• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Holbrooke for a change

At any time, it's racist.
So, I'm wondering, are we going to have to listen to this sort of paranoid self-pitying whining from right-wing kooks for the next four years ... or for the next eight years?

I can foresee no other plausible options.
 
Last edited:
So wait a minute: You have demonstrated yourself to be an interventionist and nationbuilder through your support of Iraq, yet you are complaining about Holbrooke because (you think) he agrees with you?

I have no inherent problem with Holbrooke being an interventionist and nationbuilder (although I think the group of terrorists he chose to intervene to help build a nation wasn't his or Clinton's wisest move). I'm just wondering why you don't have a problem with him given that for years folks on your side of the political aisle have been attacking Bush nonstop for being an interventionist and nationbuilder. I think that demonstrates a certain hypocricy. Frankly, I'm a little relieved that Obama double crossed you pie in the sky idealists. Gives me *hope*. :D

Each situation must be evaluated on its own merits. I believe that the Balkans made the cut, and that Iraq did not. You seem to believe the opposite. History will judge.

Yes indeed. History will judge. And history will base that judgment on some of the facts I've noted in this thread that you and the rest have simply ignored during this discussion. :)
 
We have already done this, and you weren't paying attention then.

No DR, you have not done that and that is clear to any rational person reading any of the threads where the Ron Brown issue has been discussed. Neither you or anyone else on this forum has EVER explained the facts I just asked you about. You are a liar. Now you can prove me wrong by linking to a specific post where you or someone did offer a rational explanation of those facts. I'll bet you don't. :D

I'd like to point out to you that people are getting the lumber laid on them for wandering OT. Plumjam got suspended. Please, stick to Holbrooke and interventionism, YOUR chosen topic.

Nice try but my OP specifically mentions Ron Brown and notes how Holbrooke took credit for sending Ron Brown on the trade mission flight that got him killed. So the circumstances of that death are most certainly part of the chosen topic. Seems that's all any of you folks really want to talk about anyway. So don't try to threaten me, DR. You only demonstrate your desperation at having some facts thrown in your face that you can't rationally deal with.
 
No DR, you have not done that and that is clear to any rational person reading any of the threads where the Ron Brown issue has been discussed. Neither you or anyone else on this forum has EVER explained the facts I just asked you about. You are a liar. Now you can prove me wrong by linking to a specific post where you or someone did offer a rational explanation of those facts. I'll bet you don't. :D



Nice try but my OP specifically mentions Ron Brown and notes how Holbrooke took credit for sending Ron Brown on the trade mission flight that got him killed. So the circumstances of that death are most certainly part of the chosen topic. Seems that's all any of you folks really want to talk about anyway. So don't try to threaten me, DR. You only demonstrate your desperation at having some facts thrown in your face that you can't rationally deal with.
You appear to be lecturing Darth Rotor about rationality.

How very amusing.
 
Yes indeed. History will judge. And history will base that judgment on some of the facts I've noted in this thread that you and the rest have simply ignored during this discussion. :)

Mostly, they will probably judge on the body count. The western powers intervened in the Balkans to stop a bloody civil war that was killing thousands of innocent civilians. The intervention restored peace and improved stability. I call that a win.

The US-led coalition intervened in Iraq to start a war that cost hundreds of billions of dollars, killed tens of thousands of people, destabilized the country, triggering a bloody civil war which has destabilized the region, acted as a recruiting tool for terrorists, and which at this point is more likely to end up replacing a secular dictator with an Islamic theocracy as it is to replace it with a democracy divided along religious lines. I call that a loss.

As I said, history will judge.

I suspect that Holbrooke will advocate for intervention and nation building where he thinks it will make a positive change and oppose it where he thinks it will destabilize a country or region. The Bush administration was not criticized (at least by me) for invading Afghanistan. He was criticized for dropping the ball on the "nation building" part: he won the war but left all but Kabul outside government control, allowing the Taliban to reestablish control. He won the war but not the hearts and minds of the population. I hope Obama and Holbrooke can do better.
 
