Sarah Palin joins Fox News

[RPGmasterBoo]

Of course, though I hope you're not dropping bombs on people just to show participation That strikes me as somewhat disappointing.

 

Emotions are a factor, but I'm also hoping to be a professional in the matters of international politics and I can't allow myself to advocate anything that anyone with Google and a lot of time on their hands can disprove.

 

On Milosevic: I actually followed the trial in its entirety. My personal impression is that it was an Inquisition, not a trial - and that opinion has been voiced by professionals in the area from the western world. He also died while in custody through lack of adequate medical care, which is a stain on the ICTY. Nothing was proven conclusively and his status remains "accused", not "convicted". Leaving law terminology aside, I believe what war crimes were inspired and planned on local levels. Milosevic had his hands full with staying in power, something he cared more about than he ever did for Yugoslavia/Serbia.

War crimes there were in abundance of course, on all sides though its only the Serbian that get the spotlight.

Edited January 23, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Calax]

Out of respect for your general good sense I ask you to read up on your own and form your opinion. People are fallible, books are not. At least in sufficient quantities.

Books are just as fallible as people, it's just that books have a fact checking and editing process designed to pull as much misinformation out of the book as possible. To prevent things like the "Founding fathers hated guns" fiasco from a few years ago.

[Humodour]

So why isn't Australia in NATO?

 

It always seemed silly to me to name a defence alliance after a geographical area.

[Wrath of Dagon]

NATO was supposed to be an alliance of countries against the Soviet Union, Australia wasn't directly threatened. And Ramsey Clark is respectable?

[RPGmasterBoo]

Isn't he? I know a bit about his career, he seems capable.

[Wrath of Dagon]

He's part of the loony left. From your link:

he is the founder of the International Action Center, which holds significant overlapping membership with the Workers' World Party.[24]

Edited January 23, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[RPGmasterBoo]

That's not too great a sin. He did hold a high position in the American justice system so he cant be all bad right?

Edited January 23, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Hiro Protagonist]

So why isn't Australia in NATO?

 

Maybe because we're not in the North Atlantic.

 

It always seemed silly to me to name a defence alliance after a geographical area.

 

It's better to have geographic alliances in a particular area than no alliance at all. Otherwise you will have countries fighting all over the world.

[Humodour]

So why isn't Australia in NATO?

 

Maybe because we're not in the North Atlantic.

 

Liar. You clearly failed geography class. Or you would have if students were allowed to fail anymore. I suspect you got something like 51% (i.e. 2%).

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's not too great a sin. He did hold a high position in the American justice system so he cant be all bad right?

He seems to have become quite a bit more radicalized since then. But I suppose he's great to anyone who hates the US. From Michelle Malkin:

No matter. Clark's agenda is neither peace nor justice. It is terrorist ambulance-chasing. He is far less concerned with freeing the innocent than with allying himself with America's enemies at every turn - the gorier, the better. This is the man who:

 

 

Flew to Hanoi to give aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese while American POWs were being beaten, tortured, and killed;

 

Flew to Tehran to condemn the "crimes of America" while his fellow citizens were being held hostage by Iranian militants;

 

Flew to Tripoli to cheer up Colonel Mohamar Qaddafi after the U.S. bombed Libya terrorist training facilities;

 

Flew to France to kneel at the feet of the late Ayatollah Khomeini;

 

Flew to Baghdad to consult with Saddam Hussein;

 

Flew to the defense of PLO leaders sued by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair-bound American tourist who was shot and tossed overboard from the cruise ship Achille Lauro by Palestinian commandos in 1986;

 

Flew to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's side, in a show of solidarity against American imperialism, to defend him against charges of genocide, rape, and torture against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo;

 

Flew to the aid of indicted Rwanda genocide conspirator Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Hutu pastor accused of luring hundreds of Tutsi men, women, and children into his church and hospital compound - where they were massacred by gunmen and grenade-throwers; and

 

Flew to support the 1993 World Trade Center bombers (he played the race card for sympathetic minority jurors by decrying our racist judicial system), and continues to represent Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, the scheming Muslim cleric now in federal prison for his role in planning New York City terrorist attacks.

 

Ramsey Clark's record is not one of principled pacifism, but of compulsive anti-Americanism. The peace-loving doves who follow his path are flying on blood-stained wings.

[Hurlshort]

Ramsey is a pretty interesting character. I would never make the choices he does when it comes to defending fairly cretinous people, but there is a solid logic behind it. When you have something terrible and tragic happen, you quickly get a mob of people screaming for justice. That is a natural reaction, but it is dangerous and can spin out of control. Ramsey is basically trying to counter that. Is it radical? Yes, but so is the lynch mob mentality that developed against muslims after 9/11.

