0
   

Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq

 
 
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 04:23 am
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=14813


Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq
Written by Evan Sayet
Saturday, May 28, 2005

When the left was trying to undermine America's will to liberate the Iraqi people and remove Saddam Hussein - the genocidal, terrorist linchpin in the world of Arab/Islamic atrocities - the obstructionists offered an ever-changing line of "reasoning."

First they argued that it was "morally wrong" to remove the leader of a sovereign nation. When that argument failed to gain traction, the line became that the President could not act without Congressional approval. When the President gained the overwhelming approval of the Congress, the tack changed to a demand for United Nations' authority. When the Security Council came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition, the strategy changed once again, with the left suddenly screaming that America cannot go to war unless it faced an "imminent threat of attack."

All of these efforts, of course, were disingenuous. Clearly, if the Democrats truly believed it was "wrong" to remove the leader of a sovereign nation they would have been marching in the streets screaming "No Blood For Sex" when the previous president launched wars against Bosnia and Kosovo to remove from power the sovereign leader, Slobodan Milosevic.



And if their protestations were based on their true "values," the left would have been chanting "Clinton is Hitler" when he went to war without Congressional approval or UN sanction in order to defeat nations that were not only not an "imminent" threat to America but were no threat to America at all.



Milosevic had never had - much less ever used - weapons of mass destruction, he was not aiding or abetting global terrorist organizations, nor did he have rape and torture chambers throughout his nation as did Saddam Hussein. In fact, even the "ethnic cleansing" he was accused of - ginned up and exaggerated in the way that Newsweek, CNN and the New York Times routinely do - was minor in comparison to the then-ongoing genocide of the Marsh Arabs and the massacre of the Kurds, the murder of Shiites, and even the horrific execution of his fellow Sunnis by the Iraqi dictator.



Given, then, that none of the left's protestations were based on any true conviction, why did the Democrats support Clinton's multiple wars in the Balkans where so little was at stake and nothing to be gained, and why do they continue to employ every conceivable lie they can muster to obstruct the liberation of the Iraqi people and the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East?



The answer can be found in the Democratic Party itself - dominated, as it has been for the last several decades by "multiculturalists" who believe that democracy is in no way superior to any other form of government, including fascist dictatorships. Multiculturalists believe that all people, cultures, religions and forms of government are equally good and equally right.



This is why Democrats so adore the United Nations, where genocidal dictatorships and free-and-open democracies are offered equal prestige and equal power, and why we are admonished to "celebrate diversity" as if all differences - genocide and tolerance for example - are equally worthy of celebration.



While most Americans considered the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy throughout much of the world a great advancement for civilization, liberals saw it as nothing short of evil. Their perverse reasoning is as follows: since no culture or form of government is superior to any other, the only possible reason for the global embrace of democracy must be some malevolent manipulation on the part of the West. For this reason the Democrat sees the spread of Western values such as freedom and democracy as tantamount to "cultural genocide."



Arguments such as "one cannot impose freedom" and the laughable "one-two-three-four, we don't want your racist war" reflect the notions of leftists that freedom is an "imposition," the quest for liberty a cultural value unique to the Western world, and that those who work to spread freedom are undermining the cherished "values" of other peoples, even if those "values" happen to be fascism, communism, and terrorism or rape, torture and genocide.



It is easy to understand where the sympathies of Democrats lie and why they supported the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo but not those that liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq and have offered the hope of freedom throughout the Middle East and beyond. In the former, victory meant protecting and strengthening a non-Western culture - the Islamists -- while victory in the latter meant the further spread of such "Western" values as freedom and democracy at the expense of such "diverse cultural practices" as oppression, mass murder, and terrorism.

About the Writer: Evan Sayet is a writer, speaker and pundit in Los Angeles and former communications director for LA for President Bush. He has been a TV and movie writer with credits ranging from "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" to the cult classic "Win Ben Stein's Money" and the Discovery Channel documentary "The 70's: When Decades Attack." He is currently working on a book: "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals `Think." Evan's blog is SayetRight.Blogspot.com.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,189 • Replies: 60
No top replies

 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 04:43 am
Quote:
About the Writer: Evan Sayet is a writer, speaker and pundit in Los Angeles and former communications director for LA for President Bush. He has been a TV and movie writer with credits ranging from "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" to the cult classic "Win Ben Stein's Money" and the Discovery Channel documentary "The 70's: When Decades Attack." He is currently working on a book: "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals `Think." Evan's blog is SayetRight.Blogspot.com.


