how is Kosovo different from Iraq

[Pltcl_jnky]

In all honesty this will come up for Clark. So how is Kosovo in which American troops were and are in harms way to prevent a dictator from killing his own people.

Iraq a dictator who admittedly had weapons of mass destruction as detailed by Bill Clinton, the UN, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle and John Kerry, etc.....who has killed thousands of his own people had the torture chambers, etc.....

How are these two military incidents different???

And how have things changed in Iraq since Bill Clinton left office...we all believed Iraq had weapons they were detailed by everyone....why did they suddenly dissappear when Bush took over???

I am being honest....I know this will come up with Clark if he is the nominee! Why did he support Kosovo but not Iraq?

[htuttle]

1. The UN authorized the use of force in Kosovo...

...eventually. There's some disagreement as to whether the NATO force in the Balkans exceeded it's UN mandate at times, but it was ultimately there with UN approval.

Iraq was just entirely illegal all around.

The way I see it, it's like the difference between a cop shooting someone, and a bank robber shooting someone. While the cop's shooting may or may not have been justified, based on circumstances and details of the situation, there's simply no way to argue that the bank robber's actions were justified: they were patently illegal.

Does that help?

[bpilgrim]

45. ...eventually, and consider who was drivin the bus ;-)

with '20/20' hindsight it looks like it too was about something other than was projected by our leaders and alledged news media.

:hi:

peace

[el_gato]

2. loaded questions here

what is this "we all believed" stuff?

the weapons didn't suddenly disappear when bush took over.
Do you recall Scott Ritter saying they had been eliminated during
the years shortly after GWI?

As well you might take a look at Pilger's report about
Colin and even Rice talking about how no weapons were there.

[Pltcl_jnky]

7. okay

then why did the UN and Bill Clinton then support all those resolutions from GWI through 2000 then if all the weapons were gone....

why did Clinton, the UN, members of Congress, etc continue to wail on Saddamm to give up the WMD's then if they were gone already????

and if this was about genocide then what about the 1 million people saddamm killed that the world knows about was that not justified enough to go in???

[Caution]

12. two years later

a lot can happen in two years time, particularly iraq did an about face and let weapons inspectors into the country and they were showing that nothing was left, they had access they never had before, iraq produced a massive document with new declarations.

as for the saddam thing, again this goes back to what the resolutions were about which was WMD. Bush used this as his case for an attack of iraq, not humanitarian reasons.

If he wanted to attack iraq and remove hussein on humanitarian grounds then he should have justified the war on this manner. He told us he was authorized under existing UN resolutions that pointed to WMD. These WMD didnt exists and these resolutions specified inspections for the primary manner in which to determine that Iraq was in compliance.

[Brotherjohn]

34. Those resolutions did not authorize force.

We didn't KNOW for SURE that Iraq had no more WMD. Clinton may have believed that they had some. So what? He did not, however, beleive we should have invaded and conquered Iraq. He believed in working through the U.N., and this pressure helped contain Iraq and ensure that they did not ratchet up their WMD programs again.

He did bomb some sites b/c Iraq was not fully complying, but that is peanuts compared to what Bush has done. Along with occassional "no-fly-zone" enforcement bombings, these actions constituted relatively VERY limited use of military in the wake of the Gulf War, and cannot be realistically compared to what Bush has done.

It boils down to this:

Clinton used the U.N. and measured military action on targeted sites in light of what was then a more unclear risk from potential Iraqi WMDs.

Bush said "screw you" to the U.N., and used massive military action to invade and conquer a sovereign nation, after it was becoming clear that the risk from iraqi WMDs was minimal to nonexistent.

U.N. Inspectors had returned and had already determined that Iraq had not reconsituted its nuclear program, They had also filed several reports that they had been unable to find any evidence of existing chem or bio weapons (and also directly contradicted many Bush administration claims of evidence for alleged WMDs).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. The Invasion Of Kosovo

could be justified on humanitarian grounds....

Sovereignty doesn't give a leader a right to exterminate minorities....

And the big difference between Iraq War 2 and the operations in Bosnia and Kosovo is we had substantial allied support (NATO) and our goal was to end genocide not set up a new regime....

We have a token amount of troops in that area, not 140,000....

There has not been one American killed during or after the operation in that region...

The Americans didn't topple Milosevic ; his own people did....

[Padraig18]

4. Succinctly put!

:)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Also,

if the American could have overthrown Saddam and magically given the country back to the Iraqi equivalent of Thomas Jefferson I might have viewed the whole operation differently....

That being said ... It still would have set a horrible precedent....

