Richard Holbrooke has died

[Persia]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Richard Holbrooke, the diplomat who brokered the accord that ended the war in Bosnia and served as U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, died on Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101214/pl_nm/us_usa_holbrooke

R.I.P

[Raptor Witness]

No question, a true patriot of the highest order. RIP ... and please help U.S. in the after life.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Raptor Witness

[venqax]

No question, a true patriot of the highest order. RIP ... and please help U.S. in the after life.

'Fraid I can't agree with that. Condolensces to his family. But for US foreign policy it is a net gain. All the military folks I know (quite a few) complained that he was a constant obstacle and source of interference for them in their deployments. His political history doesn't tell the story of a patriot, but of a foreign policy bureaucrat with globalist, socialist tendencies common among his ilk of East Coast, secular, Ivy League liberals produced by socialist parents (red diaper babies) and nurtured in 60s-style academia-- Emanuel, Axelrod, Obama, etc.

[Agent X]

When you're a diplomat, you should be aware that sometimes troop movements of any sort can be interpreted as a hostile action, and a prelude to war. So, in order to prevent war, you prevent troops from moving so the action might not be interpreted in the wrong way. That has nothing to do with being an obstructionist or a Socialist.

[Raptor Witness]

'Fraid I can't agree with that. Condolensces to his family. But for US foreign policy it is a net gain. All the military folks I know (quite a few) complained that he was a constant obstacle and source of interference for them in their deployments. His political history doesn't tell the story of a patriot, but of a foreign policy bureaucrat with globalist, socialist tendencies common among his ilk of East Coast, secular, Ivy League liberals produced by socialist parents (red diaper babies) and nurtured in 60s-style academia-- Emanuel, Axelrod, Obama, etc.

He negotiated the Balkan crisis and Dayton Peace Accords, which was a very dangerous place historically, and could have easily led to a much broader conflict, resulting in enormous costs and military lives. It was a major achievement, and for that alone, I have nothing but praise.

If what you say is true, then there are very few people who stand between the people and the military industrial complex right now, and mark my words, before it's over .... you will see history take a turn for the worst with this man's sudden death.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Raptor Witness

[BlindMessiah]

'Fraid I can't agree with that. Condolensces to his family. But for US foreign policy it is a net gain. All the military folks I know (quite a few) complained that he was a constant obstacle and source of interference for them in their deployments. His political history doesn't tell the story of a patriot, but of a foreign policy bureaucrat with globalist, socialist tendencies common among his ilk of East Coast, secular, Ivy League liberals produced by socialist parents (red diaper babies) and nurtured in 60s-style academia-- Emanuel, Axelrod, Obama, etc.

Being a patriot is doing what you believe is best for your people. Being a globalist or socialist doesn't inhibit patriotism any more than being a nationalist or capitalist does.

[TrueBeliever]

'Fraid I can't agree with that. Condolensces to his family. But for US foreign policy it is a net gain. All the military folks I know (quite a few) complained that he was a constant obstacle and source of interference for them in their deployments. His political history doesn't tell the story of a patriot, but of a foreign policy bureaucrat with globalist, socialist tendencies common among his ilk of East Coast, secular, Ivy League liberals produced by socialist parents (red diaper babies) and nurtured in 60s-style academia-- Emanuel, Axelrod, Obama, etc.

I am reading about people like you right now in The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby.

Interesting....

[venqax]

Being a patriot is doing what you believe is best for your people. Being a globalist or socialist doesn't inhibit patriotism any more than being a nationalist or capitalist does.

Of course it does. Being a globalist means you are more concerned about what you see as good for "the world" as a fuzzy whole of some kind, than you are about what is best for YOUR country. The 2 may very well be oppposed. I want my diplomats to act like my lawyers-- their job is to represent ME and get ME the best deal possible-- not what is best for my adversaries. What an odd thing to be unaware of. When you watch a sporting event, do you distinguish between the players and refs? The uniforms are usually a tip off.

