The Return of Al Qaeda

[Marc and Olga 0]

Forget the date, look at the names.... coincidence? I'm sure I am skipping a few but I think I hit the big ones

It just shows that it was a widespread opinion. Both sides wanted Saddam removed. What, if a righty agreed that means it is false? Your dodging the facts again.

Then I guess we need to look at both the dates and the names....

Donald Rumsfeld being the big name asking for a regime change prior to becoming the Secratary of Defense at the time such a regime change was acted.

Paul Wolfowitz and Richard L Armitage also being in a position under the current president at the same time of said regime change.

Is it merely coincidence that these people were in the positions they were when we invaded Iraq and if so did they somehow influence the decision to invade Iraq?

bear in mind I never supported a war with Iraq, but if you want to talk about terrorism then lest ye forget the great Bushisms after 9/11, such as we will get those responsible...

perhaps if President Bush had of "Stayed the Course" with AQ and not veered off course towards Iraq this thread would not exists...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

oh i very much am intrested. but, iraq isn't all on bush. the others in washington also voted to go to war on the same info bush had. now they want to "cut & run", w/o taking any responsibility for their actions. thats why i asked for the cliff notes. i want to know, if its a real viable plan or more democratic bs pointing the finger across the aisle. when their just a guilty of getting us into this as bush. and like i said the extremist want world domination & no comprimise will ever be possible. get use to it, this war against terrorism (where ever the front line is) will not end in our life time.

Do you think that Iraq has made things better or worse as far as fundamentalist terrorism is concerned?

probably worse but bush isn't the only one that is to blame for iraq.

No - but he is the CIC. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. Loves taking the credit, can't take the blame.

[GaryC 7]

Forget the date, look at the names.... coincidence? I'm sure I am skipping a few but I think I hit the big ones

It just shows that it was a widespread opinion. Both sides wanted Saddam removed. What, if a righty agreed that means it is false? Your dodging the facts again.

Then I guess we need to look at both the dates and the names....

Donald Rumsfeld being the big name asking for a regime change prior to becoming the Secratary of Defense at the time such a regime change was acted.

Paul Wolfowitz and Richard L Armitage also being in a position under the current president at the same time of said regime change.

Is it merely coincidence that these people were in the positions they were when we invaded Iraq and if so did they somehow influence the decision to invade Iraq?

bear in mind I never supported a war with Iraq, but if you want to talk about terrorism then lest ye forget the great Bushisms after 9/11, such as we will get those responsible...

perhaps if President Bush had of "Stayed the Course" with AQ and not veered off course towards Iraq this thread would not exists...

Completely blind Bush and right bashing. When you cannot defend your position you blame the right. You just don't want to admit that the vast majority of people on both sides wanted the war. When you lost the stomach for it you forget the left half and blame the right half. Very dishonest.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Remind me again: Who is the "commander guy"? And who in Congress pushed him to go into Iraq?

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002...

Are you going to blame all these people here also? They voted to go into Iraq, they wanted Saddam out. They did what they thought was right and when they thought it was politically expedient they turn coated. And you bought into it.

Gary, read what they voted for. And none of these quotes you provided contains any pressure on Bush to give the marching orders. Remember, if you would, that it was the White House that pushed the Congress to pass this resolution and that it was the White House that ran around the country spreading false information and outright lies to pressure the Congress to pass it. Keyword: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. I say no more.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To extend your metaphor, it was better when the ants were underground and we didn't see them?

As it pertains to Iraq - yes. Why stir things up in one area when you haven't dealt conclusively with the first one?

Forget the date, look at the names.... coincidence? I'm sure I am skipping a few but I think I hit the big ones

It just shows that it was a widespread opinion. Both sides wanted Saddam removed. What, if a righty agreed that means it is false? Your dodging the facts again.

Then I guess we need to look at both the dates and the names....

Donald Rumsfeld being the big name asking for a regime change prior to becoming the Secratary of Defense at the time such a regime change was acted.