[displacedvermoter]

8. Add to that Bill Clinton's very accurate portrayal of the Balkans

as the world's premier flashpoint, with hostilities in the Balkans potentially spilling over into a regional war involving NATO states like Italy, Greece, and Turkey as well as involving Russia and much of the rest of Eastern and Central Europe.

Bush's inept handling of Iraq has now transformed the affair into another potentially terrible flashpoint, making a bad regional situation even worse. Shrub's father understood that, as did Clinton. Shrub is not a scholar of history, never adequately explained what exactly he wanted to do, after he overthrew SH, and the results now show.

This all explains why Clinton goes to Kosovo and is cheered, Shrub goes to UN, and is given the cold shoulder.

[im4edwards]

9. sorry, doesn't ring true

There is ample evidence of humanitarian issues in Iraq. The Kurds and certain sects of Islam would argue the extermination issue. As to the people ultimately felling Milosevic, NATO had set that up so that a pack of 6 year olds could nail him.

I would argue that Euro support came in because it was in their backyard and there were no natural resources in jeopardy. Numbers of troops are dictated by the terrain.

The only real difference apart from scope is oil. For our Euro allies that represents the cheap access to it. And there is evidence of the terrorism link as well. Even if Hussein and Laden didn't play poker every Friday and cook up whacky schemes together, Iraq did support/allow terrorism (camps, money etc).

This is a valid issue that deserves attention.

[htuttle]

10. Iraq did NOT support or allow terrorism

The only 'terrorist' camps in Iraq were Ansar al Islam's, and they were in a part of the country CONTROLLED BY THE US! They were deep inside the no-fly zone where Hussein's troops couldn't go.

There is quite frankly WAY more evidence that the United States supports certain terrorists than there is that Iraq ever did.

And by the way, DOESN'T ANYONE CARE ABOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW ANYMORE?

...


...


I guess not.

[im4edwards]

15. and the checks from Hussein to suicide bombers ?

I'm not going to argue camps but the US did not control any part of Iraq, only the air above a good portion of it. And troops are the last ones you send to training camps apart from some instructors.

[htuttle]

19. Not to split hairs, but...

...any checks that actually got sent (not sure any actually did...seemed like more of a PR move by Hussein than anything else), were sent to the families of suicide bombers. By that time, the bombers were already dead.

I suppose you could argue that perhaps the knowledge that their family would get a check would be incentive for someone to blow themselves up, but seems to me that would be a minor incentive (since if it was money one was after, and one was willing to die in the process, a bank robbery would probably be far more lucrative).

[DuctapeFatwa]

22. US policy is that orphans of criminals should receive no aid

That is the rationale by which they have declared almost every NGO that served Palestinians, and most of the charities to which American Muslims have paid their zakat taxes for decades - as terrorist organizations.

Because they do not refuse food or other aid to families based on whether the breadwinner died while committing a crime or not.

It is not known when the same policy will be implemented for orphans of those who commit crimes in the US.

Maybe they don't feel its really needed in the US since no one feeds the children of criminals in the US anyway.

[im4edwards]

26. 25K is a LOT of money to a palestinian

and a huge incentive. they don't really use banks over there. if you can hold your entire liquid net worth in your hand, theres not much need for a bank.

the reporting on the checks was that the money was automatic upon "martyrdom".

[htuttle]

28. Yes, and I've heard stories about people selling their kidneys for $40K

But is it a reason for the US to go to war over? Especially considering the suicide bombers in question weren't blowing themselves up here in the US, but in a country that has a questionable record of its own in the situation?

If $25 million isn't enough incentive for someone in Iraq or Afghanistan to turn over Hussein or bin Laden, it does seem odd to expect that a mere $25 thousand would drive someone to blow themselves up. I think they probably decided they had adequate motivation to do so without the money. After all, the bombing didn't start when Hussein started offereing the money did it?

The answer is no, it's not a good justification to go to war. It's just another weak attempt to justify an international smash and grab robbery gone awry.

[im4edwards]

35. 25M is nice if you live to spend it

And I think that many believe that this will not occur if they rat out one of those two. And the storied were reported via reputable agencies, not the internet.

The question was not if this was enough to go to war over. The question was are there parallels between Kosovo and Iraq and clearly there are.

Before Clark gets asked this in public I think he would do well to have a well thought out response prepared. Maybe he does, who knows.

[htuttle]

36. Can you grasp the contradiction in what you have said?

Postulate A:
That $25 thousand dollars is enough money to get a Palestinian to blow themselves up.

