
Sorry, I misread your remark about young men and women.  (Though I am now
unsure what that sentence does mean.)


You implied that anyone who wants to send troops to Bosnia wants to do so to
help the "butchers of their choice".  Since the primary targets of help are
Muslim victims of "ethnic cleansing", you imply that such Muslim victims are
butchers.


This implies both sides are equal.  True, it may sometimes be difficult or
impossible to determine which side is the victim, but that does not mean that
victims do not exist.  Would you, in WWII have said that there were atrocities
on the sides of both the Jews and the Germans?


Yes, but both sides want different things.  The Muslims chiefly want to not
be "ethnic cleansed".  The Serbians want to "ethnic cleanse" the Muslims.  It
is indeed true that each side will stop when it gets what it wants, but the
things that the two sides want are not equivalent.


I recall, before we did anything for Somalia, (apparent) left-wingers saying
that the reason everyone was more willing to send troops to Bosnia than to
Somalia was because the Somalis are third-worlders who Americans consider
unworthy of help.  They suddenly shut up when the US decided to send troops to
the opposite place than that predicted by the theory.

For that matter, this theory of yours suggests that Americans should want to
help the Serbs.  After all, they're Christian, and the Muslims are not.  If
the desire to intervene in Bosnia is based on racism against people that are
less like us, why does everyone _want_ to help the side that _is_ less like us?
Especially if both of the sides are equal as you seem to think?
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)