Hillary's Bosnia Story Shot Down in Flames

Tybee

Tybee

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
I don't know how many of you have been following this, but basically Hillary's been telling this story on the campaign trail about how when she went to Bosnia as first lady, her plane had to basically land in a war zone and she was ducking sniper fire and running off the tarmac. It's an attempt to convince people that she's got experience dealing with tense geopolitical situations, but it appears she would have been better off skipping this particular resume detail

First, Sinbad (yes, THAT Sinbad), who was actually along for the trip with Sheryl Crow (which should immediately raise some red flags as to just how dangerous this trip really was), came out of the woodwork to debunk her account. Per Slate:


When Barack Obama characterized Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy experience as “having tea” with diplomats, Clinton fired back with anecdotes about a trip she took to wartime Bosnia in 1996. “Somebody said there might be sniper fire," she said, describing a dangerous corkscrew landing her plane had to make. "I don't remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac.” But now that account is being disputed. By Sinbad.

Turns out the comedian, who was along for the ride with Sheryl Crow, remembers things differently, the Washington Post reports. "I never felt that I was in a dangerous position,” Sinbad said. “I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of this tank.' "

He also disputed Clinton’s claim that first ladies get sent to all the poorest and most dangerous countries. “What kind of president would say, ‘Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife ... Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.’ ” The ridicule goes on. (Keep in mind that Sinbad is a fervent Obama fan.)

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer came back with this quip: “It appears that Sinbad's experience in Bosnia goes back further than Senator Obama's does. In fact, has Senator Obama ever been to Bosnia?” Good question—perhaps Pauly Shore could tag along?

Needless to say, it's kind of rough to become the punch line of a joke by a man who is himself a walking punch line. I guess we’ll need Sheryl Crow to break the tie.
Click to expand...
But apparently Hillary felt Sinbad's account (along with those of several members of the press and a few military officials who were also on hand) wasn't worth acknowledging.

Maybe this will give her pause.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y[/media]
 
Funny.

But man it seems each week that passes, with more news and events transpiring, it becomes increasingly obvious how rotten our election choices really are.

I'm jealous of those of you that have a candidate you're really excited about (only Obama supporters mostly).
 
except there is no media coverage about this at all. She really did a 180* on the media when she complained about them being unfair to her. I haven't seen a negative Hillary story in ages.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']except there is no media coverage about this at all. She really did a 180* on the media when she complained about them being unfair to her. I haven't seen a negative Hillary story in ages.[/quote]

It's just hitting this afternoon (at least in terms of the unearthed video contradiction to her story) according to a Google News search. I found it via Slate's Trailhead blog. Give it another 24 hours and I suspect you'll see this particular story all over the major press outlets.

Give it another week and, for better or worse, it'll be like it never happened. :roll:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm jealous of those of you that have a candidate you're really excited about (only Obama supporters mostly).[/quote]

You forgot Ron Paul.
 
[quote name='camoor']You forgot Ron Paul.[/QUOTE]

Well yeah. That's why I said "Mostly." Ron Paul supporters are very passionate, but very few. Obama supporters are pretty numerous.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well yeah. That's why I said "Mostly." Ron Paul supporters are very passionate, but very few. Obama supporters are pretty numerous.[/quote]

Yes, but Ron Paul SIGNS outnumber Obama supporters 879,000,000 to 1.

;)
 
Clinton 'misspoke' on Bosnia trip

By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when she said she had landed under sniper fire during a trip she took as first lady to Bosnia in March 1996. The Obama campaign suggested it was a deliberate exaggeration on Clinton's part.


Clinton often cites the goodwill trip she took with her daughter and several celebrities as a part of her foreign policy experience.
During a speech last Monday about Iraq, she said of the trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
According to an AP story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. And one of her companions on it, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.


When asked Monday about the New York senator's recent remarks on the trip, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Clinton's previous written account in her book, "Living History," in which she described a shortened welcoming ceremony at Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Clinton wrote: "Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find."
"That is what she wrote in her book," Wolfson said. "That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke."
The written account in Clinton's book contradicts the comments she made last Monday about the welcoming ceremony.
Just after her speech last Monday, she reaffirmed the account of running from the plane to the cars when she was asked about it by reporters at a news conference. She said was moved into the cockpit of the C-17 cargo plane as they were flying into Tuzla Air Base.


"Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton told reporters. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. ... There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."
A spokesman for rival Barack Obama's campaign questioned whether Clinton misspoke, saying her comments came in what appeared to be prepared remarks for her speech on Iraq. The Obama campaign statement contained a link to a text of Clinton's speech that is still posted on her campaign Web site including the account of running to the cars.
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a written statement that Clinton's Bosnia story "joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking."
The Obama campaign statement also links to a CBS news video taken from her Bosnia trip and posted on YouTube, which shows Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, walking across the tarmac from a large cargo plane, smiling and waving, and stopping to shake hands with Bosnia's acting president and greet an 8-year-old girl.
"This is something that the Obama campaign wants to push cause they have nothing positive to say about their candidate," Wolfson said Monday in the conference call.


it begins
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']except there is no media coverage about this at all. She really did a 180* on the media when she complained about them being unfair to her. I haven't seen a negative Hillary story in ages.[/QUOTE]

I think the much of the media knows they have a vested interest in keeping the primary going as long as possible.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']"This is something that the Obama campaign wants to push cause they have nothing positive to say about their candidate," Wolfson said Monday in the conference call.[/quote]

I see. So the object lesson here is that when you are not experienced in a given area, it is better to exaggerate and outright lie than it is to talk about areas in which you ARE experienced and otherwise keep your mouth shut?

Is that the approach you took in applying for your current position, Mr. Wolfson?
 
a bit from the book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power. Yes, that Samantha Power that described Clinton as a monster for her campaign's behavior a few weeks ago. It has an interesting paragraph on Clinton's contribution to American policy on Bosnian genocide.

[quote name='Samantha Power']
In May 1993, as a result of pressure from inside and outside, Clinton finally agreed to a new U.S. policy, known as "lift and strike." The president dispatched Secretary [Warren] Christopher on a high-profile trip to Europe to "sell" America's allies on lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnian Muslims and bombing the Serbs, the two measures recommended by [Jim] Hooper and [Richard] Johnson in their twenty-seven-page dissent the previous year and by [Richard] Holbrooke and countless others in the media. The Bosnian Muslim leadership continued to stress that it did not want U.S. troops, only an end to U.S. support for a UN sanction that tied their hands and left the Serbs with an overwhelming military advantage.

But Clinton's support for the plan proved shallow and Christopher's salesmanship nonexistent. According to journalist Elizabeth Drew, Hillary Clinton gave her husband a copy of Robert Kaplan's Balkan Ghosts, a deftly written travel book that portrays people in the Balkans as if they were destined to hate and kill. Fearful of a quagmire in an unmendable region, Clinton reportedly "went south" on lift and strike.
[/quote]
If the statement about Hillary and the book is true, HRC's biggest contribution to Bosnia might have been helping to further paralyze US policy while the genocide was taking place.
 
It'll be interesting to see how this story will get legs, the Wright story had legs, but McCain's obliviousness with regards to understanding the middle east was born and died on the same day.
 
What? People, people ... you mean to tell me you don't believe Hil was put in immediate harm's way? Please. If I were Bill, the first three people I'd send into a warzone would be my wife, Sinbad, and Sheryl Crow.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It'll be interesting to see how this story will get legs, the Wright story had legs, but McCain's obliviousness with regards to understanding the middle east was born and died on the same day.[/quote]

Maybe somebody can modify their signature to read Game Over?
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']bah the story died already, theres more coverage on Obama's 2 day vacation[/quote]

I think Guile was right.

When is it news that a Clinton lied?
 
[quote name='trq']What? People, people ... you mean to tell me you don't believe Hil was put in immediate harm's way? Please. If I were Bill, the first three people I'd send into a warzone would be my wife, Sinbad, and Sheryl Crow.[/quote]

:lol:

That's so wrong man. On the flip side, there's not many women who would have put up with Bill's fooling around.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Funny.

But man it seems each week that passes, with more news and events transpiring, it becomes increasingly obvious how rotten our election choices really are.

I'm jealous of those of you that have a candidate you're really excited about (only Obama supporters mostly).[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking about not voting because all three canidates are horrible.

Or, I may write-in someone. What's Hasselhoff doing these days?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I'm thinking about not voting because all three canidates are horrible.

Or, I may write-in someone. What's Hasselhoff doing these days?[/QUOTE]

He's probably a German Citizen by now.

