Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Missouri Young Republicans?

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Jonathan King wrote:

> 
> Moreover, you omit the fact that it was Clinton who finally managed to
> drag NATO into doing something useful against the murderous Serbian
> regime in Yugoslavia when they threatened more genocide in Kosovo. 
> That case was very revealing, in that the goal was so clear, the
> approach was direct, the outcome was pretty massively positive
> (Milosovic is on trial for his war crimes) and the cost to the US
> while not trivial (we're still in Kosovo as peace keepers) was pretty
> clearly bounded.  And we had all of our allies with us.
> 

Clinton's involvement in Bosnia is something that I admired him for.  There were 
some problems with how he did it - I think that ground troops right at the 
beginning would have stopped a lot of the humanitarian disasters that happened 
at that time (when withdrawing Serbian troops created havoc on the Bosnians they 
were leaving behind).  The eventual outcome of this invasion seems to have been 
good, but do not forget that the immediate aftermath was a situation that to me 
seemed far worse than what we have in Iraq right now.

I can also see why Clinton did not send in ground troops - in part because he 
wished to keep the old alliances.  I can see reasons why he did this, but I can 
also see reasons why he shouldn't have.  In a similar situation, G.W. Bush has 
shown himself very willing to sacrifice or at least weaken these same alliances. 
  Personally I favor Bush's approach, but I can see the point of someone who 
thinks otherwise.

I do honestly feel that both Clinton and Bush acted honorably in these 
situations.  Both were willing to gamble their political futures for what they 
thought was right.  Clinton survived - we have yet to see the outcome for Bush.

Best, Stephen
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion