Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
Do you think our actions in Bosnia were justified?
Based on the intelligence available at the time, the war was justified. Bush even admitted that knowing what they do now the intelligence was wrong. If the Clinton administration had the sack, the war would have happened 10 years sooner. The invasion plans were drafted with slick willie in charge.
I never said it did, but living in a country bordering Iraq doesn't make you any more of an authority either. I asked where you were the 10 years before the war because there were diplomatic attempts to resolve the situation.
|
yeah, i know why you asked the question, and i responded int hat way because the question itself was so irrelevant to the conversation. Instead of inadvertently challenging my authority on the matter, you might have just gone on with this post and not wasted time.
The intelligence was wrong at the time yes. However, it has since come to light that there were reports given that iraq did not have WMD's, before Bush started the war, and yet he ignored them. These reports were later made public, and bush's answer as to not reading them in the first place was that he did not think it was important. Now does that sound like the actions of a man who wants to be sure his information is correct before starting a war?
Yes, clinton could have started the war earlier, but at the gulf war was sanctioned by the UN, and the US had no mandate to invade iraq, only to help push iraq out of kuwait, they would have been breaking the UN mandate and thus breaking international law. I dont think that would be called having "balls", i think that would be defined as a war crime.
edit: and yes, i do think that intervention in bosnia was justified. There was a genocide going on, and the UN was in total agreement that intervention was necessary. The war was NOT started under false pretenses, and it actually served to stop further genocide from happening.