Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu alt.politics.clinton:29449 alt.president.clinton:4882 talk.politics.mideast:76080
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.mideast
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!dxcern!vxcrna.cern.ch!casper
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: American Jewish Congress Open Letter to Clinton
Message-ID: <23APR199317002827@vxcrna.cern.ch>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Sender: news@dxcern.cern.ch (USENET News System)
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
References: <C5sKpA.DKK@world.std.com> <22APR199300374349@vxcrna.cern.ch> <C5vBnv.CJ@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <22APR199307534304@vxcrna.cern.ch> <C5wB46.I3o@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 16:00:00 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <C5wB46.I3o@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes...
>In article <22APR199307534304@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>> [I said the fixation on Bosnia is due to it being in a European country,
>>>  rather than the third world]

>>> [Ken says intervention in Somalia is a counter-example]

>>I am a staunch Republican, BTW.  The irony of arguing against military
>>intervention with arguments based on Vietnam has not escaped me.  I was opposed
>>to US intervention in Somalia for the same reasons, although clearly it was
>>not nearly as risky.
> 
>Based on the same reasons?  You mean you were opposed to US intervention in
>Somalia because since Somalia is a European country instead of the third world,
>the desire to help Somalia is racist?  I don't think this "same reason" applies
>to Somalia at all.

No, you have completely misunderstood.  I was opposed to intervention in
Somalia for the same reason I am opposed to intervention in Bosnia - there is
no security interest of the United States there which justifies risking the
lives of American servicemen, and there are too many crises in the world for us
to take on all of them.  In the case of Bosnia, the risks are obviously much
greater, and there are other countries in a much better position and with far
better reasons to take action than the US.

>The whole point is that Somalia _is_ a third world country, and we were more
>willing to send troops there than to Bosnia--exactly the _opposite_ of what
>the "fixation on European countries" theory would predict.  (Similarly, the
>desire to help Muslims being fought by Christians is also exactly the opposite
>of what that theory predicts.)

You continue to misunderstand.  I did not say the reason why people want to
intervene is because of racist (<- you seem to be overly fond of using this
word, btw.  I said the phenomenon was race-related, which is not the same as
racist.  Perhaps this distinction is too subtle for you to grasp) motives - I
said the attention and outrage at the entire Yugoslavian situation was a result
of it being 1) closer to home, 2) happening to people we can identify with, and
3) relentlessly harped on by the media.  I never said anything about which side
would be preferred, which has a lot more to do with the presentation of the
conflict than any psychological factors.  I think there is no doubt that despite
the fact we intervened in Somalia, the level of attention devoted to there was
considerably less than what is devoted to Bosnia, if the newspapers and tv news
I see are any guide.


Dave

