Madeleine Albright: Iraq one of 'worst disasters' of US foreign policy

[Steeplerot]

Yahoo

Invading Iraq is likely to go down as one of the worst US foreign policy blunders ever, former Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright said in an interview.


The former top US diplomat told the New York Times that Iraq's deposed leader
Saddam Hussein "was horrible. But I did not think he was an imminent threat to the United States.

"You can't go to war with everybody you dislike," Albright continued.

"I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy."

Albright, who served under President
Bill Clinton, said US foreign policy mistakes under
President George W. Bush have left her feeling "sick" about America's current status in global affairs.

"A lot of the things that we worked on for eight years have unraveled. It is very hard," she told the Times.

"What really troubles me is that democracy is getting a bad name because it is identified with imposition and occupation," she added.

"I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron. People have to choose democracy, and it has to come up from below."


I never liked her much, but she is very correct.

People have been saying this since before day 1 of the wars. A imposed Democracy in Afganistan and Iraq will lead to the two newest theocracys like Iran.

 

[Forsythe]

"I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron." I like that quote.
I've always had a feeling of creepy uneasiness when my thoughts contain her.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

I've always had a feeling of creepy uneasiness when my thoughts contain her.

Yeah I get these weird visions of an old lady brushing off 100's of thousands of starving children in the name of america for some odd reason, but then it was a UN sanction, although if I remember it could have been lightened if america chose to and she did work to lift some of the more harsher terms.

Anyhow, yeah. She is right though, "What really troubles me is that democracy is getting a bad name because it is identified with imposition and occupation,"

Could not have summed it up better myself.

 

[Rainsford]

I was never a big fan of Albright, but she makes two good points here. The first, which has already been identified, is that the concept of democracy through invasion is rather questionable. The second though is that you can't invade everyone who you don't like. That is not how you have a successful foreign policy, and yet it seems to be a big (only?) tool of foreign policy lately.

 

[techs]

In an increasingly interdependent world the US has opted for a foreign policy that alienates as many countries as possible.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I was never a big fan of Albright, but she makes two good points here. The first, which has already been identified, is that the concept of democracy through invasion is rather questionable. The second though is that you can't invade everyone who you don't like. That is not how you have a successful foreign policy, and yet it seems to be a big (only?) tool of foreign policy lately.

Agreed, I frankly think she was a hysteric who wasn't the best candidate for running foreign policy in the U.S.

Granted, in retrospect she may not seem so bad after all.

Another important point is that not all cultures are ready to operate in a democracy. As we can see from the example of an Afghanistan, even when an invasion is successful at bringing "democracy" to a state, and isnt' met with continued resistance (compared to Iraq, let's say), democracy in an extremist religious state will inevitably collapse into a theocracy.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
"I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron." I like that quote.
I've always had a feeling of creepy uneasiness when my thoughts contain her.

What came to mind too was how the Europeans imposed "civilization" upon the Native Americans.

 

[Aimster]

yeah well they fd up when they didnt attack north korea...

clinton should have

oh well too late now.

(watch the video I have in my NK thread in OT)

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Forsythe
"I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron." I like that quote.
I've always had a feeling of creepy uneasiness when my thoughts contain her.

What came to mind too was how the Europeans imposed "civilization" upon the Native Americans.

Yup. Or how british did in their colonies.
What's your point?

 

[Genx87]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hey Maddy, how did N. Korea turn out?

 

[piasabird]

During the last Korean War China attacked UN troops in North Korea. We were too weak kneed to bomb Bejing. We had nukes and they did not and we could have destroyed Bejing with a Nuke. We were attacked by China and did not counter attack. I am thinking that was under roosevelt, but it was before my time just about.

Maybe a Democrat will come into power and we can end this war. I dont care much for ultra liberals in the Democratic party, but I was against the war when it started. I told my wife before it started that it would lead to a mess once all the terrorists started attacking. Any half-brained idiot could have seen it coming.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hey Maddy, how did N. Korea turn out?

Better than it did under the current administration . . .

 

[piasabird]

North Korea is Communist. They tried to take over all of Korea and just about succeeded. I think the entire world got tired of fighting and we stopped the war because we were tired of death.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hey Maddy, how did N. Korea turn out?

Better than it did under the current administration . . .

You cant be that obtuse can you?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hey Maddy, how did N. Korea turn out?

Better than it did under the current administration . . .

You cant be that obtuse can you?

The situation with North Korea contrasts sharply with that of Iraq, which Bush says must voluntarily divest itself of weapons of mass destruction or face a U.S.-led military coalition. Jan 2003 article on Newsmax

Hmm, I wonder . . . real international threat in DPRK vs contrived threat in Iraq. Where did the thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of civilians, and a good $300B go? I guess you can be that obtuse . . .

The Clinton Clan had a weak DPRK policy . . . basically kicked the can down the road a touch. The Bush Junta basically encouraged them to shift into high gear.

