Howard Dean Supports Unilateral Military Action

[WildCat]

...in Bosnia anyway.

From a 1995 letter to President Clinton: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-14-dean-letter_x.htm)

We must give, and have given, this policy with our allies and with the United Nations every opportunity to work. It is evident, however, that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great.

...If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. (emphasis mine)

...Since it is clearly no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action.

Of course, here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/elec04.prez.dean.bosnia/) his spokesman claims that there's no contradiction in Deans stance with regards to Iraq. Of course not, the killing in Bosnia was only going on for 2 years and involved tens of thousands of deaths, while the killing in Iraq was ongoing for 15 years and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. See? No contradiction, completely different scenarios! The Serbs weren't trying to shoot down US and British planes on a daily basis for 12 years in violation of the treaty they signed. Or blocking efforts at weapons inspections. So it's not the same.

Or maybe it's because the victims in Bosnia were white, while the victims in Iraq were only brown colored. So there was no urgency.

Oh well, there's no contradiction, see?

No wonder he's trying to keep his letters secret, I wonder what else is out there.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by WildCat
...in Bosnia anyway.

From a 1995 letter to President Clinton: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-14-dean-letter_x.htm)



Of course, here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/elec04.prez.dean.bosnia/) his spokesman claims that there's no contradiction in Deans stance with regards to Iraq. Of course not, the killing in Bosnia was only going on for 2 years and involved tens of thousands of deaths, while the killing in Iraq was ongoing for 15 years and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. See? No contradiction, completely different scenarios! The Serbs weren't trying to shoot down US and British planes on a daily basis for 12 years in violation of the treaty they signed. Or blocking efforts at weapons inspections. So it's not the same.

Or maybe it's because the victims in Bosnia were white, while the victims in Iraq were only brown colored. So there was no urgency.

Oh well, there's no contradiction, see?

No wonder he's trying to keep his letters secret, I wonder what else is out there.


The situation in Serbia was different though.

There was a dictator (Milosevic) who was slaughtering his own people for "Ethnic Cleansing" purposes.

Large amounts of violence was starting to break out in Serbia.

There had to be some sort of a police or international police force to take the leader out and eliminate the threat and bring stability to the country.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita



The situation in Serbia was different though.

There was a dictator (Milosevic) who was slaughtering his own people for "Ethnic Cleansing" purposes.

Large amounts of violence was starting to break out in Serbia.

There had to be some sort of a police or international police force to take the leader out and eliminate the threat and bring stability to the country.

Uh, just a friendly reminder. sometimes the little emoticons help get the sarcarsm thing across.

[shuize]

Originally posted by WildCat
...in Bosnia anyway.

From a 1995 letter to President Clinton: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-14-dean-letter_x.htm)



Of course, here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/elec04.prez.dean.bosnia/) his spokesman claims that there's no contradiction in Deans stance with regards to Iraq. Of course not, the killing in Bosnia was only going on for 2 years and involved tens of thousands of deaths, while the killing in Iraq was ongoing for 15 years and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. See? No contradiction, completely different scenarios! The Serbs weren't trying to shoot down US and British planes on a daily basis for 12 years in violation of the treaty they signed. Or blocking efforts at weapons inspections. So it's not the same.

Or maybe it's because the victims in Bosnia were white, while the victims in Iraq were only brown colored. So there was no urgency.

Oh well, there's no contradiction, see?

No wonder he's trying to keep his letters secret, I wonder what else is out there.

I remember originally being against getting involved in the Kosovo campaign. "If the Europeans can't take care of this crap in their own backyard," I thought. But the Clinton Administration convinced me it was the right thing to do with or without UN support.

Now, of course, those same Democrats try to paint Bush as evil incarnate for doing the very same thing.

You're right, Wild Cat, there's no contradiction ... it's just politics as usual.

But don't let me rain on the Howard Dean parade. Please nominate him.

[corplinx]

I would say every candidate for president would support a unilateral military action in some situation under some circumstances.

