conservatives(republicans too) have a inferiority complex. They have been in majority for a long time in government but still say they are the underdogs or try to act like it.

Bill Clinton showed that raising taxes can be good for the economy. The republicans never forgave him for that.

Some of you are showing the basic idea of how liberals disregarded what Bill Clinton did with his wars, and you are making an example of the hypocracies in your anger towards George W. Bush.

Clinton didn't stop at Iraq. His bombing campaign was scattered like tree branches across the east. Clinton had no plan of attack, he initiated a war without approval or clear purpose.

Bush Bashers claim that GW's war is only about oil... I'll ask again - Since Clinton was handling the same war just before Bush took office; What was Bill Clinton's alterior motive for attacking Iraq?

Why Didn't Liberals Protest Clinton's Wars?
Who said we didn't?

Because I believe that sending troops to Kosovo was justified. If you intervene because of ethnic cleansing, it's justified. If you intervene becuase it poses a significant security threat, it's justified. Iraq was not justified. Saying Saddam was a bad guy just isn't enough.

Bill Clinton forced NATO into bombing Yugoslavia.

...

Does any of this sound familiar?
Yep, that's the event that turned around my perception of the US. I was dead against that war.

Because I believe that sending troops to Kosovo was justified. If you intervene because of ethnic cleansing, it's justified. If you intervene becuase it poses a significant security threat, it's justified. Iraq was not justified. Saying Saddam was a bad guy just isn't enough.

Iraq could have been sold on the ethnic cleansing angle - or have you forgotten the Kurds and Marsh Arabs?

Fox News is rarely inaccurate, just as CNN/CBS etc. It's just the manner in which they deliver the news. You can make any news seem good or bad, or emphasize the good or the bad in all
Well, except for CBS I'm inclined to agree.

Iraq could have been sold on the ethnic cleansing angle - or have you forgotten the Kurds and Marsh Arabs?


YEs, it could have been sold on that - while that was ongoing. I would probably even have supported it at that point.


But it is rather hard to say that you are stepping in to save the slaughter years after it has ended. Well, not if you want to say it with a straight face anyway.

YEs, it could have been sold on that - while that was ongoing. I would probably even have supported it at that point.


But it is rather hard to say that you are stepping in to save the slaughter years after it has ended. Well, not if you want to say it with a straight face anyway.

The Ba'athist ethnic cleansing was ongoing:
The Iraqi Government Assault on the Marsh Arabs

A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper
January 2003 (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm)

'Arabization'deadly to Kurdish minority
March 8, 2003 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/border/20030308-9999_1n8cleansing.html)

I might also point out that NATO waited quite a long time before deciding to intervene against Serbia (much of the ethnic cleansing done by Serbs was as far in the past as that of the Ba'athists, by the time NATO intervened in Kosova).

I was sitting in a car garage (ok ok firestone) the other day, they had CNN on their lounge t.v., and an ex-professor of history went off about how corrupt the U.N. is, has been from the start and how _of course_ Russia (etc) didn't want a war in Iraq because it's against their economic interests. What I didn't get to say (car ready) was this: reverse that scenerio. There's _no way_ the U.S. would agree with someone else going to war if it were strongly against *our* (upfront) economic interests. It doesn't matter WHAT the cause or explanation for the war is - Bush would be vehemently against it.
Also, I did get a brief moment to point out that the U.N. is a conglomerate of Nations - all of which have corruption. There's no nation on the planet which does not suffer corruption. Thus, of course there is some corruption in the U.N. But are we supposed to *not try* for world cooperation? That is now Bush's course - in 4 years he will have either dissembled the U.N. or pulled the U.S. out of it.
No one realized how much permanent damage the world could suffer from one village idiot - rich enough to buy the masses.

Because I believe that sending troops to Kosovo was justified. If you intervene because of ethnic cleansing, it's justified. If you intervene becuase it poses a significant security threat, it's justified. Iraq was not justified. Saying Saddam was a bad guy just isn't enough.

Kosovo was simply one of the areas bombed. Clinton attacked Iraq for the
exact reasons Bush did; Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saddam Hussein.
Then he simply stopped the attacks and everything went right back to the
way it was. :(

Kosovo was simply one of the areas bombed. Clinton attacked Iraq for the
exact reasons Bush did; Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saddam Hussein.
Then he simply stopped the attacks and everything went right back to the
way it was. :(
And him stopping because there was no justification for total war was why people liked him.

He understood even the President had limits, :)