Arguing With The Wife

[TennesseeCarl]

My wife is an ardent (note that I didn't say 'knee-jerk') liberal. I'm fairly liberal on a lot of social/fiscal issues too.

But I've been fairly turned off by the Hollywood-types predictably protesting the Iraq war. I pointed out to her that if they were so 'anti-war', where were they during Bosnia? My view is that it has nothing whatever to do with war - it has to do with their knee-jerk antipathy to anything proposed by this administration.

I don't recall Barbara Streisand chastising Clinton then. I don't recall Martin Sheen marching with his cute little bit of tape on his mouth. Susan Saradon...Sean Penn...Garafolo...where were they? Did I miss it?

I don't have a problem with dissent or the expression of ideas. But I think it's incredibly intellectually dishonest to claim that it's 'war' that's being protested. It's 'war under a Republican adminstration' that's the issue.

Anyone remember any celebrities out there protesting the military action against Milosevic?

[Tarhog]

I hear Carrot Top was way peeved.

Seriously, no I don't remember any outrage, but I don't exactly follow the likes of Streisand, Sheen, and Baldwin either.

[Golgo-13]

No doubt. It is clear that these people are not anti-war, they are anti-Bush. No matter what he does they are going to have a problem with it. Forget actually thinking about what they are protesting, it is all knee-jerk for these clowns.

[codeorama]

I totally agree. Those same folks who are so anti war now, were doing nothing then. That's a bunch of crap.

Sadly, it goes both ways. How many people do you know that support this war wouldn't if Clinton or any other Dem were in office. My uncle was aginst all of the military action during Clinton's era and was totally against any type of foreign aid, however, now that Bush is in office, He's all for sending billions to Africa for Aids relief...

[Kilmer17]

I cant believe Im doing this, but MArtin Sheen has been steadfast in his stance. He was their in front of what little protest there was over Bosnia/Somalia/Haiti. He also was fairly critical of Clintons bombing of Iraq.

The guy is consistent. HOWEVER, his recent whining about Celebs being unfairly attacked is petty and absurd. Freedom of speech is not freedom without repercussions.

[codeorama]

Kilmer, that's funny that you bring that up...

The former rock band Rage Against the Machine was extremely policical and anti US in terms of our military involvement.. I personally did not agree with a number of other issues that they stood for, but to their credit, they blasted Clinton during his time in office for his military actions. They stuck to their guns regardless of who was in office as well... The Free Mumia stuff made me sick though..

[Kilmer17]

The Free Mumia stuff made me sick though..

That thread could take days and an entire server to handle.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

That thread could take days and an entire server to handle.

Why do you say that? Do you think anyone would actually be on that cop killer's side? Most of the protestors that I saw were just young kids that didn't know anything about the issue but were just following the celebs...

[Kilmer17]

Just a hunch.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Just a hunch.

god I would hope your'e wrong on that...:doh:

[Art]

Code,

If Clinton were willing to do what Bush is doing now in Iraq, I'd have supported him. I did not support Bosnia or Somalia because the U.S. Armed Forces are not trained and armed to deliver groceries. I would NOT support Bush waging a purely humanitarian effort any more than I did Clinton.

I did support Clinton in bombing Iraq, though the timing was troublesome, and it was the timing that irked people more than the action. In fact, I don't think a SINGLE person who is for this action would be against it regardless of who is leading this cause.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Art

Code,

If Clinton were willing to do what Bush is doing now in Iraq, I'd have supported him. I did not support Bosnia or Somalia because the U.S. Armed Forces are not trained and armed to deliver groceries. I would NOT support Bush waging a purely humanitarian effort any more than I did Clinton.

I did support Clinton in bombing Iraq, though the timing was troublesome, and it was the timing that irked people more than the action. In fact, I don't think a SINGLE person who is for this action would be against it regardless of who is leading this cause.

Art, I can't speak for you or anyone on Extremeskins, but in general.. you are wrong. Sorry, but I have family members with whom that is the case. I have co workers with whom that is the case, I have friends with whom that is the case. I am only speaking from my personal experiences and contacts and I know for a fact that people I know and work with think that way.

If my post sounded like it implied anyone here on Extremeskins, sorry, I didn't mean it to sound that way.

[Art]

Code,

I think it depends on the exact phrasing of what you are asking. Clinton's military utilization was generally met with disapproval either because of the timing of his moves, or because traditionally the military hadn't -- and shouldn't -- be used the way he had it used.

