A question about American politics

[FlatAssembler]

Hey, guys! I happen to live in Croatia. I know that the American conservatives claim that it's justified for the US to be involved in a war because it brings people freedom and capitalism.
So, I have a serious question about it.

How do the American conservatives respond to the notion that the America's involvement in the Yugoslav Wars (the bombings of Belgrade) is responsible for the recent rise of socialism (as an opposition to the "capitalism") in Croatia?
To me, that notion appears quite plausible.

Not everyone knows this, but more people were killed in the bombings of Belgrade than in of Vukovar. And the war was, by the time of the bombings of Belgrade, for all practical purposes, over. Very few people in Belgrade still believed in neofascism at that point in time. Those bombings basically killed thousands of people who had nothing to do with the war crimes the neofascists did other than being the same nationality, and nationality isn't the same as political affiliation. Furthermore, the neofascists were storing most of their ammunition near the concentration camps in northern Bosnia, and not in Belgrade.

Similarly, during the World War 2, the USA and the UK interventions on the territory of the modern-day Croatia probably increased the number of casualties. Namely, at the beginning of World War 2, they financially supported the Chetnik party, which later turned out to be cooperating with the Fascists.

[Sensei]

Involvement of NATO (not just USA) was direct result of massacres and mass murders..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Yugoslavia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

It was completely unacceptable for world community.

 

Edited April 15, 2018 by Sensei

[StringJunky]

NATO intervened because Bosnian serbs were committing ethnic cleansing of Bosnian muslims; genocide.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, FlatAssembler said:

How do the American conservatives respond to the notion that the America's involvement in the Yugoslav Wars (the bombings of Belgrade) is responsible for the recent rise of socialism (as an opposition to the "capitalism") in Croatia?

Most are probably completely unaware of what you're even talking about and so are unable to comment intelligently 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Most are probably completely unaware of what you're even talking about and so are unable to comment intelligently 

In my experience not being educated on a issue doesn't hold back Conservatives. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, FlatAssembler said:

Hey, guys! I happen to live in Croatia. I know that the American conservatives claim that it's justified for the US to be involved in a war because it brings people freedom and capitalism.
So, I have a serious question about it.

How do the American conservatives respond to the notion that the America's involvement in the Yugoslav Wars (the bombings of Belgrade) is responsible for the recent rise of socialism (as an opposition to the "capitalism") in Croatia?
To me, that notion appears quite plausible.

Not everyone knows this, but more people were killed in the bombings of Belgrade than in of Vukovar. And the war was, by the time of the bombings of Belgrade, for all practical purposes, over. Very few people in Belgrade still believed in neofascism at that point in time. Those bombings basically killed thousands of people who had nothing to do with the war crimes the neofascists did other than being the same nationality, and nationality isn't the same as political affiliation. Furthermore, the neofascists were storing most of their ammunition near the concentration camps in northern Bosnia, and not in Belgrade.

Similarly, during the World War 2, the USA and the UK interventions on the territory of the modern-day Croatia probably increased the number of casualties. Namely, at the beginning of World War 2, they financially supported the Chetnik party, which later turned out to be cooperating with the Fascists.

A foreign power seldom understands the political machinations of the country they seek to liberate, mostly because they only seek to liberate for the sake of their own political machinations.

[tuco]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Involvement of NATO (not just USA) was direct result of massacres and mass murders..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Yugoslavia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

It was completely unacceptable for world community.

 

Citation needed for "the world community". It had no mandate of the UN Security Council. 

Other than that. Achievement, to end the conflict, of the intervention, is highly questionable, so is calling the intervention, killing civilians in the process, "humanitarian".  Regarding US foreign policy, in my view, such policy is self-serving in the first place. Not saying there is anything wrong with it being self-serving, but it's important to recognize it when evaluating it in the global context. So if the US administration will believe that for example, an action will get some points at home it's more likely to execute it than if it was unpopular. In similar fashion, if the US administration will believe that an action will serve any strategic goal of the US, it's more likely to execute it than if it would not serve any. And this is regardless of consequences of such action at the point of impact.  

For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Edited April 15, 2018 by tuco

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, tuco said:

Citation needed for "the world community". It had no mandate of the UN Security Council. 

Other than that. Achievement, to end the conflict, of the intervention, is highly questionable, so is calling the intervention, killing civilians in the process, "humanitarian".  Regarding US foreign policy, in my view, such policy is self-serving in the first place. Not saying there is anything wrong with it being self-serving, but it's important to recognize it when evaluating it in the global context. So if the US administration will believe that for example, an action will get some points at home it's more likely to execute it than if it was unpopular. In similar fashion, if the US administration will believe that an action will serve any strategic goal of the US, it's more likely to execute it than if it would not serve any. And this is regardless of consequences of such action at the point of impact.  

For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Sure, it's a complex issue, but using a Bush doctrine to enlighten action, seems akin to using Trump as a justification for being drunk.

[tuco]

In my eyes, the Bush Doctrine sheds some light on "democratization" and conservative views the OP was mentioning. As the wiki puts it:

Quote

Another part of the intellectual underpinning of the Bush Doctrine was the 2004 book The Case for Democracy, written by Israeli politician and author Natan Sharansky and Israeli Minister of Economic Affairs in the United States Ron Dermer, which Bush has cited as influential in his thinking.[54] The book argues that replacing dictatorships with democratic governments is both morally justified, since it leads to greater freedom for the citizens of such countries, and strategically wise, since democratic countries are more peaceful, and breed less terrorism than dictatorial ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#Natan_Sharansky

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, tuco said:

which Bush has cited as influential in his thinking.

No shit, though I doubt he thought.

It's the old argument, is it anti-semitic or anti-profit?

[tuco]

What is, old argument?

Regarding "democratization"". I think its one of those concepts that make sense on theoretical and not too sophisticated level but fail to be supported by data and have unintended consequences due to complexity of the issues it's trying to solve. Kind of like communism. 

[dimreepr]

Who knew big brother would be kind of the same?