Balkans vs. Iraq

[cecilVA]

I'm a new member on here and I've noticed there are quite a few varying political opinions among the members. With that in mind I was hoping to see if I could get some answers to a question I've had. I'm not sure if this has already been covered in previous posts or not.

Why are democrats criticizing George Bush for going into Iraq when Bill Clinton did the same thing with Bosnia and Kosovo? Bill Clinton saw there was genocide running rampant and started the Air War in Kosovo (with General Wesley Clark leading it as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO) without any UN approval. Now the conservatives balked at this at the time, but the backlash was NOWHERE near what you are seeing for the Iraq war. There were no protests in the streets, the Hollywood elite were keeping their mouths shut (in fact Sheryl Crow went to entertain the troops over there) yet when a similar circumstance happens in Iraq, people just go nuts. Now in my opinion that is pretty hypocritical. In fact I debated with a big Clinton supporter about this. You know what his response was? He said all the gassing and deaths in Iraq wasn't genocide so it was different. I was literally speechless.

I'm not trying to start any kind of flame war, but I would just like to see responses in order to get a better understanding. If people hate GWB and thats why they didn't speak about the Balkans then fine, just say so.

[oscarmitre]

I think - and I could well stand to be corrected - that President Clinton was up front about NATO going into the Balkans. I think it was done to stop the genocide.

I believe that the current US administration used the ruse of looking for weapons of mass destruction to get into Iraq to control its oil. Now that those weapons haven't been found there seems to be an attempt at a post facto justification. This justification is that it was done for humanitarian reasons.

The difference is that there is an air of deceit about the current administration's actions and that's what irks me for one.

[jaunt10]

it may also be because young service men and women are dying in droves which will no doubt hit the heart of America and in fact has.

[ngcsubutterbar]

my father was involved with MI in the balkans. We had a reason to go there, We had backing to go there. That was a human rights issue that we responded to. We weren't even being hinted to as being wrong there. Iraq is a human rights issue that we 'didn't' respond to. Africa right now is starting to spout genocide again.

[Norm357]

I believe that the current US administration used the ruse of looking for weapons of mass destruction to get into Iraq to control its oil.

If we were going to war for oil, we would have invaded central and south america. Lots of oil there and it would have been a lot easier.

[ngcsubutterbar]

aye, but we don't have a ready excuse to do so do we

[Norm357]

Now saying that is as silly as saying we went to war for oil!

[EX_529]

Now saying that is as silly as saying we went to war for oil!

Of course we did - Gulf I especially. Since when has Kuwait ever been an allie (can you say NEVER)

[Norm357]

Of course we did - Gulf I especially. Since when has Kuwait ever been an allie (can you say NEVER)

RE GW1 I was there and saw what saddams troops did to Kuwait. Do not preach to me on the Gulf War.

[oscarmitre]

If we were going to war for oil, we would have invaded central and south america. Lots of oil there and it would have been a lot easier.

If the oil is available through normal trading why invade? It would be interesting to see what would happen if Chavez in Venezuala said that he would no longer supply oil to US companies (highly unlikely and pretty damn stupid but this is only hypothetical). What would be the administration's reaction? Would they invade? Would they try to force Chavez out by fomenting internal strife in the country? Who knows and as I say it's hypothetical. Let's not forget though that Iraq has more oil than anyone else. Ensuring that oil is available is vitally important to every industrialised nation.

As an aside my country is in the process of shafting East Timor on its oil and gas. During the heady days of new independence we told the new East Timor government that we would chuck out the deal we had with the Indonesians who previously owned East Timor and do a new deal with the brand new country. We are now in the process of screwing the East Timorese on the deal. I don't want anyone to think I'm getting all high and mighty here. Our government is busy doing over those poor b*****ds when they need the revenue to rebuild their shattered country. Charming.

I think energy politics is going to be a huge issue in the near future for the whole of the world. We could see a lot more of the sort of action that the US has taken in Iraq. There are precedents, the British did it for hundreds of years.

I responded to an interesting question with my own views on the question as posed. I wonder if the administration had been up front about the reasons for going in (assuming my hypothesis is valid just for the sake of argument here) that many Americans would feel well at least they told us the real reason. So President Bush stands up and says, "yep we went in for the oil. The side benefit was getting rid of Saddam and we also confirmed that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Next question?" You can bet that a few other countries around the world would secretly approve, despite gasps of horror and their public protestations.

