Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Please explain our foray into eastern europe in the 90s. Were you for or against it.
To answer Hello, sanctions only harm the innocent and should never be a consideration. I believe SAM believes it would only take 3,000 soldiers. I have no visibility on that, but if that's the case, you'd think that NATO could pony that up.
|
If its truly genocide (as compared to bilateral warfare, for example), and someone could come up with a good plan (i.e., if Rummy and Wolfy could excuse themselves from the Pentagon conference room for a few minutes), and if the cost is not expected to be a thousand dead americans, than I'm for it. Genocide should never be tolerated by America, even if we stand alone, and this message should be so clear that Bush should sing it from the rooftops if its what he believes (see the retrospective justifications for Iraq).
I'm not SitC, but I'll answer your query. If we could go back and intervene in Rwanda, I'd be for it. And Bosnia was the right call, and it should have been made earlier when the Sarajevo footage was coming out nightly showing snipered civilians laying slaughtered in the streets (sometimes the slaughtering occuring on camera).
If we want the world to believe us for one instance, than we should be consistent in all other instances within reason. This would be a great opportunity for the U.S. to show leadership.
Underlying it all though is this: Is this organized genocide? If so, where the fuck is the U.S. press in covering the story?
Hello
Threaded Mode