Paul Wolfowitz and Richard L Armitage also being in a position under the current president at the same time of said regime change.

Is it merely coincidence that these people were in the positions they were when we invaded Iraq and if so did they somehow influence the decision to invade Iraq?

bear in mind I never supported a war with Iraq, but if you want to talk about terrorism then lest ye forget the great Bushisms after 9/11, such as we will get those responsible...

perhaps if President Bush had of "Stayed the Course" with AQ and not veered off course towards Iraq this thread would not exists...

Completely blind Bush and right bashing. When you cannot defend your position you blame the right. You just don't want to admit that the vast majority of people on both sides wanted the war. When you lost the stomach for it you forget the left half and blame the right half. Very dishonest.

Again I was never, at any point convinced of the need for this. Neither were a good many of the British public - certainly noone I know.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Calling for Saddam's ouster is one thing. I remember that the resolution that was passed in Congress authorized the use of force as a last resort and stipulated an international approach. Bush's marching orders did not fulfill either of these pre-requisites. And Bush clearly lacked a viable post Saddam plan when he sent the boys in. Collecting the flowers the Iraqis would throw our way was about as much of a plan as he had. That naive little #######.

I'll hand it to you ET. You have your head firmly in the sand and you just don't want to see anything that does not fit your preconceived ideas. Your bent on blaming Bush and nothing will deter you. Your not anti-war, your just anti-Bush. It clouds everything else you do.

Gary, try factual source for a change. Try the White House even, for crying out loud:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021002-2.html

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(B) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(B) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B ) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

© WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(B) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(B) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

© To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Bush did not exhaust the diplomatic avenues or facilitate resolution through the United Nations as outlined in Section 2 (in fact, he hindered the UN from completing the job they were tasked to do by the Securoty Council). And Section 3a) puts the determination of the use of force in the President's hands. That makes him responsible for whether he made the right determination. He didn't. Any way you slice it, Congress did not pass any resolution ordering the President to use military force against Iraq.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Completely blind Bush and right bashing. When you cannot defend your position you blame the right. You just don't want to admit that the vast majority of people on both sides wanted the war. When you lost the stomach for it you forget the left half and blame the right half. Very dishonest.

Again, had Bush "Stayed the Course" with AQ I would not be bashing him, as I have stated many times in the past I liked his father, enough to give this Bush a shot (though I did not vote for him), he mucked it up with Iraq...

Then again you assume I am left...I am but a humble independent with my own feelings politically some of them are towards the right, some are towards the left...but my position on Iraq has always been we should never have been there in the first place. That we should have gotten OBL and his group and HAD we done that then AQ would probably not be a problem NOW.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Completely blind Bush and right bashing. When you cannot defend your position you blame the right. You just don't want to admit that the vast majority of people on both sides wanted the war. When you lost the stomach for it you forget the left half and blame the right half. Very dishonest.

I have always thought and said that this war was a very bad idea. The nation was scared into it but there were quite a number of people in this country that knew from the very beginning that this would be one huge disaster. All that doesn't change the fact, though, that none other than GWB made the determination to go in and made the determination to go in as he did - unprepared and understaffed. None other than GWB bears the responsibility for this war and how it is conducted. It's what comes with being the "commander guy".

Edited July 12, 2007 by ET-US2004

[Heracles 417]

It has brought them out of the darkness. Have you even seen what a bus load or market place of blown up women and children looks like. Is that Bush's fault as well?

Someone has to roll up their sleeves to get the dirty jobs done in this world. Al Qaeda is like a cancer. Until they are all killed we should never stop fighting them at every corner of the earth.

The point is - if that sort of fundamentalism was there to begin with, it was effectively contained by the (secular) military regime. All the conflict has done is kick over the anthill and start a bigger fire.

As to what we should do now - rather more difficult to say. Other than that we have noticeably fewer options now than we did before.

