Help me shut down this Freeper...

[southpaw]

I have locked horns with a neo-con apologist on another board and he is attempting to compare Kosovo and Haiti to Iraq. I argued that both Kosovo and Haiti were classed as 'humanitarian intervention' and had full UN approval. Here is his response.

****Huh??? Haiti is still a quagmire and there are still troops in both places and we got no approval from the UN in either of those places before a democrat president sent troops into both. We have always had UN support of the resolutions backing this endeavor in Iraq. Go to the UN web site and read the resolutions yourself. You place the UN in such high esteem but not high enough to have it enforce it's own resolutions??? Of course the UN is headed by two bit despots, the likes of which are adored and revered by the left of this nation and the world. What happened to the leftists that used to believe in and champion human rights? I guess those days are long gone.

I think you and others like you in the HATE BUSH crowd are merely capitalizing on any situation you can to hate Bush because it's been the traditionally popular thing to do on the left.***

Help me out here. Did the UN approve of the actions in Kosovo and Haiti, or have I spoken out of assumptions that have proven to be wrong.

Notice how the guy talks out of both sides of his mouth about the UN. 'Headed by two-bit despots' etc.

Help me out, guys. I don't have much time to spare researching this stuff, but I don't want to seem as if I have no reply.

[DarkSim]

1. Tell the moran to re-read the resolution on Iraq.

It authorizes military action against iraq only if the U.S. Manages to prove there is a real threat. There wasn't so the war was illegal.

The U.S. was ASKED by the U.N. to help in Haiti and the Kosovo thing the U.S. Joined into once europe had already began meddling in it with U.N. approval.

[MrUnderhill]

2. I don't believe Kosovo had UN backing.

It was NATO that joined in the bombing.


The graphic at the bottom of your post is hypnotic.

[DarkSim]

3. The U.N authorized intervention in Kosovo.

It just says "intervention" on the reso so i assume it did not authorize bombings. I guess NATO started the bombings on its own.

[southpaw]

4. This is kinda what I was thinking...

UN approved going in.. NATO escalated it once the mission was underway.

BTW Is it true that NO US troops were killed in Kosovo?

[MrUnderhill]

6. True. No US casualties.

Since we only bombed them and never inserted ground troops... and they had no effective air force or AA capability... US casualties would have almost required a plane to crash on its own.

[MrUnderhill]

5. Be careful stretching that too far.

The SC resolution re: Kosovo was FAR less clear than ones the bushites have used to justify attacks in Iraq. Russia, in fact, specifically said they supported the resolution ONLY because it did NOT authorize the use of any force.

The argument in favor of the Kosovo action was that there was an ONGOING genocide that had to be stopped.

[Melodybe]

7. Well we didn't stick around in Kosovo after we got Milosovich.

We never occupied it, and it only cost us about 2 billion, unlike a certain desert country.

[southpaw]

8. OK... How about the "quagmire" characterization of Haiti?

Does that seem even remotely accurate? I'm pretty sure some US troops are still stationed in Haiti, but to call it a quagmire seems disingenuous at best.

Any facts on hand to refute that assertion?

[noonwitch]

9. Haiti has been a mess since the slaves drove the french out

Every so often, the US will pay some attention to their problems, like Clinton did and was done earlier in the 20th century. One of the problems with Haiti is they don't have a lot of agriculture or tourism, like many of the other islands in the Caribbean. The other is the mess the Duvaliers created, and the third is HIV/AIDS, and Haiti's reputation as the place where AIDS started in the Western Hemisphere.

[southpaw]

11. True... But the US is not entangled militarily in Haiti, right.

[comsymp]

26. You could always mention

the role the BA played in Aristede's overthrow... that certainly didn't improve stability.

[0007]

10. I'm more than certain you can google the information your seeking

for augmenting your point.

[southpaw]

12. Thanks, pal

I'm AM googling. I'm reading through UN resolutions and archived statements on the UN website.

The input I'm seeking here at DU is of a different nature.

Thanks, and have a lovely day!

[AP]

14. Don't frame this issue with the UN. The right wing would love to frame it

as an issue about whether the US should do what it thinks is best for the US or what the UN thinks is best.

Even FDR (who wanted so badly an organization that would end global chaos which he knew was fascism's best friend) realized that Americans would never accept the latter, and so he drafted a UN charter that would ensure the US coudn't be told what to do by the UN. (He learned from Woodrow Wilson, whose desire to see the US operate within a Democratic League of Nations was his political downfall -- Republicans knew that they couldn't make as much money off of chaos if that happened).

Furthermore, it's not inconceivable that soon the rest of the world will decided that a poorer, less democratic, miserable America might be better for the rest of the world. I wouldn't want America to be operating under the principle that we do what the UN tells us to do.

Framing this debate with the UN is a red herring.

The real frame is the immorality of fascism. Fascism is the common thread through these three events. Clinton was not a fascists and opposed fascism in Haiti and Kosovo. Bush is a fascist and the contretation of wealth in the hands of a few is his operating principle in Iraq and Haiti.

[southpaw]

15. Thank you, AP

I see your point, and I will definitely pull away from the UN angle. This is the very definition of framing the debate.

Thanks again!

[0007]

20. You got it Toyota, LOL!!

[AP]

13. IMO, here's what each of those events was about:

- Kosovo: Some Tories left Major's gov't in 1997 to become arms dealers to Milosevic. There's a lot of money in chaos and instability. Clinton and Blair and NATO decided that genocide and instability at Europe's door step was not good for the development of a liberal, unified, democratic, wealth-distributing (rather than wealth-concentrating) Europe. They dealt with Milosevic and the results were exactly as expected: less chaos, less money for arms dealers, and a European economy which could get down to the business of delivering wealth to people who work for a living rather than arms dealers and people who make money off of fear and instability.

-Haiti: That coup happened for one reason: Aristide was days away from implementing an income tax on the wealthy. He was back in power for years, thanks to Clinton. But a government can't do anything without having the funds to implement programs. Aristide was tired of band-aid solutions to all the very persistent problems of wealth concentrated in the hands of a very few. The thought of having pay money to a government that would inevitably use that money to make workers less desperate and then demand better wages was too much for the textile industry owners. They like their easy profits, and so did all the American retailers who buy their products. Bush stepped in to help them. He cared more about their profits than about the misery endured by millions.

- Iraq: it's Haiti plus Kosovo. Chaos makes money for the arms dealers, and it jacks up prices for oil. The oil industry is making record profits. Iraq is meant as a distraction for Americans so they don't ask questions about the economy (which is falling apart because it no longer delivers wealth to the people working to create it, but concentrates it in the hands of the owners of capital, just like in Haiti). It's also used as cover for just outright giving billions of dollars to companies like Halliburton so they can run empty trucks up and down Iraq's highways and charge the US gov't mileage rates according to contracts written by Halliburton and not questioned at all by gov't lawyers who are supposed to be looking after our interests.

Forget the UN. Who cares what the UN thought about these three issues, even when they're right? The fact of all three of these events is that they all have the common theme: concentration of wealth in the hands of a few very wealthy corporations and individuals. In Kosovo and Haiti, liberal governments in the US and Europe thought it was not right to use chaos and death and misery to make a few people much wealthier -- that is fascism, and we believe in democracy.

In Iraq, it's just like Iraq and Haiti, but now we have an American gov't that does believe in the concentration of wealth, Not only are they implementing that political philosophy in Iraq, they went back and undid Haiti, and I bet they wouldn't be too upset if Milosevic didn't get convicted in the Hague.

[DireStrike]

17. Don't forget the role of Dollar as Reserve Currency

That's one of the major reasons we're in there now. I've heard that they started trading oil-for-food in Euros instead of dollars.

[quaoar]

16. The UN did not approve military intervention in Kosovo

Because The Russians threatened to veto any resolution that did so. Kosovo became a serious issue between NATO and Russia. Serbia pleaded with Russia to intervene on its side. In fact, you may recall that once we sent in troops, the Russians unilaterally sent some troops to the airport in Pristina, causing some rather tense moments.

Kosovo was a NATO operation. There were no U.S. combat deaths, although some died in accidents. The vast majority of the war was fought from the air. Belgrade was targeted often. In fact, you may recall the biggest screw-up of the war was went we bombed the Chinese embassy because some idiot used an old map. The Chinese, understandably, were not happy.

Use these points with the Freeper:
1. Republicans vociferously opposed the Kosovo operation. They even had the audacity to claim that we shouldn't intervene because our troops would be a tempting target for Osama bin Laden and that Clinton was don't listening enough to our allies -- including the French: http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/fr022299.htm

2. How about this quote -- "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?” -- Sean Hannity on Kosovo. Or this one: "I think, that as Jesse Jackson would say, give peace a chance here," said Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader.

This article nicely sums up all the Republican hypocrisy on Kosovo:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=27730

For Republicans to now cite Kosovo to justify intervention takes some incredible balls.

[AP]

18. Notice that when the US is fighting fascism, you can't let a single...

...soldier die because you know Republicans and the media are going to be all over it. But when we're fighting for fascism,1300 soldiers can die, and the media will still cover Bush's back in the election and blame AnybodyButBush.

[quaoar]

19. An, of course, the biggest difference between Iraq and Kosovo

is the outcome:

Kosovo -- No insurgency, no IEDs, no troops without armor. The killing stopped. Serbia was defanged and Milosevic was eventually toppled by his own people. A wider Balkans conflict was averted. America gained credibility in the Islamic world by intervening to protect Muslims.

[Dinger]

21. Excellent Post quaoar

You sure said a lot with few words. Wish I could do that!

[marc_the_dem]

22. Ask him this

How many american's died in those operations?
How many american's are now more vounerable to terorist attck because of those operations?
How did those operations impact our national debt?

a bit about the Clinton Administration (our last "real" president):

2 terrorist attacks occured in the US during his administration.
1. Twin Tower Bombing (1993). Results: terrorist captured, tried and put in jail for life.
2. Oklahoma Gov't Building Bombing (1995). Results: terrorist captured, tried and put to death.

Haiti, Kosovo. Both operations stabilized the countries and restored some level of order. Neither inculded the coordinated invasion and toppling of sovereign nations. Neither alienated the world. Neither made us less capable of defending ourselves on other fronts.

[southpaw]

23. Excellent!

If the debate escalates, I will ask him those very questions!

Thanks!

[npincus]

24. why are you wasting your time on this idiot?

Really. You may butt heads with this moron, but it won't knock sense into him. Tell him the military is hiring- because we know those WMDs are still out there- maybe he'd like to get his ass blown off "spreading freedom" with the sons and daughters of the middle and lower middle classes who are "on the hunt" for those weapons of mass destruction. Sheesh. Call it a day.

[southpaw]

25. I've already cracked on him for his jingoism...

And told him that, if he was really so damn hyped about this war, he should put down the flag and pick up a rifle.

He had no reply to that, of course, but insisted that those of us who were opposed to the Iraq war must also have been opposed to Haiti and Kosovo, else we were being partisan and supporting only those wars started by democratic presidents.

He's a moron, but I wanted to check my facts on Kosovo and Haiti before replying to his crap.

I don't expect to convert him, but I will make him work his ass off trying to debate me. I just like to fuck with them.