Need a responce for a Thug

I said to him in 232 year we never invaded a 'soverign nation" How can you justifing this" ( He laughed and said Saddem was an an evil dictator)

How do we separate our 'invasion' of Kosovo vs Iraq?

We launched an air war to stop ethnic cleansing by Milosevic with the backing of NATO. We had no such backing for the Iraq invasion.

and could be taken care of from the air, and had people welcoming our help, and had a coalition of other countries involved, and not one of our soldiers died in taking it over, and didn't require 200 BILLION dollars three years into it, and we weren't torturing Serbs from the opposing troops.

I have more if you need it.

the paradigm was established with the Mexican War. That was a straight-up war of aggression against an inferior foe.

It's not the lack of historical precedent. It's the lack of current moral imperative.

Kosovo was a *true* multinational force under the UN banner to keep peace in a region known for infighting ethnic groups. No US soldiers died in combat in Kosovo. Not a single one.

Iraq was the illegal invasion of a sovereign country which was at that time no threat to its neighbors due to previous sanctions and total Iraq airspace supremacy by US forces with not a single combat casualty. Saddam was totally defanged and we invaded anyway. Since then, thousands have died in the combat in Iraq, including over 2000 US soldiers.

There is a significant difference between the two.

I could be wrong, but the UN did not approve the use of force in Kosovo.

under the blue UN banner. I may be wrong, too, though.

recognized that another world war could easily start in former Yugoslavia, just as the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand had precipitated WWI.
Kosovo was experiencing a real and present genocide, for which we were morally obligated to act. CLinton should have acted in Rwanda as well, but there was no getting around congress for an african intervention, especially in light of Somalia. The repubs controlled congress and would not allow our intervention on behalf of black people who didnt mean much economically. KOsovo was tough on Clinton politically, but was the right thing to do.

Kosovo was a true coalition- we went in with full NATO support, and it actually IMPROVED the USA's standing in the world, as we stood up to a predominantly christian bully (Yugoslavia) in behalf of a predominantly muslim population.

In truth Bush never give a damn about the "WMD" s or Saddam gassing his own people. After all his daddy sold the WMDs to Saddam and they knew they had been destroyed . Out sole reason for being in Iraq is control of their natural resources. Imperialism. And we're losing badly.

There are, sadly, other instances in which we have violated the rights of sovereign nations- just never so blatantly as in Iraq today.
Your friend is right that we have broken international law before ( remember Grenada?)but there is a fundamental difference between Kosovo and Iraq.

Anyone whom was following before the invasion knew it was a crock of &#$%% BUT As you stated we have gone in to Granada and shouldn't have, WE SHOULD BE GOING INTO DARFUR and are NOT.Our Policies all seem to be so confusing with no consistancy...


I agree we did invade under a NATO flag BUT Kosovo was NOT in NATO and they had no national security to worry about...and we did NOT have UN approval.

anyone? And he has WMDs . . .