The Dean letter to me is not a big shocker. Is he inconsistent? If you really want to show that Dean isn't a straight talker though you merely have to look at his comments about the Iowa caucus and his response when questioned about it.

I think the big story is, who was up last night faxing this letter to the news orgs?

[BTox]

I imagine Dr. Dean's foreign policy having the efficacy of homeopathy...

[crackmonkey]

Thankfully, it looks like we'll never know.

[Tmy]

Why is that hypocritial?

Cant you be for war against the nazi's in WW2 and against the Vietnam war and not be a hypocrite.

The motive for Kosovo was to stop the killings the motive for Iraq was to find WMD. Apples and Oranges.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is that hypocritial?

Cant you be for war against the nazi's in WW2 and against the Vietnam war and not be a hypocrite.

The motive for Kosovo was to stop the killings the motive for Iraq was to find WMD. Apples and Oranges.

There was a singular reason for going into Iraq? Is that your final answer?

[rikzilla]

How 'bout Dean's comment on Saddam's capture? The old, "we're no safer because of it" stance. I cannot understand how he could not just say that it's wonderful we got him, congratulate the troops and shut up. How can a major party front-runner for the nomination to be President of the United States so nakedly tie his political hopes to the successes of our enemies in a time of war? That every dead American is just another number he'll use in order to get elected. His zeal to prove their deaths were in vain. (a self fulfilling prophecy if he were ever voted into the Oval Office) It's disgusting. He's disgusting

Now, getting past the disgusting nature of his sour grape comment, it's simply untrue. The intelligence finds with Saddam alone make our guys there safer by removing terrorist cells from the streets. Obviously there will be a percentage of Fedayeen who decide to throw in the towel after seeing their leader meekly surrrender....that also demonstrates enhanced safety to our troops. Dean's comment of course is true in that we are not suddenly safe from attack, but no one ever once stated that we were.

If I put my ladder against the wall of my house in order to reach the roof, then climb a few rungs, it really doesn't help if I have someone standing around saying "Well, you still can't reach the roof!"

-z

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by WildCat
...in Bosnia anyway.

From a 1995 letter to President Clinton: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-14-dean-letter_x.htm)



Of course, here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/elec04.prez.dean.bosnia/) his spokesman claims that there's no contradiction in Deans stance with regards to Iraq. Of course not, the killing in Bosnia was only going on for 2 years and involved tens of thousands of deaths, while the killing in Iraq was ongoing for 15 years and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. See? No contradiction, completely different scenarios! The Serbs weren't trying to shoot down US and British planes on a daily basis for 12 years in violation of the treaty they signed. Or blocking efforts at weapons inspections. So it's not the same.

Or maybe it's because the victims in Bosnia were white, while the victims in Iraq were only brown colored. So there was no urgency.

Oh well, there's no contradiction, see?

No wonder he's trying to keep his letters secret, I wonder what else is out there.

Well for one thing,
the letter you note is hardly a secret.

And for the second thing,
IF Bush & Co. were actually going to war with Iraq on the basis of humanitarian reasons,
THEN I may have supported the war as well.

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh, and let's not forget THE BOSNIA ACTION HAD UN BACKING.

Just quietly.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Oh, and let's not forget THE BOSNIA ACTION HAD UN BACKING.

Just quietly.

so? The current action has the backing of over 35 nations that are UN members. Or are you saying the UN should rule the world and control everything in every country? Just asking

[VicDaring]

Are we really comparing a limited, focused, short-term strike to a full-scale invasion and occupation?

And are we really suggesting the invasion/occupation is anything other than a unilateral action?

And are seriously suggestion Saddam's capture made us any safer from Al-Qaida?

Please.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Are we really comparing a limited, focused, short-term strike to a full-scale invasion and occupation?
Well, I'm not. Mr. Milosevic is to Mr. Hussein as Scott Evil is to Dr. Evil. :rolleyes:

And are we really suggesting the invasion/occupation is anything other than a unilateral action?