Postulate B:
That $25 million dollars isn't enough money for someone to rat out Hussein or bin Laden, since they'd be worried about getting killed (such as, for example, getting blown up).

???

The only parallels I see between Kosovo and Iraq are that both were military actions. The rest is fog and mirrors.

[im4edwards]

42. Ok I failed to mention it as I thought everyone knew

the suicide bombers are killing themselves so that their families can have money, not themselves. The upside for them is the seventy virgins and whatever else they're being told Allah has waiting for them in the hereafter. Win win. Is that more clear for you ?

[Orangeone]

39. act of charity

Saddam is not known for being a philanthropist but the families of suicide bombers get their houses leveled. I don't think it's a bad thing to help the families. People shouldn't be punished for things relatives do.

[im4edwards]

43. I see

so the notion that charity in the sum of 25K is available for those poor families who would be penalized should a family member be possessed to blow himself and others up has no inducive effect ?

I'm just not buying it.

[alcuno]

41. Hello? Saudi Arabia held a telethon for Palestinians.

Now who do you think got that money. I'm sorry, but the "checks to the families of suicide bombers" is THE weakest argument out there. Hussein was wildly unpopular with Islamic extremists and they didn't get their funding from him.

You bet the US controlled northern Iraq and we could have taken out any "terrorist" camps any time that we wanted to. I mean, we were bombing all sorts of other things in the country but left what we believed to be terrorist training camps in place? That sounds logical to you?

[im4edwards]

44. I'll make no appologies for the saudis

what exactly were we blowing up willy nilly in Iraq before the war ? I've heard of SAM batteries that lit up our aircraft but nothing more. That was a defensive action against direct aggresion.

I'm not saying nothing else got toasted but I have not heard of it.

[alcuno]

50. Here's a link and please define "willy nilly."

I'm sure they bombed everything that they wanted to bomb.

First of all, the UN never authorized the no-fly zones. That was a decision of the US and the Brits. Aside from the bombing of Baghdad in December of 1998, go take a look at the "bomb watch" where there were daily bombings of Iraq going on, all reported from European Central Command. Do we know exactly what they were bombing? Sometimes it was radar sites, etc, but there are civilian facilites and military fuel depots also listed. "Reported" casulaties are mentioned, although we probably don't know the truth of it. It's apparent that they stepped things up in 2002 to "soften up" Iraqi command and control. They bombed both in and out of the no-fly zone.

http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/1999.htm#9/10/99

[bpilgrim]

46. what about OURS?

bin laden an crew, not to mention the SOTA...

But I still don't see that as enough justification for invasion. i mean if he was buying/shipping explosives that would probably justify a UN mandate/sanction :shrug: but even that STILL doesn't compare to what we do, DAILY.

shoot we even provide a safe haven for'm when things get too 'hot'.

you know what they say... one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter.

and so it goes...

peace

[knight_of_the_star]

51. The checks were a political ploy

Sadaam knew that Bush would be coming after him with a cleaver in one hand, so he used the checks to the families of suicide bombers to convince the various extremists inside and outside his country that he DID support them so that he could get their support for the eventuality that something like say, BUSH, happened to his country. That and that move of his played over rather well in the sense that it improved support for him in the Arab world. Bashing on Israel in Arab politics is the same there as it is for the GOP's moralistic rhetoric that the Religious Right eats up: a move designed to elicit support for their cause.

[Zuni]

29. What about the Abu Nidal Group?

Hamas, Jihad and other groups got direct funding from Iraq. Saddam Hussein also publicly encouraged suicide bombings. Ansar Al-Islam seems to have been allowed, if not supported, to exist there. It's leaders were guests in Baghdad often.
Abu Nidal extremists, who were at war with the Mainstream PLO and Fatah factions for years had residencies in Baghdad and close connections to Iraq's Security Services. Abu Nidal was apparently murdered in Baghdad last year to prevent embarrasment to Saddam Hussein. The Achille Lauro Hijacker was also found in Baghdad, I think he was an Abu Nidal agent, but he might have been PLO.

[htuttle]

31. Do you have a link for ANY of that?

...or should I just take Rush's word for it?

I mean, sentences like this:
"Abu Nidal was apparently murdered in Baghdad last year to prevent embarrasment to Saddam Hussein."

Yes, Abu Nidal was found dead, apparently murdered, in Baghdad, but who's coming up with the purported motives? Debka.com?

[StephNW4Clark]

6. Kosovo vs. Iraq

The United States is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - a collective mutual defense compact created to counter-balance the USSR's Warsaw Pact formed in 1956. Article 5 of the treaty specifically states that an attack or threat to security of one member nation is an attack/threat to all member nations.

