Is the prevention of "ethnic cleansing" a legitimate use of american military?

Question

Does it matter which party the president is?

I'm thinking of Clinton in Bosnia, and Bush in Iraq.

Answer 1

"Ethnic cleasing" was the official term used by the U.N. to prevent the use of the word "Genocide". The use of military force to stop this ethnic cleansing is a valid reason. It was used in World War 2 to stop the Nazi's and in the former Yugoslovia (Bosnia) for the same reason. If you don't believe that ethnic cleansing wasn't happening in Iraq, ask the Kurds what was happening in Northern Iraq.

Answer 2

We should have gone to the middle east many many years ago when they were committing genocide against the Kurds. I'm talking back in the 60's or 70's.
As for Bosnia, that was not Ethnic Cleansing. Clinton had absolutely no business bombing Kosovo. Those people love the United States and are perplexed to this day that we would even think of doing anything like that to them. They were simply protecting their land from terrorists. Clinton went there simply to distract the public eye from Miss Lewinsky.
As far as using the American Military to prevent evil, it's a very very very good idea. Had we not left Viet Nam when we did there would be about 2 1/2 to 3 million more people alive today that were persecuted, tortured, and murdered by the communists. If you get a chance, watch the movie "The Killing Fields". I have worked with some of the Cambodians who fled as refugees and were granted asylum in the US.
If we leave Iraq before victory is secured, it will mean the death of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqis.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 3

I think it is, but it is somewhat dependent upon the timing. I mean that if there are other factors involved, other world events or threats to our nation, then it is possible that the prevention of ethnic cleansing would not be feasible in order to achieve our more pressing goals as a nation. I know this sounds a bit callous, but if our nation is at risk, then we may not be able to solve serious problems in other areas. For instance, if you are referring to ethnic cleansing under the Hussein regime in Iraq, then it could be argued that we were already involved in Afghanistan, and therefor we should not have attempted to battle on two fronts...especially when the second front posed no threat to us as a nation. Every instance must be taken individually. There is no set answer to when we should enter into a military conflict. And no, it makes no difference what party the President is in regard to this question.

Answer 4

Definitely. Ethic cleaning was a cause for WW2 and if any chance that will happen again like the first Gulf War. The military of the US and the United Nations will consider peace keeping actions.

Answer 5

Generally speaking, when someone starts ethnically cleansing, it's a symptom of a general problem, which will grow.

For example, Japanese ethnic cleansing in China followed by "What are all those Japanese dive bombers doing in Hawaii?"

You act because it's only going to get worse if you don't.

Answer 6

It's legitimate, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. No one else will set up to the challenge, including the extremely corrupt UN, so it's usually up to us. We stopped Hitler for the Holocaust. It's therefore OK to stop Saddam from gassing the Kurds or Iranians or for all the ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia to shoot each other all the time.

Answer 7

Bosnia was legit.....you can probably still check news stories and news footage about the atrocities...........
Iraq is not legit, by any measure...........no one is being saved except Bush.....we don't change presidents in the middle of a war...(that was his re-election.)..._........even one that had no purpose..I don't think even oil as Alan Greenspan says.....please remember the 911 terrorists came from Saudi not Iraq

Answer 8

looks to me he grew to become into in very lots the comparable difficulty on 9/11, 2001. you comprehend, the day HIS boys flew some intense jacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon! to boot, he grew to become right into a "image of the wonderful Jihad!"whose' dying grew to become right into a intense blow to Al Qaida. solid riddance to undesirable rubbish and that i'm hoping his physique landed on some thing that violates Sharia!

Answer 9

only when politically expedient

clinton bombed serbia the day monica lewinsky testified before congress

unfortunately for the rwandans no one was scheduled to testify during thier genocide

bush invaded iraq after claiming they had nukes, pure and simple, of course the real reason is the "oil sharing" deal he is waiting for the iraqi parlament to sign that awards Exxon and BP the development rights to all future oil finds in iraq.

are any of those legitimate?

way more people have died in darfur than by Saddam, why do we not stop that war?

oh i know, china already bought the rights to that oil!

Answer 10

If your ethnicity was the one being "cleansed" i bet you would think it was a legitimate use. wouldn't you?