Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Richard Holbrooke has died


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1    Persia

Persia

    A Persian Monarchist

  • Member
  • 8,769 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ♥ FREE PERSIA♥

Posted 14 December 2010 - 11:07 AM

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.co...s_usa_holbrooke

R.I.P

Posted Image

#2    Raptor Witness

Raptor Witness

    Savant

  • Member
  • 2,151 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So beautiful

  • ראה

Posted 14 December 2010 - 05:11 PM

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

Edited by Raptor Witness, 14 December 2010 - 05:13 PM.

Posted Image "Make Manifest Destiny a memory ..." 12-7-2011  "When the earth is displaced fully three times at the point of destiny ..." 10-29-2013

#3    venqax

venqax

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined:18 May 2010

Posted 14 December 2010 - 11:00 PM

View PostRaptor Witness, on 14 December 2010 - 05:11 PM, said:

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.


#4    Agent X

Agent X

    Illustrious Potentate Of All Time Space And Matter

  • Member
  • 5,086 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male

  • Invent nonsense computer jargon in conversations, and see if people play along to avoid the appearance of ignorance.

Posted 14 December 2010 - 11:11 PM

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.

Posted Image

#5    Raptor Witness

Raptor Witness

    Savant

  • Member
  • 2,151 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So beautiful

  • ראה

Posted 15 December 2010 - 01:57 AM

View Postvenqax, on 14 December 2010 - 11:00 PM, said:

'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 by Raptor Witness, 15 December 2010 - 02:00 AM.

Posted Image "Make Manifest Destiny a memory ..." 12-7-2011  "When the earth is displaced fully three times at the point of destiny ..." 10-29-2013

#6    BlindMessiah

BlindMessiah

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,066 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 December 2010 - 04:03 AM

View Postvenqax, on 14 December 2010 - 11:00 PM, said:

'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.


#7    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 15 December 2010 - 04:38 AM

View Postvenqax, on 14 December 2010 - 11:00 PM, said:

'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.... :hmm:


#8    venqax

venqax

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined:18 May 2010

Posted 15 December 2010 - 11:46 PM

View PostBlindMessiah, on 15 December 2010 - 04:03 AM, said:

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.


#9    Agent X

Agent X

    Illustrious Potentate Of All Time Space And Matter

  • Member
  • 5,086 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male

  • Invent nonsense computer jargon in conversations, and see if people play along to avoid the appearance of ignorance.

Posted 16 December 2010 - 01:39 AM

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.

Posted Image

#10    venqax

venqax

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined:18 May 2010

Posted 16 December 2010 - 03:54 AM

View PostAgent X, on 16 December 2010 - 01:39 AM, said:

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.


#11    BlindMessiah

BlindMessiah

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,066 posts
  • Joined:21 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 December 2010 - 04:09 AM

View Postvenqax, on 15 December 2010 - 11:46 PM, said:

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."


#12    venqax

venqax

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined:18 May 2010

Posted 16 December 2010 - 06:56 PM

View PostBlindMessiah, on 16 December 2010 - 04:09 AM, said:

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 by venqax, 16 December 2010 - 07:00 PM.


#13    Raptor Witness

Raptor Witness

    Savant

  • Member
  • 2,151 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So beautiful

  • ראה

Posted 16 December 2010 - 07:18 PM

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

Posted Image "Make Manifest Destiny a memory ..." 12-7-2011  "When the earth is displaced fully three times at the point of destiny ..." 10-29-2013

#14    FlamingLiberal

FlamingLiberal

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New York, U.S.A.

Posted 16 December 2010 - 09:02 PM

View Postvenqax, on 14 December 2010 - 11:00 PM, said:

'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.


#15    FlamingLiberal

FlamingLiberal

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New York, U.S.A.

Posted 16 December 2010 - 09:14 PM

View Postvenqax, on 16 December 2010 - 06:56 PM, said:

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.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users