Shit, I'll write your name in when I vote if you PM it to me. ;)
 
People can and will continue to nit pick media coverage always claiming that the negative coverage of their candidate is surplus, that the positive coverage of their candidate is lacking, that the negative coverage of opposing candidates is lacking, and that the positive coverage of opposing candidates is surplus.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']That isn't "misspeaking," it's lying.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Misspeaking is saying the federal budget is $4 billion. Lying is making up a whole story in hopes of convincing voters you have vast foreign policy experience when you don't.
 
Lets be honest, first ladies don't exactly matter all that much. They're given something to keep them busy basically. It isn't like they're negotiating peace between two countries or something. Hell, Rice has more foreign policy experience than Hillary.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Can anyone honestly say they have learned something new with this story?

I mean, Clintons.... making stuff up? Is anyone shocked here?[/quote]

I'll just go ahead and post the obligitory partisan "at least clinton's lies didn't kill four thousand (and counting!) people."
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I'll just go ahead and post the obligitory partisan "at least clinton's lies didn't kill four thousand (and counting!) people."[/quote]

That's true, but her votes did and do.
 
Actually that's not true either. The president far exceeded the authority granted in that vote (and that granted in the constitution btw).

Better luck next time though!
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Hell, Rice has more foreign policy experience than Hillary.[/quote]

Well, YA, considering she's the Secretary of State. I should HOPE she'd have more foreign policy experience than Hillary. She should have more foreign policy experience than just about everyone, considering that's her job. ;)

It might have been more effective to say something like, "Hell, BONO has more foreign policy experience than Hillary."

Which is probably true.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Actually that's not true either. The president far exceeded the authority granted in that vote (and that granted in the constitution btw).

Better luck next time though![/quote]

She gave him authorization. He ran with it.

She continues to fund the war. He continues to make a bad situation worse.
 
Hey I'm not defending her. Actually I'm voting for obama, but would definitely vote for Hil if she won the nominatino, which she won't. I was just giving the obligitory response.

He did supercede the authority granted to him, and you're right about congressional funding, they're a bunch of limp dicks who don't have a big enough majority to stop this Bushit. So your last three sentences I agree with completely.

I guess it's worth pointing out that she (like the rest of the country) was lied to and decided under false pretenses; though Obama saw through it, so that sort of cuts the legs out of that argument.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I'll just go ahead and post the obligitory partisan "at least clinton's lies didn't kill four thousand (and counting!) people."[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the thousands of kurds that no longer have to live in fear of being rounded up, gassed, and mass graved.

I guess you were off planet during the bosnian conflict? Which was more around the neighborhood of 50,000 murders, backed by Clinton lies and policies.

Oh wait, I'm sure that is somehow "different".... ;)

I'm not going to defend Bush. But if you want to throw shit around like that, play fair.
 
[quote name='Tybee']Well, YA, considering she's the Secretary of State. I should HOPE she'd have more foreign policy experience than Hillary. She should have more foreign policy experience than just about everyone, considering that's her job. ;)

It might have been more effective to say something like, "Hell, BONO has more foreign policy experience than Hillary."

Which is probably true.[/quote]
Well, i wanted to show another politician who isn't running, yet is vastly more qualified.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Tell that to the thousands of kurds that no longer have to live in fear of being rounded up, gassed, and mass graved.

I guess you were off planet during the bosnian conflict? Which was more around the neighborhood of 50,000 murders, backed by Clinton lies and policies.

Oh wait, I'm sure that is somehow "different".... ;)

I'm not going to defend Bush. But if you want to throw shit around like that, play fair.[/quote]

Do you think Clinton will be an improvement over Bush?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Do you think Clinton will be an improvement over Bush?[/quote]

She probably won't be much better on humanitarian crisis issues like the ones Thrust mentioned. But then who would be? One of the constants of American foreign policy is to resist intervening until the crisis is almost over or not to intervene at all.
 
Isn't it funny how misspoke and misremembered are popular excuses in the public eye now? Whose memory is more faulty? Hilary Clinton or Roger Clemens? :lol:
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Isn't it funny how misspoke and misremembered are popular excuses in the public eye now? Whose memory is more faulty? Hilary Clinton or Roger Clemens? :lol:[/QUOTE]

It's akin to a rant I often make about how public figures don't "apologize" anymore. There's no "sorry, I totally fucked that one up" - instead, it's a conditional apology given with no responsibility accepted and with the caveat that it was *other folks* who caused the situation to be offensive. The sort of lame-ass "I'm sorry if others were offended by my actions" nonsense.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Tell that to the thousands of kurds that no longer have to live in fear of being rounded up, gassed, and mass graved.

