Thinking more on this, the no-fly zones in Iraq were not UN sactioned and thus acts of war. Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II were guilty by their participation. Historians will see these three as hypocrites for ignoring international law when inconvenient, while demanding other countries to obey international law when it suited them.
Wait, Wait, Wait... So in addition to being a racist genocidal maniac that killed a s-ton of innocent civilians... Truman wanted full employment? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Did he miss that day in Econ 101 or what?
Regional instability? You're really making gwayneco's point. There was no threat to the US. There was no imminent threat of the instability spreading - it went on for half a decade before NATO acted. There was more threat of instability FROM intervention (at one point the Russians said they'd intervene to protect Serbia). This was not a UN action. In fact the action was considered in the UN and blocked by certain countries (oh let's say China, Russia - you know, the usual suspects). It's amusing to watch some of you try and draw these arbitrary lines for Clinton's sake when you have these strict 'rules' with which you condemn Bush.
Albania and Macedonia might disagree. Talk about cherry picking. The imminent threat was to the region and to our NATO allies near the region. This was not a direct imminent threat to the USA, but the US honoring its NATO commitments. Under Clinton, the US lead the NATO effort in stabilizes a region torn by full blown civil war. Under Bush, the US with a coalition of the bribed invaded Iraq which lead to a slow burn civil war. Yep, these are one in the same.
No Worries, sorry but you're just painting the picture to suit your own needs. You aren't cherry picking you're completely revising what actually happened. There was no imminent (or any other kind of) threat to our NATO allies (other than threatened Russian reaction as I previously pointed out and you ignored). That's the most absurd thing you've said so far. We had to twist 'our NATO allies' arms to act at all (and threaten to go it alone, lol). They sat for half a decade and did nothing which indicates how seriously they feared spreading instability. Albania and Macedonia were NOT factors AT ALL in the initial intervention - they were considerations in the Kosovo intervention. The whole idea that we were simply holding up our NATO committments is laughable. I suggest you read up on the facts. The sad part is that you don't even recognize that some people were making the exact same 'war of aggression,' 'imperialist war,' 'violating international law' charges against Clinton in the 90s over the Balkan interventions. You act like that is something just made up by the Republican machine, lol. I'm sorry but it isn't. I know that's inconvenient for you since you apparently supported that intervention and not this one, but its something you're going to have to deal with.
Here are some quotes for you. Substititute Iraq for Serbia and you'd get your quotes about international law etc to the T. "But instead of trying a myriad of peaceful options, Clinton, Albright, and NATO reached for the old, unreliable one: Send in the bombers. They didn't bother themselves with international law. They flouted it. International law clearly states that one country can attack another one only when it is itself under attack, about to be attacked, or when the U.N. Security Council grants permission. Belgrade was not attacking the United States or any of the NATO countries involved in the bombings. And the United States intentionally avoided the Security Council because Russia and China were likely to veto any military action." http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Yugoslavia/BillClintonsWar_Yugo.html The current U.S.-led imperialist assault on Yugoslavia, ostensibly aimed to save Kosovo and Kosovars from Milosevic's oppression, is nothing of the sort. The demolition of ethnic Albanian cities in Kosovo by American missiles and bombs is in itself proof that the goals of U.S.-dominated NATO forces serve other than humanitarian ends. Moreover, U.S./NATO "precision bombing," allegedly intended to "degrade Milosevic's military capacity," has been directed against such "military targets" as Yugoslavia's bridges, refineries, electric power plants-its entire industrial infrastructure. But there is a method behind Clinton's and world imperialism's seeming madness, reflecting their longer-term strategic goal. The unmistakable message being sent to all the world's peoples by the destruction of Yugoslavia is either to accept the edicts of the chief executioner of international "law and order"-presently incarnated in the person of President William Jefferson Clinton-or be bombed back to the Stone Age. http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199906/nato.html "William Clinton, President of the United States of America," it says, "is summonsed to appear in room 14 of the District Court in Valjevo at 10.00 am on September 29 1999, to answer charges that he committed war crimes against civilian populations, in breach of Article 142 (provisions 1 and 2) and Article 22 of the Penal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." For more than two months now the world's leaders have been called to answer charges - in absentia - by the prosecutors of Valjevo, and in 28 other towns across Serbia, including Kragujevac, Pozarevac, Zajecar, Leskovac and Nis. The daily hearings, reported in extreme depth by the state media, cover the March 24-June 9 NATO air campaign, which in the prosecution's view, amounted to crimes both under the domestic Penal Code and international law, as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions and a violation of the international "laws and customs" of war. Also on the charge sheet: US State Secretary Madeleine Albright, US Defence Secretary William Cohen, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, British Defence Minister George Robertson, French President Jacques Chirac and French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine. Former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana and NATO Europe Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and German Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping join them. The summons were sent to the accused by diplomatic channels, but it is not known if they reached their intended recipients. Either way, Bill Clinton did not appear on September 29 at 10.00 in room 14 of the Valjevo district court. http://www.iwpr.net/?p=bcr&s=f&o=245978&apc_state=henibcr1999 NATO bombing of Serbia is in abject violation of international law by taking it into your own hands to destroy it. That makes this NATO action first dangerously criminal and then criminally dangerous. The American NATO Military Commander's claim that he is speaking and acting for the 'International Community' is a deliberate hoax, since the membership of NATO is only about 15 percent of the states and even less than that of the population of the United Nations, whose two largest countries with 2 billion people and many others oppose this action. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan put it mildly the day bombing started on March 24 that NATO member states should 'consult' the UN Security Council before attacking. They did no such thing in the knowledge that two permanent members would have exercised their veto. Therefore NATO action is criminal and dangerously so because it is yet another important step in the systematic violation of the UN Charter and the total abrogation of international law. NATO action and its expansion is also criminally dangerous for a whole series of political, legal, social, economic, and of course moral reasons to be detailed below. http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/gunder.htm
It is funny the people that bill Clinton train and support during the conflict(the KLA) are known terriorist. It was well documented that the KLA were the ones that started killing of the police in the region and also conducting act of terriorism in the country since 1980. Funny how people forget that those are some of the terriorist that support Bin Laden organization. Actually the his agents were there supporting KLA and other Muslins in that region in the 90's. Make no mistake Milosevic was and will forever be a war criminal but he was not the only in that region that is for sure. What Milosevic did was pretty extreme (think Irsael without the political influence).
