Democrats only...Help me understand this...?

Question

Most Dems are against the war in Iraq but were for Clinton's decision to send troops to Kosovo. If you take WMD's out of the equation, Saddam was still committing genocide on the Kurdish population of Iraq with Chemical/Biolocial weapons. In Kosovo, Slobodan Milosovic was committing genocide. How can you have supported Clinton's decision to send troops to Kosovo to stop genocide but then say that without the presence of WMD's we had no reason to send troops into Iraq? Please explain why it was OK in one instance and not in another?

Answer 1

Mr Clinton stated that the reason he was sending troops was because Milosevic was committing genocide. He was right and it was stopped. Mr. Bush claimed he was sending troops because Saddam had WMD's, was starting a nuclear weapon program, had ties to AL Quada and was involved in 9-11. All those things were wrong and now thousands of people are dead and the killing continues. If Mr. Bush would have stated he was sending troops because Saddam was committing genocide, then he would have been right, also. That's the difference: being right vrs. being wrong.

Answer 2

Kosovo was not a US mission, it was a UN mission and had the support of the entire world. Bush went against the entire world when he invaded Iraq based only on flimsy evidence. In Iraq, Saddam was a maniac nut case who had killed his own people, but that was many years ago and he was under control because the first gulf war crippled his army and the sanctions and UN inspections were keeping him under control. You may argue the value of the UN inspections, but, in the end, there were no WMDs, were there?. So, basically, without the WMDs, there was no reason to invade Iraq because Saddam was a paper tiger who was under control. Also, Iraq is costing us $200 Billion per year just to maintain the current level of chaos. Kosovo never came anywhere near being such a quagmire. Now Bush says Iraq if for the war on terror, but really we are just convincing more nut cases to become terrorists because of we are occupying a muslim country. I could go on....

Answer 3

I remain against the war, although an Independent, and supported sending troops to Kosovo. I was also against the genocide, however I was also against the genocide of the Kurds occurring under Regan and George I's Reign of Error.

George II presented only the WMDs as his reasoning, once he failed to establish a non-existent link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, no matter how many times he sent members of the intelligence community back to find one. And it was something he was working on from the time he first became president.

In Iraq, economic sanctions were working and deserved the opportunity to do their job. Iraq's fate was sealed, however, when they announced their decision to convert their pricing to the ptero-euro, which would have caused an economic collapse in the US.

Answer 4

Bush is in Iraq for the same reason Clinton was in Kosovo and it has absolutely nothing to do with genocide. It had to do with stability in the region and the consistent flow of oil out of the middle East. Left unattended, Kosovo would have spilled over into a much bigger battle affecting pipelines and shipping in the Mediterranean.

Answer 5

Alright, this is the reasoning, I hope you were actually wondering.
In Kosovo the UN was taking action, not the US. It was not going to become our responsibility to build their governemt, various European countries would have helped them do that. It's not that (most) democrats feel that it is wrong to stop genocide. It's that by deposing the only form of government most iraqi's have known, and not getting overwhelming support from it's neighbors, we took on a project that we are unable to finish. Governments are not one size fits all, they need to be tailored, and we cannot do that for iraqi's. And middle east experts knew, and told us that before we went there, and we still did. It's irresponsible.
Kosovo did not face the problems that Iraq did. Obvious both in hindsight and at the time.

Answer 6

I am answering because I voted for Kerry since we were both in Cambodia about the same time, for just about the same reason. There is genocide going on in many countries daily especially on the African Continent, why aren't we sending troops there if Genocide is the reason for our response? Energy sources is the real reason, Kosovo has a huge coal deposit that needs protection, not people.

Answer 7

The level of U.S. commitment to Kosovo was proportional to the threat. In the case of Iraq, our war-mongering leader has foolishly over-committed us to a war without end.

Remember that the existance of WMD's was an excuse to help Bush and his cronies execute his crooked plans. Bush had manufactured a reason to go to war, can you say the same thing about Clinton and Kosovo? Time to wake up and smell the corrupt Bush/Oil Industry collusion!

Answer 8

First the Kurds were already an independent democracy before Iraqi freedom. they controlled about 25% of the territory under our no fly. Second losses and potential losses were strictly controlled at Kosovo at cost to the humanitarian mission. Our losses will eventually exceed 9-11. But mostly by using 9/11 to justify the invasion Bush turned it into a victory for Al Quaida. A terrorist always tries to get you to attack others so that your enemies multiply. By saying 9/11 changed everything Bush credit ted Al Qaida with this invasion. BTW I believe despite the violence in the long run Iraqis will benefit from Iraqi freedom. Unfortunately Bush had to get a lot of Americans killed and much needed money spent to no benefit to the US.

Answer 9

the krieg, please know your history before you post a question like this. Saddam used the chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds while Bush Sr. was in office, not in a prelude to this war. This was a UNILATERAL invasion of another country, a "preemptive strike", a tactic never before used by any country and also against several treaties signed by the US.

Kosovo was a NATO action and the US under Clinton responded to a NATO request for troops to go into Kosovo. It was not a unilateral action.

Answer 10

I think the big concern among everyone, regardless of party affiliation, is that we were mislead regarding the reasons the troops were sent there in the first place. WMD's was just one excuse, another was for the "freedom" of the Iraqi people. Originally, I think it was somehow construed as a response to 9/11 and when it was clear we weren't buying that one, Bush and his people came up with the other reasons. I think the whole thing is pretty shady, and I think our soldiers have died for a cause that is not apparent to most of us. Yes, Saddam is a bad guy who has done a lot of bad things...but that's not why we were told we were going in there. It's a great question to ask, and thank you for not asking it in such a way that demeans or offends democrats for their beliefs.