Why, yes....yes we are!
From that ever popular best-seller, The Dictionary:
Unilateral:
1. Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: "a unilateral advantage in defense" (New Republic).
2. Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
3. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.
4. Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
5. Having only one side.
6. Tracing the lineage of one parent only: a unilateral genealogy.
7. Botany Having leaves, flowers, or other parts on one side only.

So, are you suggesting that the soldiers of only one nation are pounding the ground in Iraq? Really?

And are seriously suggestion Saddam's capture made us any safer from Al-Qaida?

Yes, I seriously suggest that. The caveat of course is that it is hard to quantify the degree of safeness...but if even one of Saddam's troops was captured, killed, or just plain gave up after being demoralized by Saddam's capture can be shown then your argument (and Howard Dean's) falls on it's face.

-z

Please.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Oh, and let's not forget THE BOSNIA ACTION HAD UN BACKING.



Evidence?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


Evidence?

My history might be a bit dodgy. I was thinking of this (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmibh/mandate.html).

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well, I'm not. Mr. Milosevic is to Mr. Hussein as Scott Evil is to Dr. Evil. :rolleyes:

Not what I asked.

Why, yes....yes we are!

So, are you suggesting that the soldiers of only one nation are pounding the ground in Iraq? Really?

290,000 troops. 250,000 American. Only? Okay, I guess you got me there. Ouch.


Yes, I seriously suggest that. The caveat of course is that it is hard to quantify the degree of safeness...but if even one of Saddam's troops was captured, killed, or just plain gave up after being demoralized by Saddam's capture can be shown then your argument (and Howard Dean's) falls on it's face.

Safer from Al-Qaida? Honestly?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Safer from Al-Qaida? Honestly?

Indeedy. Prove me wrong. :D
Quantification is a sword that cuts both ways my friend.

-z

[VicDaring]

I'm just trying to figure out what Al-Qaida has to do with Saddam.

Soon as I figure that out, I'll get back to you. :p

[mjh36]

Our actions in Kosovo were not UN authorized.

And for those flying the WMD vs. humanitarian banner to justify Kosovo and demonize Iraqi Freedom, then you should probably recall that Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 which specifically detailed removing the Hussein regime from power. Bob Graham, Joe Leiberman, Hillary Clinton, Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean have all communicated their conviction in the threat that was Saddam Hussein. All used the words WMD, imminent and vital, and Leiberman even went so far as to chastise Clinton for signing his own act and then ignoring it, specifically after the USS Cole bombing.

And remember, Dubyah never said "imminent" he said "growing" threat and that waiting for imminent would be too late. The only people who did say Hussein presented a real and imminent danger to the US and its interests were the aforementioned Democrats, along with many echoes of the GOP. Recall that all these speeches were made from 1997-2003, right up until the press began bagging on Bush and twisting the thing around. Then all of them, except the fine and upstanding Joe Leiberman, reversed gears and went vote shopping.

Bush only put Clintonian foreign policy into action, and did so with gusto. What's funny is that Clinton was far more hawkish on Iraq than Bush and even Reagan were. Dubyah just took the fight to them with troops instead of missiles, and is subsequently vilified for it. The press trumped up the WMD more than Bush did. He kept on about "post 9-11 and those who harbor terrorists and provide them materials and comfort."

Back on topic: Dean supports whatever seems like it will win votes that day, and will blatantly contradict any stance if that gets votes tomorrow.

As a very good friend of mine once said, it's tough to choose a leader based on their skill as salesmen, since one has little to do with the other. That's why Dean will get nominated and lose, while Leiberman should get nominated and could win, as he is clearly the best leader and worst salesman.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


My history might be a bit dodgy. I was thinking of this (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmibh/mandate.html).

The medal I got for my service in Bosnia was from NATO. Not the UN.

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh, well, my mistake.

There've been so many conflicts in that region I can't keep them straight. Not trying to excuse my mistake, merely explaining it. :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Oh, well, my mistake.