That said, Kosovo represented the first post-Cold War test for NATO. The genocide in the former Yugoslavia had to be dealt with for a variety of reasons: 1) Yugoslavia has historically been the tinderbox for war in the region (World War I began in Serbia, the prelude to WWII also involved Yugoslavia. 2) Yugoslavia's various ethnic populations had overy hundreds of years migrated across Europe but still felt strong ties to their homeland. As such, those nations with Yugoslav populations were worried about potential destabilizations within their own borders. 3) Russia and Serbia have historically been incredibly close. Russia entered WWII in order to help "their little Serbian brother." European nations were keen to prevent escalation of the conflict. 4)Kosovo was a humanitarian crisis that evoked memories of the Holocaust and those nations who stood by in the name of appeasement.

Why NATO and not the UN? The UN voted to not be involved in Kosovo as it was a European matter and there was a regional defense pact - NATO.

What Kosovo proves is that the United States was obligated to participate in Kosovo because of our duty to our allies. What is stresses is that no country should unilaterally invade another country.

Incidentally, Kosovo also represented the first time that the participants in the war (Milosevic and other war criminals as well as the heads of state of NATO member nations, and commanders such as Gen Clark) were submitted for judgment to the Hague. NATO and its commanders were cleared of all charges while Milosevic is behind bars. Kosovo is the model for multinational intervention within the boundaries of existing international law.

[idaholeft]

11. when the questions are asked

To me, it's all about when the points are raised. Were humanitarian concerns raised in the prelude to the war? Not that I heard. I heard WMD's and the Iraq/911 link. Both, it turns out were lies.

Had * used humanitarian aruments from the start, there would have been no need to sling the bs that he clearly did.

Now, when there are no WMD's and the Iraq/911 link is clearly imginary, we start seeing humanitarian arguments raised.

Doesn't wash with me.

[Iris]

14. yes. Did he ever mention "rape pits" even once leading up to the war?

Yet, before the war in Kosovo, you couldn't read a news report or op ed about the situaton without seeing the term "rape camp."

[Pltcl_jnky]

17. Bush never claimed a link

between 9-11 and Iraq....his never said that.

He did go off the WMD's thing but then again so did Clinton for 8 years. As for humanitarian reasons it was mentioned in the state of the union.

as for international law....no the average american probably doesnt give two shits what international so-called law is. The average american holds little vaue for the UN. The UN is simply a place where third world nations have the opportunity to hold a bit of power over the United States.

[htuttle]

20. Bullshit

On March 18, 2003, Bush sent the following letter to Congress:
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH


He states right there in point 2 that he's justifying the invasion of Iraq under PL 107-243 as a necessary action against those nations, organizations and persons who authorized, planned, committed or aided the attacks on September 11th.

Or does it come down to what the meaning of the word 'is' is?

I'll wait for you to receive a few more faxes full of talking points, if you need them...

:eyes:

[Pltcl_jnky]

23. that's helpful

got a link I could use that one!!!

and i dont have a fax machine just annoying co-workers....

[htuttle]

24. Here's a link from the Whitehouse's website

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Hope that's still considered a credible site...

[Pltcl_jnky]

27. i would certainly hope

now maybe they will shut the ever loving fuck up and leave me alone

[bpilgrim]

49. thats the 'message'

sure...

those dumb americans wouldn't impeach a sitting prez for a blow job either against the 'programming' then as well.

sure, there are many folks who aren't payin attenion... yet, but many are startin to pay a littler closer attention then they used to back in the 'good ole days' ;->

when buildings start tipping over and the artic starts melting and the eCONomy tanks lots of folks start getting more curious about whats REALLY goin on.

MOST americans when polled WANT TO work with the UN and the INTERNATIONAL community to 'get the job done'

keep that in mind when the rush sycophants - msnbc, cnn, fox, etc - get you down.

peace

peace

[Zuni]

30. exactly

It was all WMD, WMD stuff before the war.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Wasn't there an ongoing civil war

and ample evidence of recent mass murders?

Besides this wasn't a US mission, it was a NATO mission.

And in a relatively short time Molosavich (sp?) was removed from power and now spends his time in a jail cell at the Hague and is on trial for war crimes. Add that to the fact that there was no loss of American lives and we have only lost one UN peacekeeper in 4 years, I'd say this mission was a success.

On the other hand, where's Osama and where's Saddam and is the US ever going to be able to get out of either Iraq or Afghanistan anytime soon? I doubt it considering the fact that we are establishing military bases in both countries.