Hey I just noted a few facts. You draw your own conclusions. If they suggest to you that Brown might have been murdered, maybe you should look into it. If they don't, maybe you should ask yourself why not? Are you that trusting of an administration that appears to have broken just about every other law in the books? :)

Actually, you just dredged up one of the most absurd and thoroughly discredited pieces of garbage from the bottom of the woo pile. Follow the signs to the conspiracy forum where that compost belongs.
 
So you are claiming to be an expert in forensic pathology and gunshot? How odd that NONE of the other half a dozen such experts who have made public statements on this matter seem to agree with you, FOOL. :D
show me one. Show me an "expert" who says that there is an xray that shows a .45 slug in his head. Then we will discuss what they said. There are some minute white speckles in one small area of an x-ray that are consistant with many things associated with the x-ray process. You seem happy to accept that a .45 slug turns into a minute number of tiny specks. No mushroomed deformed slug...not a single fragment bigger than a grain of dust....nothing.


edited to add: I must admit that on thinking about it that you may have a point. Maybe he was shot with a dust gun.
 
Last edited:
show me one. Show me an "expert" who says that there is an xray that shows a .45 slug in his head. Then we will discuss what they said. There are some minute white speckles in one small area of an x-ray that are consistant with many things associated with the x-ray process. You seem happy to accept that a .45 slug turns into a minute number of tiny specks. No mushroomed deformed slug...not a single fragment bigger than a grain of dust....nothing.


edited to add: I must admit that on thinking about it that you may have a point. Maybe he was shot with a dust gun.
Can anyone link me to these x-rays? I have refused in the past to get involved with attempts to challenge BAC's claims, as I believe that it is more appropriate to allow experts who have seen the actual evidence to do so. I am, however, a radiologist, and thus (with images of adequate quality, which may not be available) I can render an opinion on whether opacities on an x-ray are bullet fragments or something else.
 
Mostly, they will probably judge on the body count. The western powers intervened in the Balkans to stop a bloody civil war that was killing thousands of innocent civilians. The intervention restored peace and improved stability. I call that a win.

They intervened because the Clinton administration needed something to take the public's attention off the Cox Report (Chinagate). They intervened because the Clinton administration painted a lie about genocide (claimed hundreds of thousands were being killed when in fact only 1000's died and as many of them were Serbs as non-Serbs). They intervened because the Clinton administration painted another lie about Serb intransigence in dealing with Kosovo (read the actual history). They intervened because the Serbs said no to a totally unreasonable demand that NATO troops be allowed access to all parts of Serbia, be hosted to a large extent at Serb cost, and be immune from any legal consequences for any improprieties.

And what peace was there for the tens of thousands of Serbs who were driven from homes in Kovovo by the *victors*? You do realize, don't you, that cleansing did occur in Kosovo ... after the KLA (who are own government had identified as terrorists) were handed the reigns of government by ours? They drove tens of thousands of Serbs out, motivating them with burning churches and rocks. I guess you could call that peace. Even though ethnic violence is still erupting: http://www.impunitywatch.com/impuni...1/a-weekend-of-ethnic-violence-in-kosovo.html :"4 January 2009, A Weekend of Ethnic Violence in Kosovo"

You do realize, don't you, that any perceived stability came with a price, that is still being paid. The economy is in shambles (certainly compared to what it was under Serb rule). Kosovo remains the poorest region in Europe with the highest unemployment and lowest wages. Organized crime is rampant. The UN's six point plan is widely hated by Kosovans. The murder rate is still higher than it was before the war. Money Kosovo receives from the EUR continues to disappear, with some members of the Kosovan government implicated. And in late 2008, former Albanian guerilla leaders in Macedonia were threatening to restore their previous forces, while former guerilla members from Kosovo were arrested in southern Serbia. A threat to peace on the horizon? Maybe Holbrooke should intervene.