It is funny the people that bill Clinton train and support during the conflict(the KLA) are known terriorist. It was well documented that the KLA were the ones that started killing of the police in the region and also conducting act of terriorism in the country since 1980. Funny how people forget that those are some of the terriorist that support Bin Laden organization. Actually the his agents were there supporting KLA and other Muslins in that region in the 90's. Make no mistake Milosevic was and will forever be a war criminal but he was not the only in that region that is for sure. What Milosevic did was pretty extreme (think Isreal without the political backing)
The problem is the people who claim Bush is a war criminal are, on balance, unwilling to apply the same label to Clinton - even though the same criteria used to make that determination (acting outside the UN, acting without an international consensus, attacking another country that was not a threat, 'breaking international law,' violating the UN charter, etc) should also lead to the conclusion that Clinton is a war criminal. The question is why - IMO it is because people are making an emotional, rather than an intellectual determination. Although so that nobody gets confused I should note that I don't agree with the criteria and that IMO both sets of interventions were legal and justifiable.
The same criteria was used plus one other factor(stopping an ongoing genocide). The same actions weren't used. Clinton did not invade and occupy Serbia. Clinton did not present faulty information in an effort persuade congress or anyone else to go into Serbia.
Projection appears to be a friend of yours. You questioned whether the Yugo cvil war and its instability would spread into the region. I rebutted with two countries that saw the instability cross their borders. You are correct that the Yugo civil war did not militarily threaten any of our NATO allies. But our NATO allies, Germany in particular, saw the wave of Yugo refugees as an imminent threat to their internal, domestic stability. Our NATO allies, who have a better understanding of European history than attention deficit Americans, understood how a small civil war in the Baltics might spread into something more. Think World War I. (I am NOT saying that the two situations have the same politics or the same dynamics.) Let's redux. Civil war in the Baltics. Voilence has spread across their immediate borders. Refugee wave is showing up all over Europe, that the host countries can not economically support. An unchecked Serbia has the potential to continue spreading their civil war. 5 years of waiting for the fire to burn out by itself was not efficacious. Something had to be done. Given the WWI context, NATO is the perfect choice (since Russia would veto any UNSC resolution.) There are huge differences between Iraq and Yugo. I am not a big fan of Clinton, but I do feel he did the right thing in Yugo. As you read above, i believe that Clinton's actions in Iraq constitute war crimes. I am not Clinton apologist. Your ability to read in between the lines has been drawn into question.
Yeah sure he did not lie and mislead the people . Keep on believeing that. http://www.counterpunch.org/germanmemo.html
He did lie and mislead the people. He is a criminal, not a war criminal. But he didn't lie or mislead them about military action in serbia. I thought that we were talking about someone being a war criminal and not about other issues. After looking back over this thread it turns out that I was correct.
http://www.counterpunch.org/serbia.html Read this and educate yourself on what happened in the Nato bombing campain and then try to tell me that clinton and other Nato leaders are not war criminals. I give you one example of how Nato was targeting innocent civilians. Look at when Nato bombed the T.V. station killing 7 people. Tell me that is justified. Tell me that those people deserved die. This was not collateral damage that station was targeted by NATO air strikes.
How were you correct? Read this then. And this coming from a former Nuremberg Prosecutor. But I am sure you are more qualified to tell us that the Nato leaders (Clinton being one of them) are not war criminals http://www.counterpunch.org/rockler.html Former Nuremberg Prosecutor: "War Crimes Apply to US, Too": Walter Rockler, a former Nuremberg prosecutor, writes that the situation in Kosovo is not "genocide" and that bombing of civilian targets by Nato forces may constitute a war crime.
