Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The European Hypocrisy: Bosnia Vs. Iraq  
User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Does anyone else find it more than slightly amusing that the Europeans continue to bash Bush for invading Iraq and disposing of Hussein? After all, it was the countries of Europe that did the exact same thing in the mid-90s in Bosnia and Serbia... Not only that, but we agreed to be an active participant in the war to dispose of Milosevic after pressure from the European Community. Most nations returned the favor by supporting us in the war in Iraq, but the main ringleaders in begging the US to enter the Bosnian conflict stood us up, after our sacrifice for their cause in the Balkan war.

The two wars were fought over the same thing...disposing of genocidal dictators. The WMD will be found...later. Europe takes pride in the disposing of Milosevic, and Bush gets shit on for disposing of Hussein.

War for oil my ass. This is coming from a country whose oil profits allowed Saddam to build luxurious mansions at the expense of nearly creating famine in his own people. Then again, I guess since TotalFinaElf didnt have oil contracts with Bosnia, it is okay to go on in.

Dont tell me one of these situations are much different from the other, because they really arent. Two dictators who killed many, many people are out of power, and some of you act as if George Bush had just nuked an orphanage.



[Edited 2003-08-11 17:45:40]


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

As for the war in Bosnia, it is true that the Europeans should be ashamed about their incapacity to fix this situation by themselves. And by the way they run their foreign and military policies, it looks as if Europeans still don't get it.

Had Bush said "we just want to dispose of a genocidal dictator", then some other questions would have been raised, such as:
  • Why did the US supported him in the first place, even though he was a known dictator?

  • Why him, and not all the other dictators in the world?





  • Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
    User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

    The two wars were fought over the same thing...disposing of genocidal
    dictators.


    NO! The Iraq war was fought because the US and UK said he had WMDs.
    That's certainly the reason why parliament in the UK allowed the war. While
    getting rid of Saddam (and the oil!) were important, the war was primarily
    fought because it was said he had WMDs.


    User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13256 posts, RR: 77
    Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1419 times:

    No one, in either the US or EU, came out of the early non-intervention in the former Yugoslavia looking good.
    But contary to what is probably popular belief, most troops on the ground in this region are European, and they happen to be the ones who have nabbed all the war criminals actively caught so far, (as opposed to the ones being handed over since the regime fell).
    However, many objections to Iraq were that it was more trouble in a volatile region, already a breeding ground for terrorists, as we've seen.
    However, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia threatened to spill over into neighboring countries, that was a primary motivation for finally dealing with Slobbo and his thugs, after years of carrot and stick had failed.
    The US can sneer all it likes at 'world courts', but the fact is, the prime motivator of the slaughter out there,is on trial, and recently his earlier gusto has gone, he cuts a pathetic figure and is more of a warning to like minded leaders elsewhere than Saddam on the run is.
    US and other troops are not very regularly coming home in boxes from the former Yugoslavia, unlike Iraq.



    User currently offlineDoorsToManual From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1413 times:

    we just want to dispose of a genocidal dictator

    Bush more or less implied this when speaking of "liberating Iraq", so the logical follow-up question from many was "oh, really? Why not let's "liberate" all the other nasty regimes in the world? Why didn't the US "liberate" Argentina from military dictatorship in the late 70s, instead of tacitly supporting a regime that was responsible for the deaths of around 30,000 innocent people?"

    THAT's why people are totally right to have their suspicions as to what the US's real motive in Iraq is. "Liberation" - my foot. The trouble for the US administration at the moment, is that the rest of the world, rather inconveniently for them, isn't buying the "evil doer" story as the main motive here.


    User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
    Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1383 times:

    Jcs17:

    "The two wars were fought over the same thing...disposing of genocidal dictators."

    Complete boll0cks! Go back to the now infamous State of the Union Speech. Check how many times Dubya actually talks about 'liberating the oppressed Iraqi people'. Check how many paragraphs and time he dedicates to Iraq's alleged WMD's. He wanted to fear the sh!t out of the American General Public, in his quest for General Support for his war. He could never have had the support he got if this was just about 'disposing a genocidal dictator'. Check Powell's also infamous speech at the UNSC. We didn't get any satellite images of what a horrible dictator Saddam was. Instead, the Entire World got to see some lousy Powerpoint-presentation on alleged Mobile Labs and iraqi military officers apparently talking about chemical weapons.

    "The WMD will be found...later."

    No, not later. NOW! The ENTIRE WORLD had to hear this Administration's pre-war assurances on WMD's and how big a threat they were to World Security. The UNSC was completely ignored because of this Administration's stance to go to war to take away this threat.

    "This is coming from a country whose oil profits allowed Saddam to build luxurious mansions at the expense of nearly creating famine in his own people."

    1) Which institution gave Saddam these oil revenues directly?
    2) Which countries at what institution opposed to giving Saddam these revenues without any form of control?
    3) Which country said it would use its veto in case the procedure mentioned under 1) would be altered?

