There is a question that has been floating in the back of my head for a few days now.

When Clinton decided to intervene in Kosovo, there were no American interests there, Clinton said he was going there to stop "ethnic cleansing." Another thing Clinton said that he was going to Kosovo to stop a problem before it got worse. In short he was using pre-emption.

No war protests, no questioning of intelligence or the legality of pre-emption. I don't recall the U.N. getting its panties in a bunch over the Clinton's actions.

Flash forward to 2001. Bush is planning to invade Iraq. A storm of controversy and criticism erupts.

My question is "What's the difference?"

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
There is a question that has been floating in the back of my head for a few days now.

When Clinton decided to intervene in Kosovo, there were no American interests there, Clinton said he was going there to stop "ethnic cleansing." Another thing Clinton said that he was going to Kosovo to stop a problem before it got worse. In short he was using pre-emption.

No war protests, no questioning of intelligence or the legality of pre-emption. I don't recall the U.N. getting its panties in a bunch over the Clinton's actions.

Flash forward to 2001. Bush is planning to invade Iraq. A storm of controversy and criticism erupts.

My question is "What's the difference?"

Because America was too wound up in the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal that discraced the nation to realize what he was doing.

Originally posted by SecretAgentMan
Because America was too wound up in the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal that discraced the nation to realize what he was doing.

I disagree. I think it was more clear that we weren't doing it by ourselves (it was done as part of NATO), and there was a clear idea that we had no ulterior motive. There is also the fact that no Americans were killed in Kosovo. If there had been numerous American casualties the story might have been different.

think it was more clear that we weren't doing it by ourselves (it was done as part of NATO),

We didn't go into Iraq alone either, contrary to liberal rhetoric.

and there was a clear idea that we had no ulterior motive.

And the ulterior motive in Iraq was...?

There is also the fact that no Americans were killed in Kosovo.

This is a total non-point. People were attacking Bush before any troops were even SENT to Iraq, much less killed.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
We didn't go into Iraq alone either, contrary to liberal rhetoric.

I didn't say we were alone in Iraq Dave...if you read my post I said it was "more clear" that we weren't alone in Kosovo. We didn't provide 90% of the troops like we do in Iraq. You can say we aren't alone in Iraq all you want, but with 90% of the troops there wouldn't be much difference if we were.

And the ulterior motive in Iraq was...?

There are those who suspect we are there because there's oil. Another problem with Iraq vs. Kosovo is that the reasons for being in Iraq seem to be different depending on who you ask and when. There have been many reasons given for the war in Iraq, some better than others. Our intervention in Kosovo was for one reason, and it never changed.

This is a total non-point. People were attacking Bush before any troops were even SENT to Iraq, much less killed.

It's not a non-pont Dave and you know it. The fact that people were attacking Bush before we went to war is a non-point. People attacked Clinton for going to Kosovo too and no Americans ever died there. Some people are opposed to war no matter what. My point was, that if there had been massive American casualties, the attacks on Clinton would have been more severe.

It's not a non-pont Dave and you know it.

No, I don't know it.

My point was, that if there had been massive American casualties, the attacks on Clinton would have been more severe.
it sure sounded to me like you were insinuating that the Iraq war wouldn't be controversial if we didn't have any casualties (how unrealistic is that?) or very little. That of course doesn't hold water because it was controversial before anyone died.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
When Clinton decided to intervene in Kosovo, there were no American interests there, Clinton said he was going there to stop "ethnic cleansing." Another thing Clinton said that he was going to Kosovo to stop a problem before it got worse. In short he was using pre-emption.

Pre-emption ? No way ! First, serbia had been killing thousand of people for years in the area and already had engaged in Kosovo. Second, from what i understand of the "preemptive" doctrine, its aimed at attacking a potentilal threat before he attacks the USA (still a good joke about Iraq). It was absolutely not the case in Kosovo.

One thing is similar though, while less obvious than in Iraq : the Balkan is also a key place for oil, not for oil production but for oil transportation. It has a strategic importance for the USA, exectly like central asia and Afghanistan.

First, serbia had been killing thousand of people for years in the area and already had engaged in Kosovo.

Oh, but Astra, there are ruthless murdering dictators all over the world, we can't go topple every government that kills people! [/sarcasm]

Big difference : Serbia has been engaged in a war against its neighbours. I supported 100% the intervention against Iraq in 1991 when it invaded Kuwait.

you and john kerry, oh wait, nevermind, kerry didnt even support that war, LOL, thank the lord that joker didnt get in

Originally posted by astrapol2
Big difference : Serbia has been engaged in a war against its neighbours. I supported 100% the intervention against Iraq in 1991 when it invaded Kuwait.

We should have finished the job then! A lot of Iraqis thought we were going to do it then, and spoke out against Saddam, who promptly had them all killed.

The guy (Saddam) is a fucking monster, and the world is better off without him in power.

Originally posted by Travh20
you and john kerry, oh wait, nevermind, kerry didnt even support that war, LOL, thank the lord that joker didnt get in

You're wrong...

He voted for it before he voted against it. :p

You can't compare wars and other historical events based on just a few things that they may have in common. Every war has a different premise and takes place in a different situation.