This is similar to what Brad wrote, Link

I know, but it seemed to focus mostly on other things.

I guess most of the positive reasons for overthrowing Milosevic also exist for overthrowing Hussein. But you can come up with a whole lot of negatives for the Iraq invasion that didn't apply to the Serbia invasion.

I supported both wars, but one could reasonably support the first and not the second. There's the argument that invading Iraq would hurt the fight against Al Qaeda, by increasing resentment toward the US, or diverting resources from other matters, or a couple other variations on that theme. Or there were those who pointed out the risk that we'd end up in an endless occupation of Iraq, because if we left it would collapse in civil war, since (the argument goes) America would not be capable of creating a working, self-sufficient government there. And so on. The jury's still out on these.

Basically the Iraq invasion was a much higher risk/higher reward affair than the Serbia invasion, and one's assessment of those risks and rewards determines one's position.

I was pro-war, but really, there's nothing irrational about the anti-war camp.

I could respect that argument. It's definitely much riskier than Kosovo.

The rewards for a liberated Iraq are a lot higher than the benefits of Kosovo. What has helping Kosovo done to help the USA?

I suspect it has more to do with because Clinton was President so Democrats supported it. If Clinton had attacked Iraq -- oh wait he did! Democrats supported that. Even consulting with the UN. Numerous times. But if Bush does it, it's not.

Some people's ethics are flexible.

Milosevic didn't (potentially) have weapons of mass destruction in knapsacks with Grand Central Station handwritten in pen in the little tabs for name and address. Also, your numbers are likely on the conservative (how dare you be conservative) side. If he doesn't have weapons, then why the hell should we waste our time helping people who aren't even going to vote for Social Security increases for our elderly, dying boomers who want nothing more than to tell us we aren't worth a zit on a fly? People live and die, why should we be our brother's keeper? Are people really born to be free or are they destined to be pigs at a slaughter? If saving them won't get me an Acura, then dammit, I want my money to go to the old grey haired gent in the Senate trying his hardest to build a bridge in my county with his name on it, because Lord (ooops!) knows he deserves it.

Well the primary difference is that Europe was in support of ousting Milosevic but werent in support of ousting Saddam....then again Milosevic didnt have to money to pay off Europe...

Bringing the political parties into the question brings up a good point. Sadly, in order for Americans to wage war it nearly seems that whatever "party" (read: their president) is pursuing the war will always be opposed stalwartly by the other half. There seems no pattern where we could say one party has always/consistently been the hawks; Bush pushed for war in Iraq, Dems opposed; Clinton pushed for ousting Milosivec, GOP opposed; &c. for most other wars the U.S. has waged. Why? The nearest guess I can come up with is that if both parties agreed, everybody in the Beltway wouldn't have any fun,and the gaps in airtime on news networks would be appalling as talk shows were confronted with a dearth in topics... It's easier to jest.

"Well the primary difference is that Europe was in support of ousting Milosevic but werent in support of ousting Saddam....then again Milosevic didnt have to money to pay off Europe.."

Don't forget paying off the U.N.

"Well the primary difference is that Europe was in support of ousting Milosevic but werent in support of ousting Saddam....then again Milosevic didnt have to money to pay off Europe.." Don't forget paying off the U.N.

Are you sure Saddam had enough money left to pay both Europe and the UN off, you know, after financing both the bogus moonlandings, Roswell, the Kennedy killings (2x) and the Bush election?

The difference is context and trust. Plain and simple.

Context:
The whole episode in Yugoslavia took place shortly after the cold war ended. There was a firm belief in the world that we could now, finally, make a better world without having to fear getting bombed to nuclear pieces for it. We tried liberating a few places like Somalia and Kosovo and found out it isn't all that easy, nor are the results as satisfactory. Nevertheless, it seemed like a very good idea at the time to just about everyone.
The war in Iraq has been controversial from day 1. Most of Europe has been opposed to it all the way through. Nothing to do with race or colour (remember Somalia) and nothing to do with not caring. On the contrary; most Europeans were against an invasion of Iraq because they feared it would cost many innocent civilians their lives, both immediately in Iraq and a lot more in the long run due to further destabilization of the region.

Trust:
Not so much the political party, but the leader himself is a factor. In Europe, George Bush is just about the most despised and ridiculed president of the US ever. Just about everyone agrees he's plain stupid, bought into office by American big business and dangerously unstable, basing the few policies he can think up by himself on religious beliefs while surrounding himself witha cabinet that not even Monty Python could have thought up. In other words, nobody trusts him.
Clinton however was one of those strange creatures who could screw up whichever way he wanted, still he was well liked in Europe. Somehow he managed to charm Europe into his corner, something Bush will never ever be able to do. This is not because they are all members of the Democratic Party over there, it's a pure personality question.
So when Clinton went on record he wanted to so something about Somalia and Kosovo, he was listened to and trusted. When Bush started about Iraq, there was suspicion. And unfortunately, it didn't take all that long to find out a lot of the suspicion was well-deserved. No WMD, no real link to terrorism and 9/11, no quick cure for all the cancers in the MIddle East.

Everyone does not think he's stupid. As a matter of fact, democrats and liberals keep underestimating him. Democrats underestimated him in the '02 elections and look what happened. Bought into office? More tin hat conspiracy theories.