Action usually involves that. Everything involves risk and consequences. I understand that if I was to intervene in a street fight, it might lead to my death. But what people are suggesting is that we just do our own thing and pretend nothing is happening. That life is just about having fun; as the hippies put it..

Much like what is happening in Dafur. Thousand of people are being slaughtered daily there while we host concerts and charity events. Makes us feel good about ourselves when in reality we are doing absolutely nothing to help those fellow human beings.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It has brought them out of the darkness. Have you even seen what a bus load or market place of blown up women and children looks like. Is that Bush's fault as well?

Someone has to roll up their sleeves to get the dirty jobs done in this world. Al Qaeda is like a cancer. Until they are all killed we should never stop fighting them at every corner of the earth.

The point is - if that sort of fundamentalism was there to begin with, it was effectively contained by the (secular) military regime. All the conflict has done is kick over the anthill and start a bigger fire.

As to what we should do now - rather more difficult to say. Other than that we have noticeably fewer options now than we did before.

Action usually involves that. Everything involves risk and consequences. I understand that if I was to intervene in a street fight, it might lead to my death. But what people are suggesting is that we just do our own thing and pretend nothing is happening. That life is just about having fun; as the hippies put it..

Much like what is happening in Dafur. Thousand of people are being slaughtered daily there while we host concerts and charity events. Makes us feel good about ourselves when in reality we are doing absolutely nothing to help those fellow human beings.

"Action", which was in this case rather foolhardy.

Good point that you bring up Darfur, I have mentioned it before also - mainly as an illustration of how 'humanitarian' these unilateral military adventures really are. In that context "Freeing the world from tyranny" is a gross platitude.

[GaryC 7]

Bush did not exhaust the diplomatic avenues or facilitate resolution through the United Nations as outlined in Section 2 (in fact, he hindered the UN from completing the job they were tasked to do by the Securoty Council). And Section 3a) puts the determination of the use of force in the President's hands. That makes him responsible for whether he made the right determination. He didn't. Any way you slice it, Congress did not pass any resolution ordering the President to use military force against Iraq.

He did exhaust all diplomatic avenues. If we did what you wanted we would still be dealing with Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN, shooting at our planes and killing his own people. Just as you ask "when will we have victory?" we would be instead ask "when has diplomatic avenues been exhausted?". We gave him more chances than he deserved. It was obvious that he would never comply. Your just using this as an excuse to bash Bush. He had the right and the authority to take out Saddam.

Here is another liitle quote you might be interested in. But you will undoubtedly say that Bush lied to him. That is your typical line.

30 June 2000, Volume 3, Number 21

GORE REPEATS THAT SADDAM MUST GO.

U.S. Vice President Al Gore told Iraqi opposition leaders that Saddam Husseyn "must be removed from power," AP reported on 26 June. Among his audience at the Washington meeting were representatives of the Kurdish Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Iraq National Congress (INC), and the Constitutional Monarchist Movement.

London's "Al-Hayat" on 27 June said that the Iraqi participants in the meeting had pressed for a change in the way the U.S. administration now deals with the INC and specifically for the release of funds appropriated by the Congress. The paper added that the INC leadership also called on the United States to change the current rules of engagement given to U.S. forces so that they can strike other targets as well as to continue enforcement of the existing no-fly zones.

The INC representatives also reportedly called on Gore to help them combat the environmental disaster now being caused by the construction of dams that prevent the flow of water into the Al-Ahwar marshes (see "RFE/RL Iraq Report," 2 June 2000 and 16 June 2000). These marshes are inhabited by supporters of the Shi'ite opposition to Saddam Husseyn. According to the "Mideast Mirror" of 27 June, the opposition urged that U.S warplanes "destroy these dams in order to thwart the Iraqi regimes plans to displace the residents of the southern marshes."