 

I'm not in his head, but I do not see his actions as anti-American in any way. First off, he has shown his commitment to the US in his work during the civil rights battles of the 60's. He has obviously become much more radical since then, but his commitment is still towards groups that are being persecuted. Some of those groups deserve persecution, but just like our legal system, someone has to defend even the murderers and rapists. He has taken that on himself, I doubt it's an easy path to take, and he probably only does it because he feels it is the right thing to do for America.

[Wrath of Dagon]

If you look at the statements he makes while assisting those people, you'll see he's not doing it for justice, but out of a burning hatred for the US.

[Hurlshort]

If you look at the statements he makes while assisting those people, you'll see he's not doing it for justice, but out of a burning hatred for the US.

 

I've looked over his quotes and I'm not seeing anything that says "I hate the US"

 

He clearly has major issues with the way the government is run, particularly foreign policy. But you aren't a fan of our current president and you have been very vocal about that, and no one has accused you of anti-Americanism.

[Calax]

If you look at the statements he makes while assisting those people, you'll see he's not doing it for justice, but out of a burning hatred for the US.

 

I've looked over his quotes and I'm not seeing anything that says "I hate the US"

 

He clearly has major issues with the way the government is run, particularly foreign policy. But you aren't a fan of our current president and you have been very vocal about that, and no one has accused you of anti-Americanism.

Interestingly I think that Dagon Would probably jump on you for being anti-american if you'd expressed "I don't like the current president" sentiments a year or two ago.

[Walsingham]

Out of respect for your general good sense I ask you to read up on your own and form your opinion. People are fallible, books are not. At least in sufficient quantities.

 

Erm... you realise how dumb that sounds? Books are just 'people' written down. but I'll assume you were referring to the fact that books are generally referenced while people aren't.

 

In any event I trust eye witnesses when those witnesses have no obvious motive to lie, and are generally sober characters. Call me mental. It's like I'm totally 100% convinced about the Nazi death camps because my grandfather liberated one. He also saw others. If I hear from my sergeant major or a major in teh Army that he ssaw ethnic slaughter in the balkans then I'll take that over any number of journalists who make their living from saying things.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Yes, its easier to check up on things and at least for me, I find it easier to see what the agenda of the person is when I read what he/she wrote then in conversation.

 

People can get the wrong impression. Eg: the prosecutors in the Hague appeared completely ignorant when trying to differentiate among various Serb paramilitaries, even confusing the regular army with them. Yet to us, most of the time, its quite obvious who is who.

I'm not saying your friends would lie intentionally, they just might misinterpret what they're seeing or even be purposefully decieved.

 

Journalists are scum, for the most part. They chase stories, not truth. Books I was reffering to were serious studies - not journalistic clap trap.

 

Example of "journalism": during the bombing, I was watching BBC. Breaking news said that Serbian police had detained some US citizens (actually they were CIA operatives, but thats irrelevant to this story), at a location in southern Serbia. I think they were released afterwards. Anyway, the news reporter asks a random villager, probably somewhere around Kopaonik (where they were captured): "What do you think should be done to them"?

I can hear his entire response in Serbian because the "translation" was late, he said:

"you know, Serbs are a peaceful people. (trying to say he has no opinion on the matter)"

Imagine my surprise what I heard in english:

"They should all be put up against the wall and shot".

 

This piece of "news" ran for only one or two reports, and was not repeated in the evening.

Edited January 24, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Volourn]

"Ramsey is basically trying to counter that."

 

Nah. He's anti Amerikan. Let's call a spade a spade. You could disagree witha country's policies and not support their enemies which is exactly what he does. If the examples given above are even remotely actively, he'd liekly have been labeled a traitor and executed in most other countries. But, he doesn't understand that.

 

 

"during the civil rights battles of the 60's."

 

Basically a half century ago. People change.

 

 

"US citizens (actually they were CIA operatives, but thats irrelevant to this story),"

 

Wait... CIA operative (assuming they're actually Amerikan) are suddenly NOT US Citizens? When did this happen? Their job doesn't whitewash their citizenship last I checked.

[Gorgon]

'Anti anerican'

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Walsingham]

Example of "journalism": during the bombing, I was watching BBC. Breaking news said that Serbian police had detained some US citizens (actually they were CIA operatives, but thats irrelevant to this story), at a location in southern Serbia. I think they were released afterwards. Anyway, the news reporter asks a random villager, probably somewhere around Kopaonik (where they were captured): "What do you think should be done to them"?

