Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by zverskiy yobar, Sep 23, 2003.
The Beeb in 2000 on the "Pristinja Incident"
and to counter all those lovely Rumsfeld-Saddam Pics....
Who can forget those lovely pics of Clark chumming it with Wanted War criminal Ratko Mladic.
Who was not an Allie at the time, and was wanted for questioniong as Clark chummed around with him.
So NATO secretary general Javier Solana tried to start World War III? Interesting.
Re: Re: The man who tried to start WW3
You can spin it anyway you choose, that Clark nearly started a war with Russia or he was the stooge for the man who tried to start a war with russia.Either way its not to favorable for him.
But the fact is, Solona merely stated that Clark had authority.In the end it was Clark who was the one to decide.And he decided twice, that NATO forces should confront Russian troops .Both times he was blocked by the Brits.
Coincidently, Clark was also the man who preached we should scrap the air offensive and fight the Serbs on the ground.Luckily , Clinton made one of his few wise decisions in office and ignored Clark.As a ground offensive against Serb forces likely would have proved extremly costly to NATO forces and the civilian population.
Re: Re: Re: The man who tried to start WW3
Yeah, those civilians got off easy with that bombing campaign.
This aroused my interest, so I did some digging.
Apparently this went down in 1994. Clark was meeting with military officials on both sides to parlay. The State Department was against the visit, but Clark was not notified of this, and at any rate he had already met with Croat military leaders. At the time Mladic was suspected of war crimes, but was not a convicted criminal. The exchange of headwear was probably not a good idea, but it's also apparently fairly common.
On it's own, the picture is fairly embarassing, but having read up on what actually happened makes this much ado about nothing, IMO.
As for Pristinja, I happen to agree with Clark. The British refusal to move and take the airfield before the Russians was very risky. Clark wanted an aggressive move to cut off the Russians at the pass and avoid the sticky political situation that followed. I would've tried the same think Clark wanted to do. Which was the same thing Javier Solana wanted to do.
Re: Re: Re: The man who tried to start WW3
*nods patronizingly* Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's what the article said, all right. Nice catch.
When investigating shocking! revelations! about candidates, it's usually a good idea to wait 24 hours for the inevitable debunking, I've found.
In any case, I think the desperate slinging of mud towards Insert Democrat Here isn't going to fly like it did in 2000. Bush has a serious-ass credibility problem of his own now, what with him telling lie after lie that has left huge chunks of the planet coated with the decayed corpses of the innocent. It's gonna take more than a couple of phone logs to balance that out, I'm a-thinking.
So, in a short post, you bring into question US communication ability, dealings with suspect individuals at the highest levels, and our military's judgement.
If this guy is to be the leader, commander in chief, then his individual actions represent the military and nation as a whole. One would expect a general who would be president would apply that rule, the buck stops here.
I mean, I always thought that Clinton bashers used this against him wrongly at times, but he was not the one using and counting on his military experience for political gain. Clark is instantly a credible candidate and he uses this, thus must be questioned as to what he did in that role.
I know Rumsfeld is working to make the military more flexible, but did Clark take this too seriuosly (you know being a military man and all)? Clark seems to change sides too easily. While it is nice to see someone really think out the outcomes and change his mind, but this guy seems to go as the political wind blows.
Foos, you seem to forgive and forget.
I will question the ability of State and Defense to be on the same page, without doubt. I don't question the decision to have someone from Defense meet with Mladic, but I can understand why the State Department wouldn't want it. But I'm not sure it's State's business - Clark was, in my understanding, in a NATO role, trying to build some diplomatic trust between himself and the two main military players. The Pentagon offically backed Clark after State raised a stink in the press.
I am questioning the decision of the British general who refused to comply. I understand that MoD would back the guy, but I still think he was wrong. That was a real nail-biter, and I think it could have been avoided with a swift action to pre-emptively take that airfield before the Russians could roll in on it.
Let's not forget that Clark played a prime role in the Dayton Peace Accords. I'm certain there are pictures of him with some shady Serbs from that meeting too.
Am I willing to "forgive"? Sure. I don't think Clark needs to be forgiven, however. I know he's not well liked by a number of conservatives - hasn't been for a long time. Personally, I think it's because he's whip-smart, aggressive, and willing to show initiative. All things you want in your 4-stars, IMO.
Frankly, I think zverskiy yobar just wishes to sling mud at Clark, and this - which has no legs, IMO - is the best he can come with. Weak with an extra side of Weak Sauce. It's certainly not in the same league as Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on an official State visit to a public ally at the time. (Of course, the real rub there being that we armed Saddam. But that's water under the bridge...)
I liked your response. Thanks for taking the time to do so.
I just threw some general observations out there and you saw them coming down the plate. Barry Bonds would be proud.
I just wanted to add that I know you are rivalry forum lurker, no?
Thanks. No prob.
I've been known to read threads there from time to time.
Zverskiy, this is a very weak attempt to attack Clark. He was completely correct in trying to stop the Russians from getting to Pristina. They wanted to have their own sector in Kosovo. Like in Croatia and Bosnia that would mean that armed Serbs would be able to act as they please. The British general was unnecessarily dramatizing.You think Russia would start a war over Pristina!? After the Russians took the airport Clark organized an air blockade with Romania and Bulgaria. The Russians then simply ran out of supplies and went back to Bosnia. It was a great win for Clark.
As for the picture with Mladic...
He was trying to negotiate a cease-fire and as he was on teritory Mladic was controling, he had to play by his rules.
For all those of you who think Clark was right, why on earth would you want to risk a firefight with Russian soldiers? It's not like the British forces could have got there first, the Russians were already there. Would Clark's air blockade have worked if Russian soldiers has been under fire? You think they would have just left them there and not come to their aid? It seems to me that the British General was proved right as the Russians eventually became part of the peacekeeping force and not the enemy.
Great, just what we need. Clark-haters to compliment the Bush-haters.
It seems to me that Clark entering the race is a very good thing for America and for the Democratic party. He has an impressive resume, and he will be a credible voice, especially on foreign policy. I am tired of the hatred rethoric coming from the likes of Dean, yet we need somebody with the authority of Clark to seriously challenge our president's actions and positions. Bush supporters should welcome the challenge, if they feel confident about defending his record.
It is unfortunately that hateful tactics from both sides are turning the United States of America into one giant Big Soccer Rivalries forum.