[Agent X]

Okay, what does being a globalist have anything to do with having fuzzy peaceful hippy type feelings?

I think you're way off base here.

I always thought a globalist was someone who wanted a One World Government.

[venqax]

Okay, what does being a globalist have anything to do with having fuzzy peaceful hippy type feelings?

I think you're way off base here.

I always thought a globalist was someone who wanted a One World Government.

Yes, hippy types would want One World Govt, if they would want a govt at all. Who do you think OWG supporters are? World govt--which is what "globalism" means in this context of foreign policy-- is a tenet of the LEFT-- Socialists and Communists who preach "class over country" and one-worldism. In the immortal words of Egon Krenz (relatively sober) "I am a Communist first, a German second". The political RIGHT are the nationlists-- the Nazis were the ones way over there on the end. Globalists or "internationalists" or "One worlders" whatever you want to call them, put their own country second-- if at all-- to "global" interests. They consider themselves "citizens of the world" or some such muck, before or rather than Americans, or Brits, or Aussies or Germans or whatever. The UN is FULL of these kinds of people. The UN permanent bureaucracy, that is, not so much the actual ambassadors who, after all, have to be appointed by some actual country in order to be there representing its interests.

By "one world govt" here we means a UN type of govt that knows no "nation-states" or "countries"; not a global Empire like the old UK or Rome or somehthing where one country extends its national ambitions to controlling the whole world, or part of it, in an "imperialist" sense.

[BlindMessiah]

Of course it does. Being a globalist means you are more concerned about what you see as good for "the world" as a fuzzy whole of some kind, than you are about what is best for YOUR country. The 2 may very well be oppposed. I want my diplomats to act like my lawyers-- their job is to represent ME and get ME the best deal possible-- not what is best for my adversaries. What an odd thing to be unaware of. When you watch a sporting event, do you distinguish between the players and refs? The uniforms are usually a tip off.

Globalists believe that globalism is what's best for everyone, that would include their own people. And using a sports analogy for foreign policy is a horrible example. The point of sports is to win. The point of foreign policy isn't to "win."

[venqax]

Globalists believe that globalism is what's best for everyone, that would include their own people. And using a sports analogy for foreign policy is a horrible example. The point of sports is to win. The point of foreign policy isn't to "win."

That is where you are horribly, horribly wrong. Thank you American education system. The point of foreign policy is most definitely to win. To win for YOUR country. Countries are competitors for scarce resources. Alliances might better your chances, but evne allies are competitors. There is absolutely and positively nothing altruistic about foreign relations. And no, NOTHING is good for everyone. Everything is better of some than for others, bad for still others. It is a game with winners and losers. A patriot, by definition, is concerned first and foremnost about HIS or HER country. I'm not saying Holbrooke didn't have successes, wasn't right on some things, or that maybe HE thought he was patriotic. I'm not calling him a traitor, or "anti-American" in the general sense. I'm saying his basic philosophy, tho, was antithetical to patriotism and the attitudes he shared with many libs about world affairs are very misguided and dangerous. We are better off without people like him "representing" us in their fashion. Again, conds. to his family.

Edited December 16, 2010 by venqax

[Raptor Witness]

I'll take any diplomat over a man carrying a gun, any day.

[FlamingLiberal]

'Fraid I can't agree with that. Condolensces to his family. But for US foreign policy it is a net gain. All the military folks I know (quite a few) complained that he was a constant obstacle and source of interference for them in their deployments. His political history doesn't tell the story of a patriot, but of a foreign policy bureaucrat with globalist, socialist tendencies common among his ilk of East Coast, secular, Ivy League liberals produced by socialist parents (red diaper babies) and nurtured in 60s-style academia-- Emanuel, Axelrod, Obama, etc.