I guess you were off planet during the bosnian conflict? Which was more around the neighborhood of 50,000 murders, backed by Clinton lies and policies.

Oh wait, I'm sure that is somehow "different".... ;)

I'm not going to defend Bush. But if you want to throw shit around like that, play fair.[/quote]

I think you're confusing Bill Clinton with Saddam Hussein (iraq) and Slobodan Milosovitch, (Bosnia/Hertzegovenia/Croatia) so umm....yeah it is different, though a hell of a lot more than "somewhat". Nice try though!

Bush on the other hand, (like Saddam and Milosovitch) was the AGGRESOR, not the RESPONDER. Big difference there. Maybe if he had gone after Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the parties responsible for 9/11 one could lable it a response...buuuuuuuuuuut....he didn't.

"Waaaaaahhhh, Jimmy threw a rock at me!:cry: Lets attack Bobby!:applause: If you don't support us attacking bobby you're a traitor, treasonous, and have no national pride!"

Moreover there are hundreds of dictators all over the world as bad as or worse than Saddam was, do you suggest we "police" the rest of the world as well? Why don't we (maybe because they're black, don't have oil?)

Oh and by the way, the kurds still live in fear, now it's just from a different dictator, a different uniform, and better weapons.

**pittpizza declares self proclaimed OWNAGE**
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I think you're confusing Bill Clinton with Saddam Hussein (iraq) and Slobodan Milosovitch, (Bosnia/Hertzegovenia/Croatia) so umm....yeah it is different, though a hell of a lot more than "somewhat". Nice try though!

Bush on the other hand, (like Saddam and Milosovitch) was the AGGRESOR, not the RESPONDER. Big difference there. Maybe if he had gone after Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the parties responsible for 9/11 one could lable it a response...buuuuuuuuuuut....he didn't.
[/quote]
*Milosevic, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Clinton is far from sinless when it comes to this. Yes, he wasn't the aggressor, but he's a perfect example of the adage "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." And for most of the duration of the Bosnian conflict Clinton's administration did nothing, hampered other powers from intervening and didn't even have the courage to call genocide, genocide because it would have forced his government to intervene military.

However, in the aftermath of Somalia the idea of military intervention was politically toxic and so despite significant knowledge of the atrocities (both in Bosnia and Rwanda) Clinton and his posse sat on their hands, hamstringed NATO/the UN(See Clinton refusing to provide Jacque Chirac with helicopters to lift in French troops) and at times lied about their knowledge in regards to Serbian atrocities.(See the attack on the Muslim enclave of Zepa)

Yes, Clinton's administration didn't actively invade a country, but their cowardly 'let's cover our own ass' policy during Rwanda and Bosnia
likely resulted in a number of deaths that rival those of the Bush administration's failed Iraq policy. All this despite criticizing the G. H. Bush administration's inactivity on Bosnia while campaigning for the presidency.
 
Looploop, I don't really have a problem with anything you said, except maybe your last sentence might be overstating things a tad, but I'm not really even sure about the numbers.

However in the world of international politics and diplomacy (the President's main role) being hesitant to engage another country militarily is not nearly as bad as being a trigger happy war monger. In the eyes of the world, it is better to respond to the threat than be the threat yourself. See M.A.D..

Some "causes" are easy to get behind. Look at WWII, if there was ever an example of pure "evil" and a position that everyone can get behind with solidarity, it's that "what Hitler is doing is bad!" And it STILL took forever for us to get involved, we may NEVER have gotten involved if Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked. Pearl Harbor worked out for me well, since if it hadn't happned I (nor my mother) would never have been born, but that is a different story.

Genocide, human rights violations (hot topic in teh news now re: Tibet), and all kinds of other naughtyness occurs all across the world everyday. Is it your position that we should, sua sponte, be the world police, and take care of every evil-doer that there is on our own, especially when we can't even take care of our own populace at home?

I have no problem with the first desert storm or WWII, where a nation invaded another nation, but it is my position that we ought not to be the world's babysitters. That role belongs to international coalitions of nations.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

However in the world of international politics and diplomacy (the President's main role) being hesitant to engage another country militarily is not nearly as bad as being a trigger happy war monger. In the eyes of the world, it is better to respond to the threat than be the threat yourself. See M.A.D.. [/quote]
If you always conduct international diplomacy based on what the world will think of you, then your country is on a fast track to doom.