Of course, this is an impartial, unbiased writer of note. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 04:55 am
There is nothing wrong about being openly biased as this writer, speaker and pundit so clearly shows. It also shows what I have been doing wrong, I am a writer, a speaker and a Punjabi, no wonder I get no push in the press.

I do love all the faceless theys he sets up and then knocks down. They argued ..blah blah.., whack. Good fun, though.

An interesting look into a mind which thinks his enemies have perverse thoughts.

Joe(Now I can remove this turban)Nation
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 05:01 am
The Dems in Congress voted for the war after being lied toBush had it all figured out before hand.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 05:06 am
Get ready, Farmerman, they are going to 'xplain to you again the difference between a lie and an untruth.


Joe(Bless me, Father, I spoke an untruth, Ah,well that is not a sin)Nation
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 06:26 am
Re: Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq
Evan Sayet wrote:
First they argued that it was "morally wrong" to remove the leader of a sovereign nation.

Strawman. Nobody made this argument.

Evan Sayet wrote:
When that argument failed to gain traction, the line became that the President could not act without Congressional approval.

Strawman. Nobody made this argument.

Evan Sayet wrote:
When the President gained the overwhelming approval of the Congress, the tack changed to a demand for United Nations' authority.

Strawman. It was the Bush administration that sought a UN mandate.

Evan Sayet wrote:
When the Security Council came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition, the strategy changed once again, with the left suddenly screaming that America cannot go to war unless it faced an "imminent threat of attack."

A falsehood and a strawman. The UNSC never "came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition." There is no UNSC resolution that authorized the invasion, and we're still waiting for Bush's promised vote in the UNSC on authorization. And nobody argued that the US can only go to war unless faced with an imminent threat of attack. Instead, it can only preemptively invade a sovereign nation if faced with an imminent threat.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 06:52 am
Quote:
All of these efforts, of course, were disingenuous. Clearly, if the Democrats truly believed it was "wrong" to remove the leader of a sovereign nation they would have been marching in the streets screaming "No Blood For Sex" when the previous president launched wars against Bosnia and Kosovo to remove from power the sovereign leader, Slobodan Milosevic.


This particular statement is a complete revision of history.
The interventions in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo(1998) were not launched to remove Milosevic from power. US troops were sent to Bosnia in Dec of 1995 under NATO command with a UN resolution after the Dayton Peace accords. The intervention in Kosovo was again a NATO operation and the intent was not to remove Milosevic from power but to prevent the same bloodshed that had occurred in Bosnia from 1992-1995.

Milosevic was not removed from power until he was voted out by the Serbs themselves in 2000. In 2001, he was turned over to the World court by Serbia for alleged crimes against humanity . Not only was there no claim before the 2 interventions to remove a foreign leader but no leader was removed by US or foreign troops.

http://www.explore-biography.com/political_figures/S/Slobodan_Milosevic.html
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 07:44 am
Bravo

This author is my kinda guy........

I particularly cheer for the conclusion:

It is easy to understand where the sympathies of Democrats lie and why they supported the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo but not those that liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq and have offered the hope of freedom throughout the Middle East and beyond. In the former, victory meant protecting and strengthening a non-Western culture - the Islamists -- while victory in the latter meant the further spread of such "Western" values as freedom and democracy at the expense of such "diverse cultural practices" as oppression, mass murder, and terrorism."

This is the reality of today.......take off your blinders guys.

Joe wrote:

A falsehood and a strawman. The UNSC never "came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition."

This is the UN SC Vote referenced by the author......

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United Nations Security Council on Friday approved a resolution that demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The vote is in line with U.S. efforts to win international backing for stripping Saddam Hussein of such weapons.

The resolution passed unanimously, after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber.