Oh, please. You dont know anyone high up enough in the military to be able to make this assumption about the man. You disagree wtih him politically, fine. But, please don't pretend you know someone who knows someone who had first hand information on this man, because frankly, I don't believe it.

[FlamingLiberal]

That is where you are horribly, horribly wrong. Thank you American education system. The point of foreign policy is most definitely to win. To win for YOUR country. Countries are competitors for scarce resources. Alliances might better your chances, but evne allies are competitors. There is absolutely and positively nothing altruistic about foreign relations. And no, NOTHING is good for everyone. Everything is better of some than for others, bad for still others. It is a game with winners and losers. A patriot, by definition, is concerned first and foremnost about HIS or HER country. I'm not saying Holbrooke didn't have successes, wasn't right on some things, or that maybe HE thought he was patriotic. I'm not calling him a traitor, or "anti-American" in the general sense. I'm saying his basic philosophy, tho, was antithetical to patriotism and the attitudes he shared with many libs about world affairs are very misguided and dangerous. We are better off without people like him "representing" us in their fashion. Again, conds. to his family.

This is so beyond wrong I dont even know where to begin. I can't believe you are honestly trying to tell people that the point of forign policy is to "win" - when there are plenty of policies that HAVE NO DISTINCT WINNERS! Kyoto Protocol anyone? Who is the "winner" in that foriegn policy?

Being a patriot *is* doing what is best for the people in your country - and peace is far less expensive than war is.

[Agent X]

Actually, I disagree with both of you. The point of Foreign Policy is to foster your nation's interests. You need more oil, you negotiate for the oil. In the case of Saudi Arabia, we help protect their country with our military, and this is thanks to Ronald Reagan.

And, it could be considered a "win" if you accomplish your goals and get your nations' interests.

That's the basics of Foreign Policy, but it's often far more complicated than that, and different circumstances calls for different tactics.

[venqax]

This is so beyond wrong I dont even know where to begin. I can't believe you are honestly trying to tell people that the point of forign policy is to "win" - when there are plenty of policies that HAVE NO DISTINCT WINNERS! Kyoto Protocol anyone? Who is the "winner" in that foriegn policy?

Being a patriot *is* doing what is best for the people in your country - and peace is far less expensive than war is.

Flaming Lib, you are so predictalbly adoloscent. Your last line is not even sensical-- OF COURSE you do what is best for your country. That is what I said. To think, tho, that what is best for your country and what is best for ALL countries is always the same thing is just ridiculous.

First, a diplomat's job is to pursue the goals he is TOLD to pursue-- he is an emissary, not a policy maker-- by a govt that is pursuing ITS OWN interests. Not "mankinds". If you want to do that, become a religious leader/guru/prophet etc. Second, what is at stake is not always-- or even usually-- something as dramatic a peace vs. war. Just like most criminal trials are not over serial killers, but something much more mundane, most foreign policy is over boring, but often important, trade issues and the like. Third, no, peace is NOT always cheaper than war-- some "peaces" are extremely costly, and sometimes peace is not even an option. Last, ALL policies have winners and losers. Foreign and domestic. There is NOTHING-- NOTHING-- you can do that does not have positive and negative ramifications for someone. More often than not, anything has ramifications for EVERYONE. So stop with the overly simplistic and romanticized notions of foreign policy. The Kyoto Accords are actually a great example of this. The Winners were countries like India and China who were either excused or would in any case ignore the accords and pursue their polluting-industrial policies without competition, while the Losers would have been places like the US who agreed to cripple themselves with limits that didn't apply to everyone, and thereby put themselves at some self-imposed economic competitive disadvanatage. Kind of like a basketball game where we agree to never take a shot at the basket, but the other team can (ah, those sports analogies).

Frankly, I don't care what you believe. But you can easily poke around on your own and find that Holbrooke was not "beloved" by the military or others in the national security business (McChrystal, as I recall, particularly didn't "appreciate" his "position"). He wasn't even that popular with other diplomats, actually, but that was probably more for personal reasons-- some abrasive personal qualities.

