Did you support American intervention in the Balkans in the 1990's, and why?

Question

Bonus questions!:

If you supported American intervention then, do you support it in Iraq or Afghanistan now? Why or why not?

If you didn't support it then, and don't support American interventions now, have you protested one more than the other? Why?

The U.S. has killed more Iraqis than Hussein could have dreamed? Are you sure? He killed 100,000 in one campaign.

No, Hussein Killed 100,000 of his own Kurdish civilians in the 1988 Operation Anfal, according to Amnesty International.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/mde14.htm

It's highly unlikely that the U.S. has killed nearly that many. The highest reasonable estimate, given by the Iraq Body Count project, is around 44,000- and many of those deaths may not be attributable to U.S. military forces.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Answer 1

I supported the Balkans campaign. From an idealistic point of view, it was America at its best - moving in to help the helpless. From a more practical point of view, while it was unnecesary for us to get involved, it was a low risk/high reward endeavor.

I supported the idea of going into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban & Al Qaeda, but we completely mismanaged it. Too many critical operations were handed over to Afghan warlords & the government was handed over to a weak pro-oil industry shill. Ultimately though, the operation was important to our national security.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq, and the execution of the war even more so. It was unnecesary and extremely risky for the US. Now we're there an in a position where we can't leave because it would embolden our enemies. It is a disaster on all fronts.

Answer 2

the Balkans- Yes, I supported it; Ethnic cleansing was going on.
Afghanistan- I think going in to get Osama Binladen was definately in order, but that's not what we did.
Iraq- don't get me started about the continually morphing justification for invading them.First it was because they had WMD(which the downing street memos revealed the administration KNEW was a lie), then when no WMDs were found, it was because Saddam was torturing and/or killing his own people(the US has killed way more Iraqis than Saddam could have ever dreamed of), and when he was found weakly hiding in a spider-hole, the biggest lie of all-that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
We need to get out of Iraq ASAFP, and send money to repair all of the infrastructure damage we've caused (the insurgents wouldn't be planting IEDs everywhere if the US wasn't there; in fact obviously our occupation is what is causing the insurgency!)
BTW- the whole "We're fightin' em there so we don't have to fight em here!" theory is total BS, The occupation is a relative recruiting factor for the insurgency!

"100,000 dead in one campaign" - Those were not Iraqis, those were Kuwaitis.
According to John Hopkins University as of October 2004, the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the occupation of Iraq exceded 100,000. That was in 2004!!! Gee, I wonder how much higher it has gone since then?
I'm not trying to debate who's worse between Bush & Saddam; however, invading Iraq on the premise that Saddam was killing Iraqis, and then causing more deaths than he did is retarded.
The USA is not the worlds police!

Answer 3

Yes I supported the Balkan intervention ,also the recent activities in Afghanistan and Iraq have my support as well. what is a little troubling is that we can not fully incorporate these states into the "Great American Union" but I suppose a Pro American regime in these states is acceptable for the moment

Answer 4

Oh goody, I love bonus questions. I just wish I had a good answer. To be honest I wasn't paying very much attention back then. I remember Clinton telling us the troops would be home by Christmas. If I'm not mistaken, they are still there aren't they?

Answer 5

No.

The EU and/or NATO had sufficient armies to take care of the Balkans without US intervention or only token support thru NATO.