Some "causes" are easy to get behind. Look at WWII, if there was ever an example of pure "evil" and a position that everyone can get behind with solidarity, it's that "what Hitler is doing is bad!" And it STILL took forever for us to get involved, we may NEVER have gotten involved if Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked. Pearl Harbor worked out for me well, since if it hadn't happned I (nor my mother) would never have been born, but that is a different story.
Click to expand...

It can be argued, very convincingly, that even WW2 was made much worse by our inaction. Study the treaty of Versai and how it pretty much backed Germany into a corner. Not to mention the fact that WW2 was as bad as it was because of the precise inaction for so long that you are championing. Had America gotten involved against Germany just 3 years earlier than it did, it would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Point being, it's often only in hindsight that we realize when we really should have acted or if we should have at all.


I have no problem with the first desert storm or WWII, where a nation invaded another nation, but it is my position that we ought not to be the world's babysitters. That role belongs to international coalitions of nations.
Click to expand...

There isn't one. The united nations is completely useless. It's a neutered corrupt organization that has stood by and watched geonocide countless times.

So given that fact, I guess you feel we should stand by and continue to watch multiple cases of geonocide, hoping that some day a coalition of nations is created that takes action. Since, evil should never be fought without neighbors approval. Right?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Looploop, I don't really have a problem with anything you said, except maybe your last sentence might be overstating things a tad, but I'm not really even sure about the numbers.

However in the world of international politics and diplomacy (the President's main role) being hesitant to engage another country militarily is not nearly as bad as being a trigger happy war monger. In the eyes of the world, it is better to respond to the threat than be the threat yourself. See M.A.D..

Some "causes" are easy to get behind. Look at WWII, if there was ever an example of pure "evil" and a position that everyone can get behind with solidarity, it's that "what Hitler is doing is bad!" And it STILL took forever for us to get involved, we may NEVER have gotten involved if Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked. Pearl Harbor worked out for me well, since if it hadn't happned I (nor my mother) would never have been born, but that is a different story.

Genocide, human rights violations (hot topic in teh news now re: Tibet), and all kinds of other naughtyness occurs all across the world everyday. Is it your position that we should, sua sponte, be the world police, and take care of every evil-doer that there is on our own, especially when we can't even take care of our own populace at home?

I have no problem with the first desert storm or WWII, where a nation invaded another nation, but it is my position that we ought not to be the world's babysitters. That role belongs to international coalitions of nations.[/quote]

No, we shouldn't be the world police/cowboy. You know how much I disapprove of our adventures in Iraq.;)

However, in cases where we know of atrocities and we have a coalition of nations already involved and willing, it's unacceptable for us to not only refuse to take the lead, but to impede those willing to do something. A very good example is Rwanda.

Are you familiar with Romeo Dallaire?
He was a Canadian UNAMIR commander in Rwanda overseeing the peacekeeping operation before the killing began. He originally wanted 5,000 units for his mission. The US forced him down to poorly supplied 2,500 troops.(No American troops were involved) When the killing began he requested reinforcements for humanitarian intervention. Denied. He then watched the US send in marines to extract foreigners, then leave and abandon the Rwandans. He cabled his UN bosses frequently with intelligence on death squads, asking for permission to intervene. Denied. Despite his small, ill-equipped force, Dallaire had managed to protect close to 25,000 Rwandans via UN security points. However, he soon watched his force cut to about 2,000 after the Belgians withdrew. Then he was again stabbed in the back when the US, through Madeleine Albright, demanded a full UN withdrawal from Rwanda. Decimating his force to about 300. I don't think I need to go on with this depressing story.

This wasn't a matter of the US even doing anything itself. It was a matter of allowing other nations to intercede and possibly helping them to do so, and they completely dropped the ball.

Secondly, we need to take a stronger stand in condemning the offenders. The government made friendly with Saddam while he gassed Kurds and Iranians, wrote off the victims of genocide as equally culpable as their murderers in Bosnia and Rwanda and allowed themselves to be charmed into complacency by people like Milosevic and Pol Pot. Again, it's not always a matter of invading, but taking steps to recognize atrocity and use strong diplomatic channels to condemn would be better than we've done so far.