    Once you know the answer to these 3 questions, you will know:

    a) this Iraq conflict isn't as simplistic as you describe.
    b) this Iraqi conflict did not start 2 years ago, but is the result of a much longer 'strategy' and foreign policies by many of the countries involved.
    c) this Iraqi conflict is completely different from the conflict in former Yugoslavia.

    Please, Jcs17, don't scale this conflict down to a 'good-guys vs bad-guys' thing. I wish it was that simple, but it isn't. And, sad enough, even the conflict in former Yugoslavia wasn't only about removing the Bad Guy. It took European countries far too long to get actually involved and many countries actually did get involved not because Slobo was such a bad guy, but merely to avoid a spreading of the problem to other regions.



    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
    User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
    Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

    US and other troops are not very regularly coming home in boxes from the former Yugoslavia, unlike Iraq.

    Oh, I see. So now we have to make sure there wont be any casualities before we enter a conflict. Gee, if that was the case we'd all be goose-stepping down Park Ave. and hailing Adolf Hitler.


    a) this Iraq conflict isn't as simplistic as you describe.
    b) this Iraqi conflict did not start 2 years ago, but is the result of a much longer 'strategy' and foreign policies by many of the countries involved.
    c) this Iraqi conflict is completely different from the conflict in former Yugoslavia.


    You might not have liked that Saddam was repeatedly violating many UN resolutions, but you certainly didnt do anything about it. France knew where the Oil for Food money went...they did nothing about it (TFE didnt want to lose oil contracts). And certainly we didnt do anything about it until Bush stepped up to the plate and demanded that Iraq comply with all UN resolutions against it. HE EVEN GAVE THEM FEW MONTHS TO COMPLY! If Saddam really cared about the Iraqi people, he wouldve complied. Once the deadline had passed, we had one option...and thankfully many countries agreed that this would be the best way of doing things. Dont call Bush a war-monger, when it was plainly clear that Saddam wanted war...

    Bush did not decide to go to war, Saddam did.



    America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
    User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1338 times:

    expense of nearly creating famine in his own people.
    ? who told you that ? Saddam was a brutal dictator but was smart enough to feed he people..

    the Europeans continue to bash Bush for invading Iraq
    Is it incovinient for you to see a growing number of Americans start to get pissed of by the constant bending of the truth by Bush & his neo conservatives, and not only the rest of the world ?

    Bush did not decide to go to war, Saddam did.
    Looking for a job in Ministry of Truth ? (G. Orwell 1984 ..)


    User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6057 posts, RR: 3
    Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1318 times:

    HA! Jcs17, you can't really believe that Dubya was holding back the tears, when he declared war. Because he wasn't - he couldn't wait to go on with it.

    You're forgetting a simple thing: Saddam ruled with terror. If he had declared that he no longer had any WMD's, and actually proved it (though I doubt that the coalition would ever believe it), he would face an uprising from the Kurds in the north as well as face a powerful enemy not too far away (as in: Iran). And he would have no means of controlling such an uprising, because all of it would have been destroyed.

    Saddam didn't want the war, Dubya wanted it - why else was he so busy in bypassing the UNSC? It wouldn't be because it would actually give the UNMOVIC more time to inspect & Iraq more time to destroy what it had.


    User currently offlineCharleslp From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 336 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

    The reason why the US (along with many "Western" nations) supported Saddam Hussein was to mainly prevent the spread of the Islamic Revolution in Iran to other countries. Practically EVERY WESTERN/INDUSTIRALIZED NATION supported Saddam Hussein one way or another; but his support faded away when he invaded Kuwait.

    User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 15
    Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1287 times:

    Charleslp, I agree with you. Western countries helped Saddam because of Iran.
    But in this case, we have to remember the role played by Jimmy Carter's administration in the arrival of the Islamist government in Iran.

    Now, about the difference between Bosnia and Irak: In Bosnia, the tropps had a mandate from the UN, making their presence LEGAL. What is sad (and unfortunately, it is partly the fault of President Mitterrand) their mandate wasn't clear and strong enough to establish peace.

    Teva



    Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
    User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
    Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1290 times:

    Jcs17:

    " You might not have liked that Saddam was repeatedly violating many UN resolutions, but you certainly didnt do anything about it."

    One thing was done on which all UNSC countries agreed: economic sanctions. A measure so severe it hasn't even been applied to Israel, which has repeatedly violated much more UN resolutions than Iraq (65 ! and counting..).

    " France knew where the Oil for Food money went...they did nothing about it (TFE didnt want to lose oil contracts)."

    Completely wrong! France, along with Germany (and numerous institutions like Unicef) tried on many occasions to have the Oil for Food program altered, as Saddam still did what he liked with large amounts of the oil revenues, while thousands of Iraqis were dying. It was the US/UK which always opposed, the US threatening to use their Veto if such a change was proposed at the UNSC.

    "And certainly we didnt do anything about it until Bush stepped up to the plate and demanded that Iraq comply with all UN resolutions against it."