He was liked in Europe because he was an appeaser like they were. It's not called charm....it's called being a professional bs artist.



The suspicions coming from the people who were being bribed by saddam. France, Russia, U.N. etc. Clinton attacked Iraq because of WMD. John Kerry said Iraq had WMD, but thats ok because they are democrats. The usual double standard. Iraq was harboring terrorists, Iraq had terrorist training camps, and was a danger to the world. I guess that only matters when a democrat is in office.

The whole episode in Yugoslavia took place shortly after the cold war ended. There was a firm belief in the world that we could now, finally, make a better world without having to fear getting bombed to nuclear pieces for it. We tried liberating a few places like Somalia and Kosovo and found out it isn't all that easy, nor are the results as satisfactory. Nevertheless, it seemed like a very good idea at the time to just about everyone. The war in Iraq has been controversial from day 1. Most of Europe has been opposed to it all the way through. Nothing to do with race or colour (remember Somalia) and nothing to do with not caring. On the contrary; most Europeans were against an invasion of Iraq because they feared it would cost many innocent civilians their lives, both immediately in Iraq and a lot more in the long run due to further destabilization of the region.

So, from what I see, the main difference is that Europe was disillusioned after Yugoslavia. The U.S., however, wasn't. Also Europeans need to ask themselves: people would die, but in the end, would it be more than had we let Hussein stay in power and continue starving and killing his citizens?

Just about everyone agrees he's plain stupid, bought into office by American big business and dangerously unstable, basing the few policies he can think up by himself on religious beliefs while surrounding himself witha cabinet that not even Monty Python could have thought up.

Are you sure American big business had enough money left to win the Bush election, you know, after financing both the bogus moonlandings, Roswell, and the Kennedy killings (2x)?

So when Clinton went on record he wanted to so something about Somalia and Kosovo, he was listened to and trusted. When Bush started about Iraq, there was suspicion. And unfortunately, it didn't take all that long to find out a lot of the suspicion was well-deserved. No WMD, no real link to terrorism and 9/11, no quick cure for all the cancers in the MIddle East.

So, it's not about morals, bullying, or anything. It's about charm. Valid, albeit bad reason, to be against one war and for a similar one. Charm != Right

Well seeing as the UN oil-for-food program seems to have come under seriousfire for mismanagement (im being kind) and outright bribes...(most notably to france and russia...go figure) Saddam did indeed have the money to play....seeing as whatever shipment contract was over-priced by the sellers and a large part of the overcharge was then kicked back to Saddams pocket....

No WMD, no real link to terrorism and 9/11, no quick cure for all the cancers in the MIddle East

well geez shall we go into this statement piece by piece....
1) No WMD's...first off intelligence showed that he did have it...now regardless if the intel was correct or not....is beside the point seeing as every major nation and the un...that includes the Axis of weasel nations...believed he did...if he didnt ..then why did Saddam play the hardass card?
2)No real link to terrorism....gee i believe Saddam did support Palestinian suicide bombers via money to their family as well to the terrorist groups (sorry extremist for the politically correct inclined), Ansar al-Islam did operate a sizable base in Northeastern Iraq...which was not controlled by the kurds..and links between Saddams regime and Al-queda via the Iraqi Mukhabarat(iraqi secret police) have begun coming out that show connections going back to after the 1st gulf war..not to mention the compound at Salmon Pak which was a terrorist training facility
3) as for the cure for cancer...screw that..i smoke..got to have my nicotine

What they don't say on the US news much is that Milosevic was protecting his people from the Muslim Albanian invaders that killed his people. If people read history they will see that that 10 years before the Kosovo conflict there were 9/10 Serbs in Kosovo and 1/10 Albanians. Then the Albanians with the Terrorist group the KLA that was classified as terrorist by the Americans and by others attacked the Serbs by threatening them, killing them, burning their homes, churches, and businesses. Many reporters and investigators from Spain, England, and other countries said there were no mass graves of Albanians but they did find mass graves from Serb civilians, Albanian terrorists, and mostly from the Albanian other people that they attack.

If you see how Kosovo is now you will see that many Albanians say they lied about many accusations about rap, murder and the rest to get sympathy and help from foreigners. Ever since then over 100 Serbian churches have been burned which is all of them and they report this in foreign news and not in the US news until the Albanians destroyed all the churches so that the US can say it’s too late. The Muslims wanted the property and now after pushing away the Serbs there are 9/10 Albanians and 1/10 Serbs. Albania is the poorest part of Europe and the only Muslim country in Europe. Also not just Serbs are being attacked but others since there is an ethic cleansing of Serbs and other non Muslim people and I do not mean non Albanians since they even say that they want their religion to spread which is why they burn other churches and build over them with their Mosque. You can read up on this more on BBC news and other international news. Just last week there was a report about it in BBC and many other European news organizations.

Hussein was a real bad guy that could have been stopped before by the other Bush but didn’t and his son continued it. The US did not need to take down Hussein now since it wasn’t a major threat but to say that he wasn’t is joke since I don't think anyone wants to have Hussein as their president, but Milosevic was just as bad as Bush and they still cant find good evidence for war crimes against him but they are trying to dig some dirt like J walking if they can to put him in life.

In conclusion to go against both was not right and to dictate over them about them being dictators is strange.