There've been so many conflicts in that region I can't keep them straight. Not trying to excuse my mistake, merely explaining it. :D

Believe me, I know what you mean. During the Bosnia conflict, Greece and Turkey started waving their swords at each other over Macedonia (they can't even agree what to call Macedonia). Since they were both members of NATO, they were participating in the Bosnia operations. Guess who got stuck between them to make sure they didn't bump into each other and trigger yet another war? :D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by VicDaring
I'm just trying to figure out what Al-Qaida has to do with Saddam.

Soon as I figure that out, I'll get back to you. :p

Lookin' forward to it. ;)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Are we really comparing a limited, focused, short-term strike to a full-scale invasion and occupation?


No, we are comparing Bosnia and Iraq. Niether of those was a limited, focused, short-term strike so I am not sure what you are referencing.

[Luke T.]

I was sent to Bosnia in 1994, did some shore duty from 1995 to mid 1998, then was sent back to Bosnia in 1998. I wouldn't call Bosnia a short-term affair.

[Zero]

Originally posted by rikzilla
How 'bout Dean's comment on Saddam's capture? The old, "we're no safer because of it" stance. I cannot understand how he could not just say that it's wonderful we got him, congratulate the troops and shut up.

Actually,he DID say that, and added that Saddam's capture makes us no safer, which is a reasonable(but debatable) stance, considering they found him in a hole. You've been spun, chum. Here's a more complete look at his statement:

"Today, I want to discuss these challenges. First I want to say a few words about events over the weekend. The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the world. Saddam was a brutal dictator who should be brought swiftly to justice for his crimes. His capture is a testament to the skill and courage of U.S. forces and intelligence personnel. They have risked their lives. Some of their comrades have given their lives.



All Americans should be grateful. I thank these outstanding men and women for their service and sacrifice."

And then later in the speech,he said "The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." That makes perfect sense, since in the grand scheme of things, the capture of a powerless deposed ruler doesn't take weapons out of the hands of worldwide terror factions.

[Luke T.]

Attacks on U.S. troops are down 50 percent (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_civilians_040113.html) since Saddam's capture.

The Pentagon says the reduction in individual attacks against Americans is dramatic — down by 50 percent since the capture of Saddam Hussein. Yet the casualty numbers remain steady. The major reason: attacks on U.S. aircraft, which can be far more deadly.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Attacks on U.S. troops are down 50 percent (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_civilians_040113.html) since Saddam's capture.

This is a win/lose, isn't it? Yes, less attacks are good, but the casualty rate is the same, and aircraft are more expensive than Humvees, which is a minus.

[DavidJames]

"Attacks on U.S. troops are down 50 percent since Saddam's capture."

Personally, I will be very happy when there are no attacks. Based on the quote, your headline could also read:

"Enemy finds more effective ways to cause American casualties"

But then that doesn't send the same message does it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Attacks on U.S. troops are down 50 percent since Saddam's capture."

Personally, I will be very happy when there are no attacks. Based on the quote, your headline could also read:

"Enemy finds more effective ways to cause American casualties"

But then that doesn't send the same message does it.

I believe the number of attacks has decreased because of the large military push just prior to Saddam's capture, more than the capture itself.

Only time will tell if the number of attacks and casualties will increase or decrease. The attacks are probably motivated by a number of reasons, but mostly a resentment toward an American presence in the Middle East. If that is the case, the attacks will increase, or at the very least, be protracted for as long as we are there.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Attacks on U.S. troops are down 50 percent (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_civilians_040113.html) since Saddam's capture.



I think that it is a bit premature to start making such claims.

True, lately the number of attacks on US forces has gone down, but in the last few days it has started back up again, and the number of attacks against other targets seems to be about the same.

In other words, the change in attack frequency may be due to the attackers shifting targets as opposed to the attackers being reduced.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I was sent to Bosnia in 1994, did some shore duty from 1995 to mid 1998, then was sent back to Bosnia in 1998. I wouldn't call Bosnia a short-term affair.
And we're still there. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/10/bosnia.manhunt/index.html)

But no Dems are asking what our exit strategy is for some reason...