"How this crisis is resolved will affect greatly the course of peace and security in the region and the world," Annan said after the vote. "I commend the council for acting today with purpose and resolve."

The author implies that the first SC vote authorized the war which is not quite true but neither is your statement that there was no unanimous SC vote in favor of the coalition. The return of the inspectors was viewed as the "first step" for full authorization for the war when in fact it was not necessary because all the previous resolutions threatened "serious consequences" if they were not complied with. How many times must you knock the chip off the shoulder of a bully before it becomes essential to take action?
All your talk about legality is a smokescreen for not having the guts to take action against a murderer.
It is the same smokescreen used today by Mayors and DAs of cities who don't have the guts to deal with Gangs and the mass of thugs and potential terrorists pouring across our borders at this very moment.

If you don't have the guts to act.....move aside. Innocent people are being killed because of your inaction and the same was true when Saddam was in power.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 07:51 am
rayban1 wrote:
Bravo

This author is my kinda guy........



A former communications director for Bush that is fast and loose with facts is your kind of guy? Somehow I am not suprised.


The UN resolution you reference ray says not ONE thing about being "in favor of a coalition."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 08:16 am
rayban1 wrote:
Joe wrote:

A falsehood and a strawman. The UNSC never "came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition."

This is the UN SC Vote referenced by the author......

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United Nations Security Council on Friday approved a resolution that demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The vote is in line with U.S. efforts to win international backing for stripping Saddam Hussein of such weapons.

The resolution passed unanimously, after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber.

You attempt to transform a resolution in favor of continued inspections into a resolution in favor of the coalition (which was opposed to continued inspections)? That's true Bushian logic.

rayban1 wrote:
The author implies that the first SC vote authorized the war which is not quite true but neither is your statement that there was no unanimous SC vote in favor of the coalition.

See above.

rayban1 wrote:
The return of the inspectors was viewed as the "first step" for full authorization for the war when in fact it was not necessary because all the previous resolutions threatened "serious consequences" if they were not complied with.

No doubt you're referring to UNSC resolution 1441. I'll give you a moment to look at the resolution and then tell me where it authorizes an invasion.

rayban1 wrote:
How many times must you knock the chip off the shoulder of a bully before it becomes essential to take action?
All your talk about legality is a smokescreen for not having the guts to take action against a murderer.
It is the same smokescreen used today by Mayors and DAs of cities who don't have the guts to deal with Gangs and the mass of thugs and potential terrorists pouring across our borders at this very moment.

Better zip up, rayban, your macho is hanging out.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:11 am
Re: Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq
joefromchicago wrote:

The UNSC never "came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition." There is no UNSC resolution that authorized the invasion, and we're still waiting for Bush's promised vote in the UNSC on authorization. And nobody argued that the US can only go to war unless faced with an imminent threat of attack. Instead, it can only preemptively invade a sovereign nation if faced with an imminent threat.


There was no question of a "threat"; we'd already been attacked.


I keep hearing this pinko mantra about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; somehow or other it rings totally hollow.

In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:

http://homepage.mac.com/macint0sh/1/pict/amos/amos.jpg

Annan and staff...

Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001. The NK government in all likelihood will not survive this year.

Then there's the case of 9-11. The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm

http://thexreport.com/alani14.jpg

Then there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Thus it should surprise nobody that the first cases of anthrax turned up in neighborhoods where the 9-11 hijackers lived. The odds against that if there were no connection to the 9-11 hijackers are astronomical.

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.

In an ideal world we should have gone after Iraq the day after 9-11; the fact that our military was not up to that at the time is the fault of the previous administration, and not of George Bush.

Other than that, the idea of turning any part of our security decisions over to Kofi Anan, Andrew H. Brown, George Stevens and the rest of the UN characters along with Jock Shirrac and other eurotrash "leaders" who were taking oil4food money from Saddam Hussein at the time strikes me as worse than idiotic; more like suicidal.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:15 am
I'd like to see the original of this to see if it was written in crayon. surely the author is not allowed sharp objects....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:18 am
parados wrote:
[
This particular statement is a complete revision of history.
The interventions in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo(1998) were not launched to remove Milosevic from power. US troops were sent to Bosnia in Dec of 1995 under NATO command with a UN resolution after the Dayton Peace accords. The intervention in Kosovo was again a NATO operation and the intent was not to remove Milosevic from power but to prevent the same bloodshed that had occurred in Bosnia from 1992-1995.