Edited December 17, 2010 by venqax

[BlindMessiah]

That is where you are horribly, horribly wrong. Thank you American education system. The point of foreign policy is most definitely to win. To win for YOUR country. Countries are competitors for scarce resources. Alliances might better your chances, but evne allies are competitors. There is absolutely and positively nothing altruistic about foreign relations. And no, NOTHING is good for everyone. Everything is better of some than for others, bad for still others. It is a game with winners and losers. A patriot, by definition, is concerned first and foremnost about HIS or HER country. I'm not saying Holbrooke didn't have successes, wasn't right on some things, or that maybe HE thought he was patriotic. I'm not calling him a traitor, or "anti-American" in the general sense. I'm saying his basic philosophy, tho, was antithetical to patriotism and the attitudes he shared with many libs about world affairs are very misguided and dangerous. We are better off without people like him "representing" us in their fashion. Again, conds. to his family.

First of all, the role of governments is a personal opinion. Some of us don't view the world as a game of Risk. Some don't believe the point is to acquire continental resources and eventually dominate the globe. I could just as easily label your nationalism as misguided. If you wish to believe that patriotism is as you describe it, then patriotism is the misguided and dangerous ideal. It is a hopelessly backward way of thinking to believe that humanity won't eventually compile into a global community. It's inevitable and is happening all around us, with or without foreign representatives.

A final note, when you have a personal disagreement about a subjective issue, don't insult the education of someone about whom you know nothing.

[venqax]

First of all, the role of governments is a personal opinion. Some of us don't view the world as a game of Risk. Some don't believe the point is to acquire continental resources and eventually dominate the globe. I could just as easily label your nationalism as misguided. If you wish to believe that patriotism is as you describe it, then patriotism is the misguided and dangerous ideal. It is a hopelessly backward way of thinking to believe that humanity won't eventually compile into a global community. It's inevitable and is happening all around us, with or without foreign representatives.

A final note, when you have a personal disagreement about a subjective issue, don't insult the education of someone about whom you know nothing.

If you think a "global community" is inevitable or even desirable-- or that such a "commune" would not be dominated by someone--, then yes, we have very different ideologies and I see you as at least as dangerously misguided-- and in attitude responsible for many of our current problems-- as you undoubtedly see me. You see me as backward, I see you as childishly naive. Oh well. As to your final note, heed your own admonition and don't assume to know what you don't.

[BlindMessiah]

If you think a "global community" is inevitable or even desirable-- or that such a "commune" would not be dominated by someone--, then yes, we have very different ideologies and I see you as at least as dangerously misguided-- and in attitude responsible for many of our current problems-- as you undoubtedly see me. You see me as backward, I see you as childishly naive. Oh well. As to your final note, heed your own admonition and don't assume to know what you don't.

If you look at the social evolution of man, as we technologically progress, societies become larger and more integrated. Whether or not this is desirable is irrelevant to its inevitability. It's the natural way to life and the world. A hundred years ago we couldn't be having this conversation. This very website is proof of the coming and already partially formed global community. Rather than swimming against a tidal wave of the obvious, perhaps we should be working to ensure that the coming society is beneficial to as many as possible, rather than dominated by a single figure as you claim. I undoubtedly agree that corporations and our sell out representatives will attempt to declare themselves god. That doesn't mean it has to be that way. Nationalism is an ideology; seeing what is happening around you and wishing to make the best of it, that's practical adaptability with a flare of "childishly naive" positive thinking.

[venqax]

If you look at the social evolution of man, as we technologically progress, societies become larger and more integrated. Whether or not this is desirable is irrelevant to its inevitability. It's the natural way to life and the world. A hundred years ago we couldn't be having this conversation. This very website is proof of the coming and already partially formed global community. Rather than swimming against a tidal wave of the obvious, perhaps we should be working to ensure that the coming society is beneficial to as many as possible, rather than dominated by a single figure as you claim. I undoubtedly agree that corporations and our sell out representatives will attempt to declare themselves god. That doesn't mean it has to be that way. Nationalism is an ideology; seeing what is happening around you and wishing to make the best of it, that's practical adaptability with a flare of "childishly naive" positive thinking.