[Iris]

16. and from what I understand, it was a peace-keeping mission

Meaning the troops were supposed to be there to intervene in any of the skirmishes between groups that were constantly occuring there.

[oasis]

18. (A) Kosovo :Clark active duty military (B) Iraq:Clark retired military

(A) Required to follow orders.

(B) Enjoys the rights of private citizens.

[Padraig18]

21. Just so!

:)

[Tyler Durden]

25. THANK YOU!

And we could add to that:

CLARK: conducts 78 day war with effectively NO friendly casualties, aiding CIVIL removal of rogue dictatorship.

SHELTON: STILL contducting a 5 MONTH ground war with over 300 MILITARY casualties and no end in sight.

[Pltcl_jnky]

33. only one small addition

One there were virtuall zero US military troops on the ground...it was about 99% air warfare.

Two) we are stil in Kosovo so it isnt just a 78 day war....we're still there spending money too

[directinfection]

37. NO friendly casualties?

Didn't thousands of civilians die at the hands of nato?

[bpilgrim]

47. just following orders...

and so it goes...

peace

[RobertFrancisK]

32. Two simple factors

In Kosovo we lost no American troops and we improved our standing with our allies by working with all of NATO.
In Iraq, we are still losing many bright you men in uniform and we have alienated many of our allies.
On the surface, Saddam and Milosevich aren't much different. Neither really posed a threat to us, but both were evil men that needed to go at some point. However, Iraq was not in our interests because the cost highly outweighed the benefits.

[WillyBrandt]

54. Not just that

But in the Balkans the brutality was in high gear, while the very worst periods of Saddam reign were over (they occured when we were friends in the 80s, or when we looked the other way, like right after Gulf War I).

[Bandit]

38. Remember Opinions are like assholes ~ so here is my Opinion

Anybody that would even ask such a question is what I would call ignorant. Notice I said ignorant and not stupid although both could possibly apply. You obviously need to do some research on the matter instead of letting us know how il-informed you are.

[passthecorn]

40. Has partisanship killed pacifism?

Am I the only person who thinks both of those wars were wrong?

If Iraq had no oil, would anyone have lobbied for that war?

If Kosovo had been in the middle of Africa instead of Europe, would anyone have lobbied for that war?

[WillyBrandt]

52. I backed the Kosovo war

No, there are just very few pacifists, except perhaps in Germany, but not really even there.

Kosovo was done within the context of a multilateral framework. We brought in the UN as much as possible. It cost the US relatively little in terms of money (as far as these things go), especially since Europe contributed.

It saved FAR more lives than it ended. We stopped a genocide.

"If Kosovo had been in the middle of Africa instead of Europe, would anyone have lobbied for that war?"

It depends. In Kosovo our national interests were engaged, and there was a serious humanitarian crisis. In Africa it would depend--I think we should have intervened in Rwanda to end that genocide, since we could have done it with a low amount of force, and with allies.

Unless you're a pacifist or a warmonger, there are no simple answers. These are very difficult problems, with death on each side.

[DuctapeFatwa]

48. It depends on who you ask

If you ask a Kosovar who lost a family member in one of the various "collateral damage" incidents, or a Serbian in the same boat, or someone whose relative worked at the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, they will probably tell you that no one in Iraq is a bit more dead than their deceased loved one.

If you ask someone who for whatever reason thinks that putting General Clark's face on the PNAC strategies will be of benefit to them, they will give you a long list of reasons why bombing Serbia was really really different, and they will not remember Kevin Bacon at the Pentagon press briefing admitting that no, the invasion had not prevented one single act of brutality to the Kosovars.

[WillyBrandt]

53. False.

It's nice to see people distort the reality of genocide:

"Kevin Bacon at the Pentagon press briefing admitting that no, the invasion had not prevented one single act of brutality to the Kosovars."

Read a book or two--not written by some Milosevic apologist--about the Balkans in the 90s.

[DuctapeFatwa]

56. Kevin Bacon said it on live national TV, I saw it

So did millions of other people.

Talk to people who are in Kosovo today, who lost family members.

Tell them they are Slobo apologists.

[union_maid]

55. A really huge difference

In Iraq, we invaded and started a war where there was no war. In Kosovo, the war was already happening. We intervened. That's a whole wide world of difference.

[iangb]

57. If the US had intervened in Iraq.....

....during Saddam's worst oppression of the Shia or Kurds during '88 or '91 then a close comparison could be made to the situation in Kosovo.........but they (you) didn't.

[JohnKleeb]

58. actually I opposed Kosovo

and the current war. In fact Kosovo is why i have my iffyness on Clark. Interesting isnt it.