The US-led coalition intervened in Iraq to start a war that cost hundreds of billions of dollars, killed tens of thousands of people, destabilized the country, triggering a bloody civil war which has destabilized the region, acted as a recruiting tool for terrorists, a

And the cost of doing nothing in Iraq? Even without an invasion the costs would have been hundreds of billions of dollars. Just to keep some constraint on Saddam and his thugs. And even then, there would have been no guarantee that Saddam wouldn't have provided WMD to terrorists or instigated attacks himself. And just one of those attacks could have cost trillions. And we'd now be facing a reconstituted Iraq military (because the sanctions would be long gone) ... one that really would have large quantities of WMD. And Saddam would be thumbing his nose at us as he got into even bigger mischief (remember, he started two big wars costing millions of lives in just the 2 decades prior to his fall). At least the billions spent now have bought something worthwhile.

As for killing thousands of people, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis were dying in Iraq every year before the invasion. Because Saddam was using the funds meant for them on his army, on banned weapons programs, on bribes to UN officials and non-coalition government members, on more golden palaces, on his hedonistic sons, and on secret cash stashes in the walls of building and foreign countries. That killing has stopped. Call it even with at least a hope that even the killing due to internal violence will soon end.

And Iraq was unstable before the invasion. The economy was in shambles and going even farther south. His rule was maintained with fear and at the point of a gun. He'd already effectively lost control of large portions of the north. As David Kay concluded, the situation in Iraq was even more chaotic than anyone had feared ... making the likelihood that WMD related information and materials would end up in terrorist hands even higher than was thought pre-invasion. In short, Saddam's government was losing control ... to the extent that even he didn't know what his government and military was doing.

As for terrorism, prior to our invasion, terrorists seem to have had free run of Iraq. Even planning mass casualty chemical bomb attacks from Baghdad. Saddam's government was even researching and building terrorist weapons (suicide bombs and vests) and training Iraqis to be terrorists. That's a fact. It's not a very large step to actively helping other terrorists ... remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

and which at this point is more likely to end up replacing a secular dictator with an Islamic theocracy as it is to replace it with a democracy divided along religious lines.

As I said, history will judge. I don't think that's what is actually going to happen. I think Iraq a decade from now will still be a democratic republic and be quite prosperous (assuming we don't cut and run as Obama may do). And a lot of people agree with me. I think your dislike of Bush has blinded you to the other possibilities.

I suspect that Holbrooke will advocate for intervention and nation building where he thinks it will make a positive change

Like I said, I'm not opposed to Holbrooke being an interventionist and nation builder. Just convinced that most on your side of the political aisle are hypocritical for finding no fault in his (and Clinton's) past history in that regard yet finding nothing but fault in Bush's actions in Iraq.

The Bush administration was not criticized (at least by me) for invading Afghanistan. He was criticized for dropping the ball on the "nation building" part: he won the war but left all but Kabul outside government control, allowing the Taliban to reestablish control. He won the war but not the hearts and minds of the population. I hope Obama and Holbrooke can do better.

We will see how many hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives you are willing to spend turning Afghanistan into what Iraq is already today. And don't forget Pakistan? :D
 
Actually, you just dredged up one of the most absurd and thoroughly discredited pieces of garbage from the bottom of the woo pile. Follow the signs to the conspiracy forum where that compost belongs.

Discredited by who? Don't be vague. Or is vagueness all your side can offer? :D
 
As I said, history will judge. I don't think that's what is actually going to happen. I think Iraq a decade from now will still be a democratic republic and be quite prosperous (assuming we don't cut and run as Obama may do). And a lot of people agree with me. I think your dislike of Bush has blinded you to the other possibilities.
Yeah, if Iraq ends up a prosperous democracy Bush is vindicated, and if it collapses into sectarian strife it is all Obama's fault. We know how the blame game works. Just like Vietnam--"if only they would have let us we would have won the war, but the peace activists made us lose".

As to my dislike of Bush, it did not blind me to the necessity of invading Afghanistan. It did not keep me from applauding his new marine sanctuaries. It did not keep me from applauding his lack of political pardons, nor did my support of Clinton keep me from denouncing his end-of-term pardons.


Like I said, I'm not opposed to Holbrooke being an interventionist and nation builder. Just convinced that most on your side of the political aisle are hypocritical for finding no fault in his (and Clinton's) past history in that regard yet finding nothing but fault in Bush's actions in Iraq.
Once again, the Clinton intervened in the Balkans to stop a war. Bush intervened in Iraq to start a war. If you don't see how someone can support one action while opposing the other without being a hypocrite, I'm sorry.
 