Evolution is anything but a straight line of "progress" and there are many types of communities-- political ones or nation-states being only one. What "we" should be working toward is, first, IDing who "we" are. Second, doing all we can to assure that "we" benefit as best we can. That probably won't mean "as many as possible". There will be many other "wes" who don't think like that. At all. Nationalism, at this juncture, is a better totem to gather round than most IF you are part of a strong nation. Making the best of what is around includes recognizing when to cooperate, and when you are in a zero-sum game. The American ideology is not perfect, but it is the best one yet.

[Raptor Witness]

[Richard Holbrooke - Special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (1941—December 13, 2010)]

He negotiated the Balkan crisis and Dayton Peace Accords, which was a very dangerous place historically, and could have easily led to a much broader conflict, resulting in enormous costs and military lives. It was a major achievement, and for that alone, I have nothing but praise.

If what you say is true, then there are very few people who stand between the people and the military industrial complex right now, and mark my words, before it's over .... you will see history take a turn for the worst with this man's sudden death.

"Tarek al-Tayyib Muhammad ibn Bouazizi (March 29, 1984 – January 4, 2011), known simply as Mohamed Bouazizi (Arabic: محمد البوعزيزي‎), was a Tunisian street vendor who burned himself to death on December 17, 2010, in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the humiliation that was inflicted on him by a female municipal official. This act became the catalyst for the 2010–2011 Tunisian uprising,"

It looks like [the wind] has suddenly changed direction. It now moves with the solar disc across the sky.

Like I said,

"NATO reversed"

"his timing .... is impeccable."

[Apocalyptic & Cryptographic Style Predictions - Jan 4, 2011(Post 11)]

Are you sure there's not a job for me at the U.S. State Department? I've always wanted to be a spy.

[Leonardo]

No question, a true patriot of the highest order. RIP ... and please help U.S. in the after life.

Not just a patriot, but a humanitarian who also was a staunch proponent of the virtues of freedom and equality.

"If women in the developing world do not have equal rights, they will not have equal health, ... It is as simple as that; the empowerment of women is not a politically-correct cliche, but a living, essential goal for everyone." 2005

RIP.

[preacherman76]

Globalists believe that globalism is what's best for everyone, that would include their own people. And using a sports analogy for foreign policy is a horrible example. The point of sports is to win. The point of foreign policy isn't to "win."

Some globalist believe that. Others are power hungry criminals who just want a consolidation of power.

[lightly]

Evolution is anything but a straight line of "progress" and there are many types of communities-- political ones or nation-states being only one. What "we" should be working toward is, first, IDing who "we" are. Second, doing all we can to assure that "we" benefit as best we can. That probably won't mean "as many as possible". There will be many other "wes" who don't think like that. At all. Nationalism, at this juncture, is a better totem to gather round than most IF you are part of a strong nation. Making the best of what is around includes recognizing when to cooperate, and when you are in a zero-sum game. The American ideology is not perfect, but it is the best one yet.

"The American ideology" !*?¿?*! Is there such a thing? The United States of America is made up of people's from all over the earth. People have differing ideologies. Just to use one glaringly clear and memorable example... Was it an agreed upon "American" ideology that crafted and pursued the policy of slaughtering the Buffalo to starve the plains Ameridians.. and the slaughter , and confinement, of Amerindians themselves? Or, was it economic forces shaping 'public' policy?

If this american ideology you speak of is the pursuit of economic agendas by and for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many , at home and abroad , then yes, i would agree that such ideology has and does exist , and powerfully so. Otherwise, to quote Agent X ..."oh baloney!"