Fairweather Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 Here is a good photo of Democratic candidate Wesley Clark. Looks like he has a new friend. This friend,Mladic, slaughtered over 8000 men and boys in the UN-declared 'safe haven' of Srebranica. Photo: (August 27, 1994) Lt. General Wesley Clark meets and exchanges hats with Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic. Clark accepted as gifts from Mladic a hat, bottle of brandy and a pistol inscribed in Cyrrilic. A US official complained of Clark’s unauthorized visit: “It's like cavorting with Hermann Goering. Quote
willstrickland Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 Fairweather, you craven jackass. Look at the date on the picture: 8/27/94...the slaughter occured in July 1995. Maybe you'd like to post some pictures of Rumsfeld hobnobbing with Saddam? Dec 20 1983 I believe it was? Oh, let me help you, you poor thing. Here ya go... Quote
JoshK Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 Fairweather, you craven jackass. Look at the date on the picture: 8/27/94...the slaughter occured in July 1995. Maybe you'd like to post some pictures of Rumsfeld hobnobbing with Saddam? Dec 20 1983 I believe it was? Oh, let me help you, you poor thing. Here ya go... Quote
Lars Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 Fairweather, you craven jackass. Look at the date on the picture: 8/27/94...the slaughter occured in July 1995. Maybe you'd like to post some pictures of Rumsfeld hobnobbing with Saddam? Dec 20 1983 I believe it was? Oh, let me help you, you poor thing. Here ya go... yes that was 1983...wouldnt that also require a "craven jackass" comment due to timing? Quote
Off_White Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 More important was Rumsfeld's 1984 meeting with Saddam, where his explicit instructions (in print) from George Shultz, Secretary of State, were to assure Saddam that our public condemnation of his use of Chemical Weapons on Iranians and Kurds was so much puffery for public consumption, but that our desire for success against Iran and the bolstering of a secular dictatorship far outweighed that concern, and the US was in fact still a friend. Quote
Fairweather Posted December 21, 2003 Author Posted December 21, 2003 Fairweather, you craven jackass. Look at the date on the picture: 8/27/94...the slaughter occured in July 1995. Maybe you'd like to post some pictures of Rumsfeld hobnobbing with Saddam? Dec 20 1983 I believe it was? Oh, let me help you, you poor thing. Here ya go... Will, Don't you think 'hangin' out' with an existing enemy just a few months before that enemy slaughtered thousands, is somewhat different than shaking hands with an ally several years before you were at war? I'm sure I could dig up that famous photo of Roosevelt and Stalin together too! This, even as Stalin was purging his officer corps and starving 10 million Ukranians to death. Alliances change. Sad, but true. However, Ratko Mlodik(sp?) was our enemey at the time this photo was taken!! And Clark and he are jovially exchanging gifts! Quote
JoshK Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 Wesley Clark is ten times the man you'll ever be. I find it ironic you are snubbing your nose at a man that brough great success leading the military forces that you so wholeheartedly support pushing other countries around. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 [quotAlliances change. Sad, but true. However, Ratko Mlodik(sp?) was our enemey at the time this photo was taken!! And Clark and he are jovially exchanging gifts! the only thing that matters to you is whether or not someone is an "official" enemy, regardless of their actions? That really sucks! (and whether or not they are "democrat".) By the way, in no way am I defending Clark. I know very little about the man, he has no public office history to judge him by; the fact that he's a career military guy does make me a little nervous though. Quote
eric8 Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 yeah, but better Clark than Dean. Dean is like the democratic version of Bush. "I want to be the candiate for guys with confederate flags on the back of there trucks" wtf is that shit about. Quote
willstrickland Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 Fairweather, I think you're missing my point. I don't give two shits about Clark and I'm not attempting to defend him. But to post that picture in the manner you did suggests that he was cavorting with Ratko AFTER he had overseen the slaughter. That, is a craven propagandist move. At the time of the Rumsfeld / Saddam meeting Iraq was a known sponsor of terroism (palestinian nationalists). Further, as Rumsfeld was IN BAGHDAD in March '84 the US had both internal intelligence and UN evidence that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran. In Nov '84, despite this, the Regan administration re-established regular diplomatic relations with Iraq. There's no shortage of info and declassified documents out there that support this. I don't know what Clark was thinking, and the fact that war criminals were freely circulating over there was an embaressment that made NATO look like a joke. Nevertheless, it's the sneaky, spin-laden aspect of your presentation that makes me sick. You're no better than O'Reilly and his "no spin" bs. Quote
murraysovereign Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 I'm not sure the term "enemy" is all that applicable in the Yugoslavian context. No-one was at war with the U.S., or with Canada, or with Great Britain, or Germany, as the term "enemy" implies. What was happening was a horrific genocidal civil war, and NATO was intervening in an effort to bring a halt to atrocities being committed by all sides in the conflict - Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, all had blood up to their elbows. In the effort to pry their hands off each others' throats, it was necessary to get directly involved with the principal players and try to convince them to back off. Yes, NATO employed force, eventually, but the inital effort at disengaging the factions took the form of a diplomatic offensive, including shaking people's hands and posing genially for the cameras and even - horrors - trading hats. That diplomatic effort continued even as the bombs were falling, because everyone knew there had to be either a diplomatic, negotiated settlement, or NATO was going to have to commit to a full-scale invasion of the Balkans followed by an indefinite military occupation. Nobody - including the U.S. - was willing to undertake anything of the sort. The present "insurgency" in Iraq would look like a pleasant Sunday picnic at the beach by comparison. Quote
murraysovereign Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 ...spin-laden... Is that the name of Al-Quaeda's press spokesman? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.