Clark supporters......I want your opinion on these articles!

[Cascadian]

I need to get your opinion on this article. I know many of you have seen this before. It's from a 1999 Guardian article about General Clark in Kosovo and the incident with a British General.


Ther reason I am bringing this up is because I have serious trouble with the fact many of you support this man. If wanted to roll into Pristina airport and confront Russian troops whom I am convinced would have refused to budge from there, then what would stop him from starting a war with some country as president?

Here's the article.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208120,00.html


and another article....

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html



What is your take. What am I missing?

John

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. If you were a General, I'd take your opinion seriously

"If wanted to roll into Pristina airport and confront Russian troops whom I am convinced would have refused to budge from there, then what would stop him from starting a war with some country as president?"

You are convinced huh? Why are you posting FreeRepublic smears against Clark?

[StopTheMorans]

2. so you trusted the Generals during the war

that kept spinning all the damn news that we received stateside? :eyes:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. what do you know about the Russian military?

during the Serbian War? I bet nothing.

[Cascadian]

6. It's from the Guardian!!! HELLO!!!

How can that be Freeper stuff??? And what makes you think I am a Freeper???? I am afraid you are wrong!

John

[Julien Sorel]

3. Since both of these have been covered at least 20 times here,

I doubt you really want anyone's opinion.

Relax, dude. Have some of Dr. Dean's famous Kool-aid. The world didn't end because Clark got into the race.

[tjdee]

5. But OMG Billy!

How dare this general give military orders!

Not to mention, the more serious charges of wearing cologne! And driving a sports car!

Are you really comfortable with things like that?

[LoneStarLiberal]

7. For Starters...

We can all have a good laugh at the bad grammar in the article's title. Was that a Guardian boo-boo or was General Jackson just that inarticulate?

Second, "starting the Third World War" was an opinion of General Jackson's, not an unassailiable fact of the situation. Could there have been a shoot out if NATO forces had tried to use force to keep the Russians out of the Pristina airport? Sure. Was it a 100% probability? No.

This is an interesting article. It's an intereting episode in the General's background that I'm certain we will hear more about with time. But for the final time, "I'm not going to start Third World War for you" (grammar faithful to the original) is not a statement of fact, but rather a statement of opinion.

[tjdee]

8. And you're secure with what Dean would do?

That's amazing to me.

You question the judgment of a military trained general in a *military* maneuver, but not the governor of a small state with no foreign or military experience.

Come on.

[dfong63]

13. dean's experience is more relevant

You question the judgment of a military trained general in a *military* maneuver, but not the governor of a small state with no foreign or military experience.

as president, Dr Dean would not need to be a general. the country has plenty of them already. however, Clark as president, would need to be a politician. he has no experience in electoral politics. Dean was not just "a governor", but a governor who was ELECTED SIX TIMES. the nation's government is not an army, and we do not need a general to run it. Dr Dean's experience is more relevant.

[tjdee]

15. That wasn't the original poster's issue.

We can disagree all day long about whether Clark or Dean has more relevant experience for the presidency.

The original poster, in this thread and another, is all a-titter that Clark is some gung-ho bully that wants to use the military to solve every problem--by discussing Pristina airport, a military instance (In the other thread, he wanted to know if Clark was going to nuke Pyongyang).

I was merely saying that I trust Clark's military instincts than Dean's.

[GainesT1958]

9. He was interested in confronting the Russians only because...

It was clear the Russians were siding with the Serbs--and Milosevic--in Kosovo, and he feared a massacre of the ethnic Albanians in Pristina were we not to intercede--that's why!

He didn't want to knuckle under to Milosevic--and neither did I. Better that than a pre-emptive war on a dictator who did not attack us or our allies--not in the last eleven years, at least--a war based completely upon lies about intelligence findings; lies to Congress and to the American people, and one which, disgustingly, alienated some of our oldest allies and neighbors--like Canada.

General Clark was COMPLETELY AGAINST that war, and would not go near such arrogant Neo-con pretzel logic as president. But he WOULD protect the human rights of a people threatened with slaughter by a brutal dictator--and those allied with that dictator, as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was (is) allied with Osama and al Quaeda.

Human rights--a term completely ignored by the current pResident and most of his henchmen--but not by Wes Clark!

B-)

[meegbear]

10. Excellent!

If we're gonna have a man "play soldier" on the world stage and "Start World War III", then at least it's a man who's in the military.

You're not missing anything, you just don't want him to be the Democratic candidate.

[dfong63]

14. why is that an improvement?

If we're gonna have a man "play soldier" on the world stage and "Start World War III", then at least it's a man who's in the military.

why is that an improvement? the soldiers who actually have to fight the war, and the civilians who will become "collateral damage", will be just as dead either way. to me it seems more sensible, instead of saying, "oh well, at least it's better if a real soldier does it", to choose someone who has not spent devoted his career to fighting unjustified wars, and who has not demonstrated a propensity for rash misjudgments.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

11. REBUTTALS

Stirling Newberry's double-barreled response:

http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000347.html#000347

Here is Eric Tam's moderate response:

http://antidotal.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_antidotal_archive.html#106364517252030920

I'm sure Clark will also put this artifact to bed, if it ever comes up in any significant way during the campaign.

DTH

[returnable]

12. Loaded question

"...what would stop him from starting a war with some country as president?"

That same question could be asked of any of the candidates. Why direct it solely at Clark?

Who's to say if Dean or Kerry or Edwards were elected, they wouldn't go after North Korea if they felt the situation warranted it?

None of them has gone on record as saying "Armed Conflict NEVER!"

If anything, Clark's experience in the military, and his stated aversion to armed conflict when at all possible, fills me with a LOT more confidence than some of the other candidates.

As for the Pristina Airport thing, I think it's been blown out of proportion. He asked the British to block the runways. It was a tactical disagreement between two commanders in an international coalition.

End of story.

[newyawker99]

16. Hi returnable!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: