In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TritonRider) wrote:
> >From: "Robert Chung"
[email protected]
>
> >Um, Bill, perhaps you haven't noticed this but Clinton
> >left office in January 2001.
>
> The point is that we are still having to live with failed
> policies from politicians that are no longer on the stage.
> Hell if Britain had managed Trans Jordan better, or the
> Jewish problem had been dealt with earlier we might not be
> having any of this discussion.
>
> The point is that Clinton and Albright worked their ass
> off to sell a war that IMHO was significantly less
> justified than Iraq to attempt to secure Clinton's place
> in history. The French and Germans didn't object too much
> so they didn't have to be payed off too badly. The
> Russians who had a huge investment in Milosevic managed
> to rape the US treasury for loans, devolopment aid, and
> guaranteed contracts to abstain from raising hell. The
> reasons given for going to war were:
> 1. Human rights - Iraq is at least as bad, Rhwanda was
> massively worse but the world bailed and the court of
> inquiry there is finding that the French military was
> heavily involved in supplying and protecting their
> former friends and colleagues who committed the
> genocide. Of course the French government is claiming
> that this was only done by isolated bad soldiers. Sound
> familiar? Search the BBC for more info
>
> 2. Milosevic was going to destabilise both Western Europe
> and the Russian federation and plunge the world into a
> continent wide war. As absurd as it sounds IMHO.
>
> 3. This was to enforce International law. See Rhwanda,
> Somalia etc... Also there was never a UN agreement that
> this was sanctioned, and I do not agree that the UN can
> "legally" decide to invade a sovereign nation that
> hasn't started the conflict by attacking a neighbor
> that asked for UN aid. This was an assault by a
> military alliance that was no different IMHO than the
> Warsaw Pact going into Afghanistan the first time, or
> their suppresion of Czechoslovakia.
>
> The point being that in my opinion the lack of complaint
> about the continued occupation and repression there is
> because Clinton was smart enough to, and the conditions
> were right for him to be able to buy off the
> International community so he could have his war, and
> shot at a Nobel Peace prize. Europe making agreements to
> divide up someone elses land isn't new, and is still
> creating lots of problems.
> ie: the Congo and large chunks of Africa.
You make some valid points, Bill. I would disagree on why
Clinton chose to go into Bosnia, though. I tend to think
it was done more as a shot at making up for the lack of
decisive action in Rwanda (which came about as a response
to the hammering he got for what happened in Somalia). As
for having to live with failed policies, I really think
we'll be dealing with that for a long time after the Iraq
situation, and the North Korea policy will be haunting us
for some time, too.
--
tanx, Howard
"The fickleness of fame and fortune's
caprice Together changed the life of Mason
Reese" Alice Donut
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
