Bosnia verses Iraq

[CA Fuzz]

I have been reading with some interest the opinions of Jacobie, DCLaw, Zendic, and Norm regarding the various conflicts that the United States has been involved in within the last 15 to 20 years.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like DC was against our involvement in Bosnia, but for our involvement in Iraq. If this is in fact a correct assumption, can you explain this? Is this a Clinton verses Bush argument or a keeping verses ignoring a tyrant argument?

I was personally for our involvement in Bosnia. Milosec was a genocidal tyrant on the scale of Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot. He needed to be removed before he ordered the execution of others. Had we stood up and acted like leaders 60 years ago, we might have been able to stop the killing of 6-10 million Jews and other people that Hitler perpetrated.

At first I had my reservations about Iraq. Although I believe the reason that Bush gave as the "weapons of mass destruction" was incorrect, Saddam's removal was important not only for the continued flow of oil from the Gulf (we need oil, get over it), but for the minority Kurds and other smaller factions in Iraq that were being terrorized and executed on a daily basis.

[cecilVA]

I have been reading with some interest the opinions of Jacobie, DCLaw, Zendic, and Norm regarding the various conflicts that the United States has been involved in within the last 15 to 20 years.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like DC was against our involvement in Bosnia, but for our involvement in Iraq. If this is in fact a correct assumption, can you explain this? Is this a Clinton verses Bush argument or a keeping verses ignoring a tyrant argument?

I was personally for our involvement in Bosnia. Milosec was a genocidal tyrant on the scale of Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot. He needed to be removed before he ordered the execution of others. Had we stood up and acted like leaders 60 years ago, we might have been able to stop the killing of 6-10 million Jews and other people that Hitler perpetrated.

At first I had my reservations about Iraq. Although I believe the reason that Bush gave as the "weapons of mass destruction" was incorrect, Saddam's removal was important not only for the continued flow of oil from the Gulf (we need oil, get over it), but for the minority Kurds and other smaller factions in Iraq that were being terrorized and executed on a daily basis.

I think I agree with everything you just said. Your comment about Bush vs. Clinton is why I opened the earlier thread on this topic. Because I see a lot of people who are calling Bush a Hitler for going into Iraq but weren't saying a darn thing about Bosnia. And IMO they are similar situations. Maybe 9/11 is a reason for the change in opinion....

And yes, people are darn right when they say oil plays a part in this. But its not some Bush conspiracy to control all of the oil in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the US even gets most of its oil from the middle east, it comes from South America. But if you have a madman sitting on top of some of the largest oil fields in the world and if so desired can completely disrupt the oil supply to the world, then yes that should be cause for concern.