The only bloodshed going on at the time was Serbian blood being shed in an effort to protect an ancient province of theirs and all of the non-albanian people in it from a narco-terrorist organization (KLA) which was and is basically a branch of AlQuaeda. The only people who've been practicing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo over the last 60 years are albanians.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:20 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
I'd like to see the original of this to see if it was written in crayon. surely the author is not allowed sharp objects....


In England, nobody's going to be allowed to own sharp objects much longer...

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=52554&highlight=
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:21 am
Joe wrote:


Better zip up, rayban, your macho is hanging out.

Laughing Something that is sorely lacking in a "circle jerk" of multiculturalist wimps.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:26 am
re the above link: obviously you either can't or haven't read it.

re ethnic cleansing in Kosovo: I've always thought that you are either one of these erbian terrorists yourself or at least one of their strongest supporters.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:31 am
gungasnake wrote:
parados wrote:
[
This particular statement is a complete revision of history.
The interventions in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo(1998) were not launched to remove Milosevic from power. US troops were sent to Bosnia in Dec of 1995 under NATO command with a UN resolution after the Dayton Peace accords. The intervention in Kosovo was again a NATO operation and the intent was not to remove Milosevic from power but to prevent the same bloodshed that had occurred in Bosnia from 1992-1995.


The only bloodshed going on at the time was Serbian blood being shed in an effort to protect an ancient province of theirs and all of the non-albanian people in it from a narco-terrorist organization (KLA) which was and is basically a branch of AlQuaeda. The only people who've been practicing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo over the last 60 years are albanians.


I notice you didn't address any of the items I pointed out to be FALSE.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:40 am
parados wrote:


I notice you didn't address any of the items I pointed out to be FALSE.


They didn't strike me as any better than the item I DID reply to. There might not have been any sort of an official DNC organ taking the positions noted but there WERE any number of demokkkrats jumping up and down making those kinds of noises at the time and it does have an effect.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:41 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
re the above link: obviously you either can't or haven't read it.



Was this meant for me and, if so, which link?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 09:46 am
Re: Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq
gungasnake wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:

The UNSC never "came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition." There is no UNSC resolution that authorized the invasion, and we're still waiting for Bush's promised vote in the UNSC on authorization. And nobody argued that the US can only go to war unless faced with an imminent threat of attack. Instead, it can only preemptively invade a sovereign nation if faced with an imminent threat.


There was no question of a "threat"; we'd already been attacked.

Iraq did not attack the US. Just BS from you.

Quote:

I keep hearing this pinko mantra about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; somehow or other it rings totally hollow.


The truth does seem hollow to you.

Quote:
In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:

Your evidence of this is where? Or is "appears" the operative word in this statement? "appears" being short hand for "I pulled it out of my butt."

Quote:

Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001. The NK government in all likelihood will not survive this year.
I guess we can only wait and see how this "adult" prediction turns out.. I predict that Kim will still be in power in NK after Bush leaves office.
Quote:

Then there's the case of 9-11. The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:
LOL. the Czech government pulled back from this story years ago. It is only in the deluded minds of RWers that they still support it.

Quote:

Then there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.
I had a good laugh at this one. The anthrax was pretty clearly tracked by the FBI to US facilities based on its type and how it was weaponized.

Quote:

Thus it should surprise nobody that the first cases of anthrax turned up in neighborhoods where the 9-11 hijackers lived. The odds against that if there were no connection to the 9-11 hijackers are astronomical.

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.
No such thing as a "lifetime supply" since anthrax deterioates over time. Weaponized the spores last even less time. Maybe 10 years at most.
Quote:

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.

In an ideal world we should have gone after Iraq the day after 9-11; the fact that our military was not up to that at the time is the fault of the previous administration, and not of George Bush.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11... It doesn't matter how many times you make your statements, the facts will always remain the same.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 08:23:08