So our resident conspiracy theorist appears to be behaving to form. Argument shot down....no bullet in head. Response is to increase the volume of waffle in the next few posts and hope that confusion masks the lack of a single shred of evidence.
 
Once again, the Clinton intervened in the Balkans to stop a war. Bush intervened in Iraq to start a war. If you don't see how someone can support one action while opposing the other without being a hypocrite, I'm sorry.
If you mean Bosnia, yes. If you mean Kosovo, no.

BAC doesn't seem to know how to do this, thanks to Clinton obsession, but I'd rather more people took a good hard look at who Clinton was appeasing in the early 1990's when he went into Bosnia, and later into Kosovo and ALbania, to prop up Muslim "states" in Europe.

My gut feeling at the time is that he was paying political capital to various Arab and Muslim interests in hopes of building up a stack of it to expend in his (doomed) efforts to broker a deal between Israel and Arafat.

"He, back me up here, look what I did for you in Bosnia" or

"Hey, I do this for you in Bosnia, and you help me out with the Pals."

No matter how you slice it, it's still a sell out. Clinton was big on sell outs and "all falsh, no boom" gestures. See his attempts at diplomacy by Tomahawk in the Persian Gulf. All he'd do is blow stuff up, or make some rubble bounce. All of the players in the game, to include Saddam, knew that's all he had, there was nothing more substantial behind Clintons' saber rattling. And so, Saddam endured it. Clinton laid nothing on Saddam as rough as the six week bombardment from the air before Desert Storm.

Who was Bill Clinton trying to impress?

Political factions here in the US. He needed to be seen as "tough" and he figured his moves would do that.

I wasn't impressed.

Ya know, I don't see many people follow this line of thinking. It looks too much like real politics, as it is practiced, rather than the phantasms and chimerae I see so often discussed here.

So here we have Holbrooke, a party to various acts of sleight of hand (though Dayton was a pretty good piece of work, given the challenge of the time) being proposed to pull the rabbit out of the hat for Obama.

Sorry, the tricks get old when they've been seen a few too many times on the stage.

DR
 
Last edited:
All of the players in the game, to include Saddam, knew that's all he had, there was nothing more substantial behind Clintons' saber rattling.

Except in the case of Kosovo, Clinton trapped himself. Because of all the claims about genocide, he would have had no choice but to invade if the Serbs hadn't folded (like Saddam didn't do in Bush Jr's Iraq war).

Who was Bill Clinton trying to impress?

No one? Perhaps all he was trying to do was keep the Cox Report off the front page. Because the Cox Report (which established a link between Chinese espionage, trade with China, and millions of dollars in illegal Chinese campaign contributions to Clinton and DNC coffers) had just come out and it implicated both he and his administration in what can only be described as high crimes. He kept the bombs falling as, day in and day out, the news confirmed what happened on his watch.

And look at his other foreign escapades ... by way of example. He bombed the camp in Afghanistan and the aspirin factory in the Sudan three days after his non-apology about the Monica scandal ... which became a public relations flop.

He bombed Iraq the day before the House was scheduled to begin impeachment proceedings. Robert Novac wrote in the 12/21/98 Washington Post that "As Clinton took Palestinian applause in Gaza last Monday [December 14], secret plans were underway for an air strike coinciding with the House impeachment vote. ... snip ... As whenever a president pulls the trigger, Clinton's top national security advisers supported him. But majors and lieutenant colonels at the Pentagon, whose staff work undergirds any military intervention, are, in the words of a senior officer, ‘200 percent opposed. They disagree fundamentally.’ They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler's report and consider it politically motivated."

But to take the Cox Report out of public view, he needed something much bigger. Even with the portion of the report the public would see censured by the Clinton administration, he knew he needed to really wag the dog if he wanted the public not to notice. So he started a war against Serbia. And it worked, the Cox Report became a one day story.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/1999/fax19990602.asp
 

Back
Top Bottom