Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq

Recall that when the left was trying to undermine America's will to liberate the Iraqi people and remove Saddam Hussein -- the genocidal, terrorist linchpin in the world of Arab/Islamic atrocities -- the obstructionists offered an ever-changing line of "reasoning."

First, they argued, it was "morally wrong" to remove the leader of a sovereign nation. When that argument failed to gain traction the line became that the President could not act without Congressional approval. When the President gained the overwhelming approval of the Congress the tack changed to a demand for United Nations' authority. When the Security Council came back with a unanimous decision in favor of the coalition the tack changed again, with the left screaming that America cannot go to war unless it faced an "imminent threat of attack."

All of these efforts were, of course, disingenuous. Clearly if the Democrats truly believed it was "wrong" to remove the leader of a sovereign nation they would have been marching in the streets screaming "No Blood For Sex" when the previous president launched wars against Bosnia and Kosovo removing from power the sovereign leader Slobodan Milosevic.

If their protestations were based on their true "values" the left would have been chanting "Clinton is Hitler" when he went to war without Congressional approval or UN sanction in order to defeat nations that were not only not an "imminent" threat to America but no threat to America at all.

Milosevic had never had -- much less ever used -- weapons of mass destruction, he was not aiding or abetting global terrorist organizations nor did he have rape and torture chambers throughout his nation as did Saddam Hussein. In fact even the "ethnic cleansing" he'd supposedly committed -- ginned up and exaggerated in the way that Newsweek, CNN and the New York Times, will do -- was minor in comparison to the then on-going genocide of the Marsh Arabs and the massacre of Kurds, the murder of Shiites and even the horrific execution of his fellow Sunnis by the Iraqi dictator.

So given, then, that none of the protestations of the leftists was based on any true conviction, why did the Democrats' support multiple wars in the Balkans where so little was at stake and nothing to be gained but employed -- and continue to employ -- every conceivable lie they could fathom to obstruct the liberation of the Iraqi people and the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East?

The answer can be found in that the Democratic party, dominated as it has been for the last several decades by "multiculturalists," does not believe democracy to be in any way superior to any other form of government -- including fascists dictatorships. Multiculturalists believe that all people, cultures, religions and forms of government to be equally good and equally right.

This is why the Democrat so adores the United Nations where genocidal dictatorships and free and open democracies are offered equal prestige and equal power and why we are admonished to "celebrate diversity" as if all differences -- genocide and tolerance for example -- are equally worthy of celebration.

Whereas most Americans saw the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy throughout much of the world as a great advancement for civilization the Liberal saw it as nothing short of evil.

First, since no culture or form of government is superior to any other, there could be no explanation for the global embrace of democracy except some form of chicanery on the part of the West and, second, because, in replacing "equally good" forms of government -- such as communism and fascism -- the democrats (lower case "d") were "wiping out" other "equally good" forms of government. To the Democrat (upper case "D") the spread of Western values such as freedom and democracy is nothing short of "cultural genocide."

Arguments such as "one cannot impose freedom" and the laughable leftist chant of "one-two-three-four we don't want your racist war" reflects the notion that the Democrat has that freedom is an "imposition" and that the quest for liberty is a cultural value unique to the Western world and those who work for its spread are undermining the cherished values -- fascism, terrorism, etc. -- of another peoples.

This is why the childish chant of "Bush is Hitler" is so easily embraced not just by the mindless minions using daddy's computer to send hate mail to the pundits cheering the advance of freedom, but by the very leadership of the Democratic party. To the "multiculturalists" Bush's efforts to spread Western-style freedom and democracy is an act of jingoism and xenophobia on par with Hitler's attempts to spread the Nazi doctrine.

-----------------

If one wants to understand why the Democrats supported the wars on Bosnia and Kosovo but not the one that liberated millions in Iraq simply consider what victory in each of these wars would bring. In Iraq it brought freedom, democracy and a defeat for the Islamic fascists. In Bosnia and Kosovo victory meant the protection and strengthening of the Islamic movement.

7 comments:

BurtB said...

I agree that the Dems have drifted so far to the left that they can no longer call themselves centrist. However, I do not believe that the left supported the US war in Bosnia because it supported Muslims. Rather, it was because there was no US national interest. It seems to be a leftist axiom that the US can never defend itself or pursue its interests in a legitimate way. The left also seems to be a little leary of France, Germany or Britain defending themselves vigorously. I believe it has more to do with the leftist "support the underdog" starting point, which has led the left to a place where the underdog is always right (see their position on the Palistinian arabs)

Anonymous said...

