|Democrats and (inter)National Security.||dr hoo|
Jan 28, 2004 1:03 PM
|Primary Question: Compare and contrast the Democratic led ousting of a dictator (Bosnia model) to the Republican led ousting of a dictator(s) (Iraq and/or Afganistan model).
Secondary question: I think 7-8% of Vermont REPUBLICAN primary voters voted for a Democratic candidate. Should republicans support Wes Clark if Bosnia model turns out better than the Iraq model? That would mean getting into bed with the Clintonistas.
Tertiary question: Coalitions are interesting. What if Clark/Edwards declared a ticket NOW? Edwards drops, Clark runs as Clark/Edwards pres/vp combo. THAT would be COOL!
|To be fair, include Somalia in your analysis (nm)||TJeanloz|
Jan 28, 2004 1:09 PM
|RE: To be fair, include Somalia in your analysis||dr hoo|
Jan 28, 2004 1:27 PM
|Feel free to do so in yours. Also compare the operational structure and commanders in your analysis.|
|Secondary rebuttal; Vermont hasn't voted yet (nm)||TJeanloz|
Jan 28, 2004 1:11 PM
|Some New Hampshire Republicans wrote in Democratic candidates - but not very many, and it's not like the Republican primary was meaningful.|
|The actual #||TJeanloz|
Jan 28, 2004 1:20 PM
|5% of Republicans wrote in Kerry, Dean, or Clark [combined].
But Bush got some votes in the Democratic primary too...
Hillary Clinton had some folks behind her too.
|Give me a break, I have been putting on the ....||dr hoo|
Jan 28, 2004 1:25 PM
|.... dog and pony show all day and my brain is shot.
I think given your 5%, the total of 7-8 is likely for ALL dems.
I think Bush got 2%.
dr. (rousing the rabble since 1991) hoo
|apples and ???||DougSloan|
Jan 28, 2004 1:15 PM
|Are the situations similar enough to compare? Does the party affiliation of the president make a significant difference, or are the targets and the relative military strengths the more important factors?
Nice try. I doubt you can describe any military invasion as a "model," though. That suggests that it is repeatable elsewhere at a different time, and I just can't see it.
|How about number of american deaths?||dr hoo|
Jan 28, 2004 1:22 PM
|That seems a pretty hard statistic to fudge. And a pretty meaningful one when WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who are dead.
I see no comparing, and no contrasting. You get an F.
|Depends on what you get for them||PdxMark|
Jan 28, 2004 4:33 PM
|I think the number of US caualties has to be considered in view of the importance of a military action.
In my cozy armchair, it seems that 500+ US deaths in a war against a direct threat to the US would be a regretable, but justifiable cost. 50 deaths might even be OK in a humanitarian mission that saved millions of civialians and stabilized a large or important region. But as the cost for a political game founded on a laundry list of incorrect and false justifications, 500+ lives seems like a criminally steep price to pay.
|You might be surprised who ends up||OldEdScott|
Jan 28, 2004 1:36 PM
|on top of your dream ticket, should it materialize.|
|Ditto. I'd vote Edwards/Clark over Clark/Edwards.||Dale Brigham|
Jan 28, 2004 2:21 PM
|Clark's inexperience in electoral politics is hamstringing his campaign. You gotta' run for (and win) sumpin' before you git to be President. Yeah, it worked for U.S. Grant and Ike, but Clark is not in their league as a nation- or world-saver. I really like Wes, but he'd be a lot more viable if he had an election campaign under his belt.
Ed, Dr. Hoo, anybody: is Kerry looking like a lock, or is the fat lady still in the wings? I'm thinking of voting for Edwards on Tuesday just to help keep him in the mix. I hope like heck he changes his mind about accepting the V-P slot, if offered to him by Kerry.
|Edwards may be our last, best hope, my friend.||OldEdScott|
Jan 28, 2004 5:04 PM
|If we can't beat Kerry somewhere major next week, I fear we're stuck with him, and I'll have to say nice things about him for the next nine months. Shudder.|
|Edwards may be our last, best hope, my friend.||gtx|
Jan 28, 2004 9:35 PM
|Yes, I'm thinking if nominated Kerry will get killed by Bush. It'll be '88 all over again. I think Edwards would have decent a shot, though.|
|Bosnia (and Kosovo) plus Somalia||PdxMark|
Jan 28, 2004 4:25 PM
|Bosnia: US-led NATO forces stepped in to stop a humanitarian catastophe directed toward elimination of a significant civilian population. To the West's shame, the genocidal pogrom in Bosnia had been allowed to go on for two years before it was stopped. Bleeding heart Republicans opposed the intervention as not being in American geopolitical interest. It's nice to see how Repubs have grown bleeding heart (if only for Iraqis).
Kosovo is an extension of the Bosia intervention, at least philosophically. In the case of Kosovo, US-led troops stopped the Yugoslav government from repeating the crimes against humanity that were committed in Bosnia. Again, Repub's opposed the intervention and loudly predicted (hoped for) its failure. Clinton administration putzing in military planning in Kosovo made it harder for US troops, but the intervention successfully prevented a humanitarian catastrophe and ultimately has led to stabilization of the region.
My recollections of Somalia are not strong. I think the initial UN landing was directed to securing food distribution to avert famine in the face of political chaos. Famine is apparently not so bad, for pre-bleeding heart Repubs, because they'd rather allow famine to happen than to do anything to prevent it.
Anyway, food distribution was reasonably secured, I think, but the mission crept toward trying to establish order. That was a (the) mistake. The UN forces in place were not appropriate to that task. The result was one disastrous battle that resulted in 18-20 US troops killed. Repubs can say that letting Somali civilians starve is a preferable policy to what happened. The better conclusion is that a humanitarian mission can be a humanitarian success, but it must avoid mission creep unless adequate forces are deployed for a changed mission.
Iraq was directed to ousting a brutal dictator who was completely contained. Iraq was not a military threat to any of its neighbors, or to the US. There were no pogroms occurring in Iraq at the time. Former crimes against humanity had been committed years earlier, sometimes with US complicity. Thanks 41. Thanks Ronnie. There was no imminent humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
GWB's Iraq war was just geopolitical wanking by neocon chessmen thinking that the Israeli problem could be solved by cowing the Arabs, rather than forcing Israel to work toward a remotely just settlement with the Palestinians.
The difference between Bosnia/Kosovo, Somalia & Iraq? In all but Iraq there were widespread imminent or on-going humanitarian crises threatening the lives of major population segments in those countries. In Iraq? Freedom from oppression is the only remaining justification for a war for which all other rationalizations have proven false.
|the problem in somalia||rufus|
Jan 28, 2004 6:50 PM
|was much like you said-mission creep. we went in with the intention of not taking sides, just helping people get the food. as time went on, we began to try to force order out of the 20 some major warlord factions warring, and began siding with some against others, mainly aidid. deciding that by arresting him it would improve the situation, it turned it into a US versus Aidid situation. the somali people began to see it as the US fighting against them, not aiding thm.|| |