    It certainly has been very nice of Mr Bush to demand Saddam to comply with UNSC resolutions. But it was up to the UNSC to decide whether Iraq needed to be attacked over the situation or not. Bush didn't obtain such a resolution. Sure, he tried to obtain it, but in the end he decided to go to war without it.

    So on one hand we have a guy that apparently doesn't comply with UNSC resolutions and another one who believes he doesn't need a UNSC resolution to go to war. Now the latter wouldn't be such a problem if actually 'Inmediate Global Security Threatening WMD's' would have been found, but we ALL know that's not the case.

    "HE EVEN GAVE THEM FEW MONTHS TO COMPLY!"

    First, it is not up to a US President to set time-tables to other country's ruler, how horrible these rulers even are. This is up to the UNSC. The United States, as a (Permanent) Member of not only the UN but also the UNSC, not only knows this, but also recognizes this body as the sole body to take such decisions!

    Last, but certainly not least, with no sign of ANY WMD found in Iraq, it seems to me that Saddam was complying perfectly with UNSC resolutions.

    " If Saddam really cared about the Iraqi people, he wouldve complied."

    Saddam didn't give a sh!t about his people, and we already knew this 15 years ago! Iraq, the US and the UK were playing hardball with each other through the UNSC at the expense of many Iraqis.

    "Once the deadline had passed, we had one option..."

    Who's this WE? The UNSC, which was, and is, the only institution to decide upon this matter, was completely ignored by the US/UK. Along with the US/UK only a handfull of countries actually believed Iraq was an inmediate threat to Global Security. Up until today, there's still no proof at all of this alleged inmediate threat to Global Security.

    "Dont call Bush a war-monger, when it was plainly clear that Saddam wanted war... Bush did not decide to go to war, Saddam did."

    It was the US/UK which pre-emptively and without UNSC approval attacked Iraq, not the other way round!



    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
    User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1262 times:

    Jcs, you're continuing a hypocrisy, and you and Mr. Bush have no moral ground to stand on to bash Europe. We did NOT go to war to get rid of Hussein-at least that's what the man you think a saint that's in the White House told us for months: it was because of WMD's, which apparently aren't there; it was because of a new nuke program, that apparently wasn't there; it was becuase of links with Al Qaeda, that apparently weren't there. He lied to us, then used the chestnuts of it being about getting rid of Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people-but he only did that AFTER the war started.

    Bosnia was in Europe's own backyard, and did threaten the stability of the Balkans in a very real way. Europe futzed it up, no doubt, but as far as I'm concerened, they had more right to intervene there than we ever had in Iraq, so maybe admit your own hypocrisies first, before pointing fingers at others.

    Then again, we know you think Bush is some kind of God, who can do no wrong, so keep up your illusions. This is just a lame and pathetic attempt by you-once again to shift focus off of the fuck-up's that Bush has created since last fall. It may work with the more ignorant, but it won't work with anyone with half a brian. You really should work for the GOP, though, since you always seem to be right on the party line without deviation.


    User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
    Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1222 times:

    >>>Now, about the difference between Bosnia and Irak: In Bosnia, the tropps had a mandate from the UN, making their presence LEGAL.<<<

    I'm under the impression the U.N. security council was bypassed in the Bosnian conflict. This action was not approved or voted on by the U.N. security council.



    You're only as good as your last departure.
    User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
    Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

    I believe FDXmech is right; the actions in Bosnia were lead under the NATO umbrella. The UN was bypassed because Russia and possibly China might have used their veto.

    At least the NATO umbrella makes the Bosnia operation a bit more legitimate than the war in Iraq.



    Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
    User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 15
    Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

    This post is about Bosnia, not Kosovo
    In Bosnia, troops had an UN mandate.
    And you had troops from Ukraine and Russia
    Teva



    Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    What The Hell Is Up With Iraq - My Thoughts posted Tue Aug 22 2006 23:27:38 by UH60FtRucker
    What Is The European Country You Prefer More? posted Sat Jun 17 2006 16:45:32 by Koper
    Is The European Parliment On Crack? posted Sun Jul 17 2005 07:03:32 by SATX
    English Of The European Union posted Sat Jun 25 2005 03:47:21 by KiwiNanday
    What Is The US Army Doing In Iraq? posted Sun Mar 6 2005 22:21:38 by Avianca
    AG Gonzales And The Democrats Hypocrisy. posted Fri Feb 4 2005 06:09:22 by SFOMEX
    The Reason We Were In Iraq Dammit: posted Wed Feb 2 2005 22:40:32 by Lehpron
    This Will Be The European Car Of The Year! posted Thu Nov 18 2004 14:44:32 by UTA_flyingHIGH
    Wwii Soldiers Vs Iraq War Soldiers - Moscow Times posted Tue Aug 3 2004 06:15:56 by MD-90
    The Cost Of War In Iraq posted Wed Jun 2 2004 14:04:05 by Flying-Tiger