You know as I think about this I can almost sympathise - and I'm not being sarcastic. If oil wasn't available to western industrialised nations (mine included) then it would be the end of our civilisations. I don't think that's too strong a statement. The thought of a shortage of oil must keep politicians awake at night.

An interesting, thought provoking question - interesting and informative responses and (as yet) no flaming.

[Norm357]

[QUOTE=oscarmitre]If the oil is available through normal trading why invade? It would be interesting to see what would happen if Chavez in Venezuala said that he would no longer supply oil to US companies (highly unlikely and pretty damn stupid but this is only hypothetical). What would be the administration's reaction? Would they invade? Would they try to force Chavez out by fomenting internal strife in the country? Who knows and as I say it's hypothetical. Let's not forget though that Iraq has more oil than anyone else. Ensuring that oil is available is vitally important to every industrialised nation.

QUOTE]


That is an interesting question. If there was a coup in Venezuala and the "commies" took over, refusing to sell oil to the U.S. would we invade? I dunno. Let me think on it and get back to you.

[oscarmitre]

The Bush Administration is not stupid enough to steal the oil.

My point was that it had to be made available for normal trading, not for pillage.

As I said in my post, this has gone on for centuries. The English under Queen Elizabeth I used their maritime forces to force "free" trade on those parts of the world that they chose. The mercantile companies had bigger armies and navies than the government. Check the British East India Company and its escapades in India and the actions of the government that facilitated and protected its interests. Makes the Bush Administration look like the Salvation Army by comparison.

Britain didn't flog the French in Canada because they wanted to liberate the First Nations people - it was about trade. The Hudson's Bay Company had a military presence as big as if not bigger than the British East India Company.

Trying to get back on thread. Did the UN authorise the attack on Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing? Or did they go in without authorisation?

As for problems in Africa and elsewhere, you're right it's not the concern of the US. It is rightly the concern of the UN and yes they are a flawed organisation that needs a radical ovehaul but is too important to be written off or ignored.

[ngcsubutterbar]

If OPEC wanted to maime our economy, they'd put an oil embargo on us. We would be freaked. In the short and the mid-term.


Btw, its already been shown that Iraq asked the US if they'd react to the invasion of kuwait, what did the us say? Something to the effect that 'we have no opinion on that subject'



quote-
And as for Africa, that's not America's problem any more than the Balkan conflict was. (And I and many others opposed US troops being sent there as well as to Somalia.)
----


then what freaking business do we have in Iraq?

Also, the most idiotic thing someone could do after taking over iraq, would be to pump and export oil immediatly. That leads to the same case as to why we helped Kuwait in the first place. What they would do is set up American businesses to oversea the building of iraqi infrasctructure and give ourselves better access to it than what we would of had if we just bought it after iraq had redone their oil industry on their own. We already did this in Panama with the canal and the canal zone. I lived in Panama, I saw personally what is going to happen in Iraq.

[ngcsubutterbar]

Then we built their country up into the most stable and prosperous nation in Central America.
------------


stop right there, you have no freaking clue about Panama. You may about other things, but not this.


BTW, you just stated what I was trying to. Went went in there, 'liberated' them, set up their economy, profitted hugely from it for about 80 or so years, and left when it was no longer usable by most modern ships. Carter may have made an appeasement to stop bloodshed when he signed that treaty, but as of now, the canal cannot be used by about half of the fleet, merchant and military. Its to small, and cannot be widened without rebuilding it. It cannot be rebuilt without some other major country moving in to do so. When we left in 99 we left with the infrastruture in place to do this if we wanted to. There is no way there will ever be another heavy US presence in Panama again (at the time leading up to Just Cause, Panama had the heaviest US military force outside of the continental US.) That infrascture is gone, that support needed by the people and by their government is gone. It is still a developing third world country. Panama will never have heavy investment into its country again. It relied on US spending by the military, and more importantly their family members. The only US presence there now are empty buildings, slowly being redone for the upper class. BTW, like most third world countries. You're either well off or you're dirt poor.

[ngcsubutterbar]

Anyhow, like I have said before. Stability will be increased in Iraq, and therefore in the rest of that region. It will take a while but it will happen. That is a good thing. My concern is are we going to leave them to fail like we have done so before when we no longer rely so heavily on oil, say in the next 80 or so years.