You'd have to find me a SINGLE person who, if asked, "If Bill Clinton outlined the goals, and executed the precise same plan as George Bush in Iraq, would you be for or against the war?" would answer with a no where they answer with a yes now. I know and speak with a LOT of people. I do know people that have changed from a yes to a no though .

[redman]

I absolutely despise Clinton, and that colored my views somewhat about our actions in Bosnia. However, I wasn't opposed to them. It's just that a lot of that issue was necessarily based upon trust of the Adminstration as to whether it was the right thing to do, and I didn't trust Clinton or his administration.

I was mad at Clinton for not doing enough to hold Iraq accountable for bringing the inspections to a halt. Lobbing a few missiles at them and then not following up seemed to be half-assed, if that, and the timing of that non-serious response in conjunction with the impeachment proceedings invited suspicion.

In short, I feel like I've been consistent here, although it certainly is more palatable to me when a leader I trust and respect is at the forefront of a military effort.

[Burgold]

I seem to remember a lot of anti military debate and rhetoric coming from the Repub. controled congress at that point. A lot of talk on the Rush type shows too about where's our national interest? Why should we care about what happens over there? That's Europe's backyard and if they're not doing anything... etc. It's pretty easy to have a selective memory.

[Art]

Burgold,

You're completely correct about some of that commentary about Bosnia. I was against Bosnia on those grounds and so many others. I would be against Bosnia if Bush decided to go in. I'm not FOR our existing action in Iraq due to humanitarian reasons. I'm certainly happy there are positive humanitarian aspects to the Iraqi operation now, but, that is not, to me, an appropriate use of our military. That was the SOLE reason to use it in Europe and under any administration, they are going to get hammered for it.

That's not selective memory in the slightest. It is open admission and specific belief structures that demand it.

[codeorama]

Art, If you know of a person or two that would change their opinion, that's my only point. Like I said, I wasn't trying to speak for anyone in particular.

My family members were very "isolationist" during Clinton's time.. They felt that we should not worry about what was going on overseas, it wasn't our place to be peace keepers or stick up for the needy. Now, their opinion is the opposite.. Saddam is a ruthless dictator and those less fortunate than us shouldn't have to suffer, we should help them..

Art, Let me ask a question, I'm just looking for some clarification.

You said before that you didn't support Clinton's use of the military to hand out groceries. (I'm also on record as not supporting it).

Let me play devil's advocate, From what I know of the Somalia situation, there were groups of "militia" that were hoarding all the food and starving the locals, Milosevic was the leader that let those militia guys do what they wanted, that sounds like an evil dictator, what is the difference between Milosevic and Saddam?

Burgold... nice post.

[NavyDave]

I have to agree with Art.

The UN basicaly shamed us into going in their and after ousting Milosevic we ended up as peacekeepers and delivering food and water.

Remember this is Europe and the idea that France, Germany,etc couldnt do this on there own is amazing and we are still there since 95.

And the minute some democrat demands how much it will cost someone should point to Bosnia and Kosovo.

[Art]

Code,

Your post was to suggest that a person FOR the war in Iraq would be against it if Clinton were the President. I don't know a single instance of that being true. I do, however, know people who would have been for it had Clinton wanted to do it but who are now using different language with Bush in charge.

As for the second part of your question, you don't know much about the situation in Somalia if you think Milosevic was in charge . Milosevic was the guy we got in Bosnia. There is very little difference between what he and Saddam are, in terms of being awful men who kill their own people. If we were only going into Iraq for humanitarian grounds, I'd be against it just as I was when we went after Milosevic.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Art

Code,

Your post was to suggest that a person FOR the war in Iraq would be against it if Clinton were the President. I don't know a single instance of that being true. I do, however, know people who would have been for it had Clinton wanted to do it but who are now using different language with Bush in charge.

As for the second part of your question, you don't know much about the situation in Somalia if you think Milosevic was in charge . Milosevic was the guy we got in Bosnia. There is very little difference between what he and Saddam are, in terms of being awful men who kill their own people. If we were only going into Iraq for humanitarian grounds, I'd be against it just as I was when we went after Milosevic.

Art, You are right about me not knowing that much about it, I tried to imply that by stating in my post "from what I know"...

Anyway, I get your point and I still disagree only on the assumption of what this war is about.

It's called operation Iraqi Freedom, not Iraqi Find the WMD. As I've stated, I don't think Iraq is a legitimate threat to the US, not when compared to North Korea, Iran etc... That's where opinions differ.