I think that the left in this country are nothing than arrogant. It is their arrogance that those who don't believe in their social experimentation that leads them to contradict themselves in the actions. Take this social security plan that Bush is trying to get into law. Most liberals forget and are shocked that this plan was actually similar to one that Clinton tried to enact during his presidency. But if Bush proposes it then it HAS to be wrong.

Most liberals love to champion the action of the UN but forget what history has taught us about not taking action. One only has to look at the actions (or inactions) of the League of Nations when dealing with Hitler's aggression to see how dangerous it can get.

Dan Morgan said...

Evan,

Look, I always vote Republican, but it is rediculous to say, "Whereas most Americans saw the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy throughout much of the world as a great advancement for civilization the Liberal saw it as nothing short of evil." This is just showing the same kind of political intolerance that the left shows. Show me one mainstream liberal that would say that ending the Cold War was evil. Come on, you do your side no service by making such a sweeping and brutal assertion.

Dan Morgan

J. Silverstein said...

Q) What exactly have we "liberated" the Iraqi people for?

A) Freedom and democracy.

Truth) Last I checked, the Iraqi people may have actually had it better before because insurgency is not democracy.

Q) What is the REAL reason Iraq was invaded?

A) Weapons of Mass Destruction...Ooops...I mean, to liberate the people. Yeah, that's right. Spreading freedom.

Truth) OIL (Ooops again! Silly us). Face it, if Iraq was exporting rutabagas the big oil and energy business-types who make up the majority of this administration's cabinet wouldn't be using the most powerful military on the planet to invade a poor country to get at their biggest resource.

Opinion) If the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed, the Gulf War of 1990 as well as the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would never have happened. I never thought I'd say this, but if Bush has proven anything, he's proven that the USSR was a necessary evil because it's presence, no matter how menacing, maintained balance. Now, representing the only remaining so-called Superpower, who's going to stop this administration from attacking anybody they want? (The United Nations isn't even worth mentioning) The Democrats are also a necessary evil but their total lack of ability to do anything has allowed these hard-liners that influence many members of Congress to have a voice in our everyday lives. Trumpeting the defeat of Fascists in Iraq while promoting a similar idea here is total hypocrisy. But it's also a way to keep us all fighting amongst each other while the oil companies and politicians sleep together at our expense.

Anonymous said...

I take great offense to this article being a native of Sarajevo. I think the question you should be asking yourself is Why George Bush Sr. supported the wars in Iraq and Somalia but not Bosnia? He refused to send troops in to help and excused his action by saying that he didn't want another Vietnam in the middle of Europe.

Bill Clinton on the other hand saw genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for what it was, the worst in Europe since the Holocaust. Also the demand for freedom and independence by Bosnians and Croats from a post communist and at the time highly socialist Yugoslavia is something that so many of our past presidents have supported in Latin American nations and elsewhere around the world.

Eric your last comment which states that victory in Bosnia strengthened the Islamic movement is ridiculous. Bosnian Muslims are as far from fundamentalists as is possible to get. They are among the very few secular Muslim nations in the world and the majority of the population of Bosnia is made up of Croats and Serbs anyways.

You might also be interested to know that the first Bosnian unit of soldiers has been deployed for Iraq just this past week to aid the US coalition there. Majority of who are Muslims and are most definitly supporting their American allies and not their fellow Muslims.

To further illustrate the difference between Bosnia and Iraq, i will mention that not a single American soldier lost their life in Bosnia during the war. As a matter in fact ground troops never even went into Bosnia as anything other then peacekeepers and observers. The extent of American help during the Bosnian war was the bombardment of key bridges and roads which slowed the Serbian occupation of Bosnia. The troops there now are a part of a NATO force primarily responsible for bringing in war criminals to proper authorities.

I am rather surprised that you don't know your facts about the conflicts in the Balkans if you are going to compare the people there to terrorists and jihadists. You should be ashamed of yourself.

happygolucky said...

Not one critic of this article addressed the point made by it...

THE HYPOCRACY OF THE DEMOCRATS FOR SUPPORTING THE WAR IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA AND NOT IN IRAQ

Please re-read this article,

Thank you

J. Silverstein said...

Oh, come on, "happygolucky." BOTH sides are hypocrites! You know damn well that the reason Democrats didn't support the war in Iraq is the same reason the Republicans didn't support the war in Bosnia:

PARTISAN POLITICS.

No more, no less. It's childish and idiotic. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sugar in the gas tank of our government.