I can hear his entire response in Serbian because the "translation" was late, he said:

"you know, Serbs are a peaceful people. (trying to say he has no opinion on the matter)"

Imagine my surprise what I heard in english:

"They should all be put up against the wall and shot".

 

Good lord. I wonder if you could find the footage on youtube?

[Calax]

Example of "journalism": during the bombing, I was watching BBC. Breaking news said that Serbian police had detained some US citizens (actually they were CIA operatives, but thats irrelevant to this story), at a location in southern Serbia. I think they were released afterwards. Anyway, the news reporter asks a random villager, probably somewhere around Kopaonik (where they were captured): "What do you think should be done to them"?

I can hear his entire response in Serbian because the "translation" was late, he said:

"you know, Serbs are a peaceful people. (trying to say he has no opinion on the matter)"

Imagine my surprise what I heard in english:

"They should all be put up against the wall and shot".

 

Good lord. I wonder if you could find the footage on youtube?

I echo wals sentiments. If something was THAT badly mistranslated it'd have probably been thrown on youtube with the real translation and a commentary on the translators idiocy.

[RPGmasterBoo]

It was a brief piece that appeared and was gone in one afternoon sometime in 1999. Perhaps they have it in the BBC archives but the probability of it being recorded by someone in the public is quite small. I didn't have the means to do so at the time, and since it was essentially fire and forget propaganda, they didn't replay it.

 

I mention it only because I saw it with my own eyes. All sorts of things can be expected in wartime propaganda, but this was so far off the scale it stuck in my memory. It was aired at a time BBC wasn't available in Serbia, so it couldn't be denounced (I only saw it because I lived in Africa at the time), and very few people are likely to know of it.

 

If I find it by some weird chance I'll give you the link, though nothing but full access to BBC archives is likely to yield results. As it stands you'll have to take my word for it (such as it is) .

Edited January 24, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Walsingham]

Fair enough. For my part I'd recall the way the toppling of Saddam's statue was handled in Western media, which I saw live and then saw butchered by editorial slant into US triumphalism. BUt that doesn't mean everything I see on the news is rubbish. In purely practical terms, unless one believes some information received from outside sources how can you even begin to formulate your moral and personal compass let alone judge the objective truth of subsequent events?

[Wrath of Dagon]

If you look at the statements he makes while assisting those people, you'll see he's not doing it for justice, but out of a burning hatred for the US.

 

I've looked over his quotes and I'm not seeing anything that says "I hate the US"

 

He clearly has major issues with the way the government is run, particularly foreign policy. But you aren't a fan of our current president and you have been very vocal about that, and no one has accused you of anti-Americanism.

Critisizing the President when you disagree with him isn't the same as constantly siding with our enemies, especially the scum bags he's been siding with. And a lot of them aren't even on trial, like the Iranians, so why's he defending them?

 

Edit: I agree media is often biased and doesn't tell the full story, but they rarely lie outright, and when they do they usually get caught. The key is to get multiple sources, and take everything with a grain of salt.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

If you look at the statements he makes while assisting those people, you'll see he's not doing it for justice, but out of a burning hatred for the US.

 

I've looked over his quotes and I'm not seeing anything that says "I hate the US"

 

He clearly has major issues with the way the government is run, particularly foreign policy. But you aren't a fan of our current president and you have been very vocal about that, and no one has accused you of anti-Americanism.

Critisizing the President when you disagree with him isn't the same as constantly siding with our enemies, especially the scum bags he's been siding with. And a lot of them aren't even on trial, like the Iranians, so why's he defending them?

Honestly, you don't need to have something on trial to defend it.

[Hurlshort]

Critisizing the President when you disagree with him isn't the same as constantly siding with our enemies, especially the scum bags he's been siding with. And a lot of them aren't even on trial, like the Iranians, so why's he defending them?

 

But his philosophy seems to be that the US should not treat anyone like an enemy. He is saying that the whole friend or foe foreign policy is a problem.

 

Look, I don't agree with his tact, but I see the rationale behind his choices. It isn't any different than the lawyers that defend people on death row. Folks on death row are reprehensible, but they are given every opportunity to appeal and defend themselves, they are treated humanely by the government.

 

As for people who are not on trial, that seems even more reasonable. The US has handled countries like Iran, N. Korea, and Cuba very aggressively over the years. Those countries may deserve it, but that does not mean it is the best course of action.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Hurlshot