Following Gore's meeting with the Iraqi opposition groups, the two sides released a joint statement reiterating the U.S. commitment to removing Saddam Husseyn from power and arguing that Saddam's removal "is the key to the positive transformation of Iraq's relationship to the international community." (David Nissman)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/830180/posts

[GaryC 7]

As a further illustration of how all sides thought a fight with Saddam was inevitable check out this:

Clinton rallies domestic support for strike at Iraq

Iraq, International, 2/17/1998

Even while insisting that the US is exhausting diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution to the current Iraqi crisis, US President Bill Clinton spoke at the Pentagon in an effort to drum up domestic support for possible US military strikes against Iraq.

Clinton said the US stands in opposition to the "reckless acts of outlaw nations" and an "unholy axis" of terrorists, drug dealers, and organized crime. While the US would greatly prefer a diplomatic solution to the crisis, Clinton reiterated that the US is ready to use force.

"There can be no dilution" of "the essence" of the UN resolutions, which call for unfettered access, Clinton said. He said that a solution must meet a "clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard," which is the "free, full, unfettered access" to disputed "presidential sites" in Iraq, access the US has repeatedly called for. "We seek to finish the job" of the UN weapons inspectors, Clinton said.

Clinton admitted that the potential military strikes, which have met with widespread international opposition, would not destroy Iraq's capacity to create weapons of mass destruction, they would, "seriously reduce his [saddam Hussein's] capacity to threaten his neighbors." Clinton said the strikes would leave Saddam Hussein "worse off" than he is now.

US Vice-President Al Gore said the US is "working around the clock to pursue a possible diplomatic solution to the crisis," but warned "When it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one."

Clinton said Iraq had repeatedly submitted evaluations of its weapons that were refused by UNSCOM, including six declarations on biological weapons and four on nuclear weapons. He said that when Iraqi reports of weapons capacities were disproven, the Iraqis simply amended the old reports in light of the new evidence. Clinton also said that UNSCOM was effective, although the Iraqis tried to place "debilitating conditions" on their work.

Iraq has called UNSCOM's impartiality and professionalism into question and has proposed an offer -- which the US rejected -- that special teams be formulated by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to inspect the presidential sites for a period of two months. The teams could include UNSCOM members.

"Force can never be the first answer, but sometimes it's the only answer," Clinton said.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Heracles 417]

"Action", which was in this case rather foolhardy.

Good point that you bring up Darfur, I have mentioned it before also - mainly as an illustration of how 'humanitarian' these unilateral military adventures really are. In that context "Freeing the world from tyranny" is a gross platitude.

What do you expect us to do in Dafur, negotiate with them?

Should we have sat down and tried negotiating in WWII as well?

Should we have sat down and tried negotiating with Serbia back in the 90's??

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The point is - if that sort of fundamentalism was there to begin with, it was effectively contained by the (secular) military regime. All the conflict has done is kick over the anthill and start a bigger fire.

Inaccurate, as Zia's government and intel (both military) actually seeded and fertilised AQ, and also provided personnel-materiel support to them and Taliban in the latter's 1996 takeover of Kabul; no attempt whatsoever was made until 2001 to contain AQ or Taliban--Musharraf suddenly painted himself as "ally" after 2001/09/11 to "pip at post" India, before it could start planning a joint (with US) assault against Pakistan, leading to Musharraf's extinguishment.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Action", which was in this case rather foolhardy.

Good point that you bring up Darfur, I have mentioned it before also - mainly as an illustration of how 'humanitarian' these unilateral military adventures really are. In that context "Freeing the world from tyranny" is a gross platitude.

What do you expect us to do in Dafur, negotiate with them?

Should we have sat down and tried negotiating in WWII as well?

Should we have sat down and tried negotiating with Serbia back in the 90's??

All of those situations are rather different aren't they? Involving specific, identifiable, sovereign governments. Sudan would be the exception of course - but again for all the chaotic evil things that are going on there noone is breaking much of a sweat of that particular oppressed people. Suggests that humanitarian concerns in unilaterally declared war should be taken with a big pinch of salt.

The WW2 comparison in particular is badly overused - though there was a spate of ex-nazi terrorism in the years immediately following WW2. That's about the only comparison that can really be made.