[Burgold]

Merely pointing out that there were a lot of voices speaking out against Bosnia from every wing. Heck, I remember a ton of left wingers arguing that going in there for human aid purposes in Bosnia was no good because it was racist. Why pick Bosnia, they claimed when there was Ethiopia, etc. There have been very few wars that really generated mass approval going in and even fewer wars that have been fought with the best of justifications. I find it interesting that we both can justify the war, but I support it for humanitarian reasons while I think the weapons of mass destruction argument is weak given the proliferation of WMD in tens of countries that do not like us and also sponsor attrocities and terrorism. Several others on this board support the outster of Sadam for millitary and American safety issues, but see the human benefit as being a good but secondary or tertiary possible result.

[Art]

North Korea and Iran may also be threats to the U.S. But, they are threats that happen to be sovereign nations where Iraq is not. Iraq is living under terms of a surrender it signed but refused to abide. CNN is now confirming that WMDs were found in prelim testing. A terrorist base 20 miles south of Baghdad was captured where an empty jumbo jet shell was found, clearly used for training terrorists how to take airplanes -- though not necessarily tied into 9/11.

The threat from Iraq is they are a beaten nation who wasn't abiding by the terms of their surrender, and they've been KNOWN to allow terrorists training and money, and in the end, the total of circumstances that exist in Iraq so completely differ from any other nation that action was warranted.

Eventually we may also take action against Iran and North Korea and I'd support both, though, that's a much more tricky call because those nations are sovereign countries and stepping in there is a delicate balancing act that will require more selling than was necessary for Iraq.

[Burgold]

When you start down that road it's trickier than just those. I'll list just one other example, but there really are a bunch. How about Pakistan? The government favors us, but there's a lot of terrorist support and movement there supposedly and they have pretty nasty weapons. The Pakistani control over their government as you remember is pretty tenuous too. There are a lot of countries doing a very frightening balancing act out there. The thing that we were told made Iraq a bigger threat was that they might sell or allow people with interests against us to get these weapons. If this is the case, any nation with these weapons who have a large percentage of people who actively hate us are a danger. Realistically, they are a danger, but we can't hardly declare a world war against all the nations that harbor terrorists or millitias who speak threateningly against us. We're engaged in a very fine balancing act too. The fact that many Muslims dislike Sadam and the US aids us, but there is the danger that this could errupt into a inferno. This is one of the reasons we are so loudly verbal about our efforts and the extremes we have gone to try to protect civillians as much as possible.

[Riggo-toni]

For me, the huge difference between Iraq vs Somalia or Serbia is that it is a potentially enormous threat to the U.S., whereas Somalia certainly never would be, nor was Yugoslavia. Both operations were part of a naively misguided belief that if we fought for the well-being of Muslims in those countries, we could erase some of the anti-American sentiment so pernicously pervasive in Islamic countries. Instead, the action in Somalia apparently convinced Bin Laden that we were trying to impose our will on an Islamic country (all those left leaners who think that using the UN instead of US forces will somehow deflect criticism against America, please take note and wise up!), and our subsequent retreat convinced him that we had no backbone. I am not blaming Bush I or Clinton here, but if we hadn't gone into Somalia, perhaps we might not have faced all the subsequent Al Qaeda attacks. The bombing of Serbia merely managed to turn the Russian public against us, and inflame the paranoia of Russian nationalists. In addition, it was the direct cause of the destabilization of Macedonia, as terrorist KLA troops fled Kosova into Macedonia, and continue to fight for an independent Albanian state there.

Once victory is achieved in Iraq, I will stand entirely behind using the army there for humanitarian and peacekeeping forces. Why do i make an exception for Iraq (as well as Afghanistan)? Because a transition to a moderate democratic state there would be enormously beneficial in our fight against terrorism. It could well have a sort of domino effect if properly nurtured, by bringing wealth, stability, and the end of repression to an Arab state. Such a state has been conspicuously absent since the pillaging of Lebanon by the PLO, and would go a long way towards defusing the myth that the U.S. is the root cause of all dictatorships in that region. This is also why many of the other regimes in that region will try endlessly to sabotage our efforts, including supposed allies like the Saudis and Egyptians, but most notably the ayatollahs and mullahs in Iran. Sadly, we are likely to lose more servicemen to post-war terrorist attacks than we will from the war itself, but we must not let our resolve be eroded by such acts of treacherous cowardice. The key to lasting success will be picking the right moment to withdraw and leave the Iraqis to govern themselves. If too soon, the power vacuum may allow another totalitarian regime to sieze the nation. Too late, and we will breed resentment and inflame radicals who will view us as colonisers and crusaders.