As for numbers, it's estimated that over a period of 100 days, 800,000-1 million were killed in Rwanda alone. Combine that with the 100,000 - 200,000 in Bosnia and we're close to a million if not higher.
The highest number of Iraqi casualties I know of is Lancet's estimate of >100,000. If the US/NATO had intervened earlier in Rwanda and Bosnia and prevented even a tenth of the deaths in those countries it would be close to Lancet's Iraq total.
Now I'm not saying Clinton's inaction definitely resulted in more casualties, but I see those numbers and think that the number dead from inaction likely at least rivals them.
 
[quote name='looploop']
Are you familiar with Romeo Dallaire?
He was a Canadian UNAMIR commander in Rwanda overseeing the peacekeeping operation before the killing began. He originally wanted 5,000 units for his mission. The US forced him down to poorly supplied 2,500 troops.(No American troops were involved) When the killing began he requested reinforcements for humanitarian intervention. Denied. He then watched the US send in marines to extract foreigners, then leave and abandon the Rwandans. He cabled his UN bosses frequently with intelligence on death squads, asking for permission to intervene. Denied. Despite his small, ill-equipped force, Dallaire had managed to protect close to 25,000 Rwandans via UN security points. However, he soon watched his force cut to about 2,000 after the Belgians withdrew. Then he was again stabbed in the back when the US, through Madeleine Albright, demanded a full UN withdrawal from Rwanda. Decimating his force to about 300. I don't think I need to go on with this depressing story.[/quote]Shake Hands with the Devil for the win, yeah? Nothing depresses ya like it...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If you always conduct international diplomacy based on what the world will think of you, then your country is on a fast track to doom.

It can be argued, very convincingly, that even WW2 was made much worse by our inaction. Study the treaty of Versai and how it pretty much backed Germany into a corner. Not to mention the fact that WW2 was as bad as it was because of the precise inaction for so long that you are championing. Had America gotten involved against Germany just 3 years earlier than it did, it would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Point being, it's often only in hindsight that we realize when we really should have acted or if we should have at all.

There isn't one. The united nations is completely useless. It's a neutered corrupt organization that has stood by and watched geonocide countless times.

So given that fact, I guess you feel we should stand by and continue to watch multiple cases of geonocide, hoping that some day a coalition of nations is created that takes action. Since, evil should never be fought without neighbors approval. Right?[/QUOTE]


Actually, in response to your first sentence, the complete opposite is true:

If you always conduct international diplomacy based on what the world will think of you, then your country is on a fast track to always acting prudently and having many allies.

Change "always" to "never" (like Bush does) and it will lead to doom.

I didn't champion squat. On the contrary, I pointed out that the Third Reich was something truely evil that I thought the world could rally against with solidarity. I too think the US was too slow to act. I concur w/ your thoughts of the Treaty of Versailles (or was it Potsdam, I always get them confused, what was Potsdam again?) being a powder keg, and insult, and something to galvanize German anger and a sense of vengance.

Hindsight is 20/20, agreed.

I'd really like to see you authoritatively prove your contentions about the UN. I fear you may be parroting conservative lip service, without really knowing what the fuck you're talking about. Have you ever considered that the UN's efficacy has been depleted by the US's cowboy diplomacy? Sooooooo many Americans think exactly what you said about the UN but know absolutely NOTHING about it.

I don't feel we should stand by and watch genocide, but I do feel that we should place a higher value on the lives, (health, educ., family, finances, etc..) on our OWN citizens instead of other country's, the Tailban and members of Al Qaeda have better healthcare in Gitmo than alot of our nation's populace. We spend waaaayyy too much on bombs and not nearly enough on books and doctors.

Looploop, I pretty much agree with everything you said in your entire post, which seemingly can be summed up in three words: Dioplomacy not war.

Oh and as far as numbers go, I was only counting American lives which are IMO the most important, every life is precious but I'm American, what do you expect. I wouldn't expect any other nation to value the lives of others more than its own citizens in any foreign policy analysis.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Well, i wanted to show another politician who isn't running, yet is vastly more qualified.[/QUOTE]

That's way too easy, there were a load of them running for the Democratic nomination against the two that are left:

Bill Richardson
Christopher Dodd
Joe Biden
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's akin to a rant I often make about how public figures don't "apologize" anymore. There's no "sorry, I totally fucked that one up" - instead, it's a conditional apology given with no responsibility accepted and with the caveat that it was *other folks* who caused the situation to be offensive. The sort of lame-ass "I'm sorry if others were offended by my actions" nonsense.[/QUOTE]

I'd just like to agree with this rant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top