 

[BlancoNino]

Why don't we just bomb the hell out of the middle east? The breeding and fighting will never stop...and if we try to impose democracy and fight a two-sided war, we lose men, we kill innocent civilians, and after everything is done, things go back to the way they were and terrorists will still want to destroy america. If we bombed the hell out of everything...the only thing we still lose are innocent civilians...such is life.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
"I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron." I like that quote.
I've always had a feeling of creepy uneasiness when my thoughts contain her.

I've been saying that for the past 5 years. People will resent anythign imposed on them, whether you call it democracy or not. Any successful social change has to come from within.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino


Why don't we just bomb the hell out of the middle east? The breeding and fighting will never stop...and if we try to impose democracy and fight a two-sided war, we lose men, we kill innocent civilians, and after everything is done, things go back to the way they were and terrorists will still want to destroy america. If we bombed the hell out of everything...the only thing we still lose are innocent civilians...such is life.

Why don't we leave them the fvck alone? If see a bunch of fundie idiots running around praising allah with TNT up their asses, I'd just quietly back away and let 'em do whatever they like to do.

I suppose it's lot easier to sell "terrists hate our way out life" to mass of idiots than admit that a series of foreign policy fvckups over the past 15 years created an environment that breeds islamic fundamentalists. But we just had to have our troops in saudi arabia...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hey Maddy, how did N. Korea turn out?

Better than it did under the current administration . . .

You cant be that obtuse can you?

The situation with North Korea contrasts sharply with that of Iraq, which Bush says must voluntarily divest itself of weapons of mass destruction or face a U.S.-led military coalition. Jan 2003 article on Newsmax

Hmm, I wonder . . . real international threat in DPRK vs contrived threat in Iraq. Where did the thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of civilians, and a good $300B go? I guess you can be that obtuse . . .

The Clinton Clan had a weak DPRK policy . . . basically kicked the can down the road a touch. The Bush Junta basically encouraged them to shift into high gear.

What do you suggest we do with a nation who has a nuclear weapon? Would you support an invasion and the possible leveling of Seoul? I am glad you arent so obtuse and acknowledge Maddy's work enabled N. Korea to develope a nuclear weapon. Unlike some people who have convinced themselves the second Clinton left office N.Korea went from 0 to Nuclear bomb in under 2 years time.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Forsythe
"I'm for democracy, but imposing democracy is an oxymoron." I like that quote.
I've always had a feeling of creepy uneasiness when my thoughts contain her.

What came to mind too was how the Europeans imposed "civilization" upon the Native Americans.

Yup. Or how british did in their colonies.
What's your point?

The point was that the Native Americans didn't want that version of "civilization" - and they were almost entirely wiped out.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hey Maddy, how did N. Korea turn out?

Better than it did under the current administration . . .

You cant be that obtuse can you?

The situation with North Korea contrasts sharply with that of Iraq, which Bush says must voluntarily divest itself of weapons of mass destruction or face a U.S.-led military coalition. Jan 2003 article on Newsmax

Hmm, I wonder . . . real international threat in DPRK vs contrived threat in Iraq. Where did the thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of civilians, and a good $300B go? I guess you can be that obtuse . . .

The Clinton Clan had a weak DPRK policy . . . basically kicked the can down the road a touch. The Bush Junta basically encouraged them to shift into high gear.

What do you suggest we do with a nation who has a nuclear weapon? Would you support an invasion and the possible leveling of Seoul? I am glad you arent so obtuse and acknowledge Maddy's work enabled N. Korea to develope a nuclear weapon. Unlike some people who have convinced themselves the second Clinton left office N.Korea went from 0 to Nuclear bomb in under 2 years time.

As someone that's actually been to Seoul . . . of course I'm not in favor of any kind of attack 1993 or 2003. Granted, neither are the South Koreans. Something you and the other minions will have to realize is that the US cannot "secure" the world anymoreso than we can secure our borders.

The US was NEVER going to solve the Korean peninsula problem but Bush just proved that he could make it worse. So despite the Clinton era failures . . . Bush "accomplishments" are demonstrably worse. If Maddy (as you call her) enabled through benign neglect; Bush Leaguers embolden through sheer idiocy.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hey Maddy, how did N. Korea turn out?

Better than it did under the current administration . . .

You cant be that obtuse can you?

The situation with North Korea contrasts sharply with that of Iraq, which Bush says must voluntarily divest itself of weapons of mass destruction or face a U.S.-led military coalition. Jan 2003 article on Newsmax

Hmm, I wonder . . . real international threat in DPRK vs contrived threat in Iraq. Where did the thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of civilians, and a good $300B go? I guess you can be that obtuse . . .

The Clinton Clan had a weak DPRK policy . . . basically kicked the can down the road a touch. The Bush Junta basically encouraged them to shift into high gear.

What do you suggest we do with a nation who has a nuclear weapon? Would you support an invasion and the possible leveling of Seoul? I am glad you arent so obtuse and acknowledge Maddy's work enabled N. Korea to develope a nuclear weapon. Unlike some people who have convinced themselves the second Clinton left office N.Korea went from 0 to Nuclear bomb in under 2 years time.

As someone that's actually been to Seoul . . . of course I'm not in favor of any kind of attack 1993 or 2003. Granted, neither are the South Koreans. Something you and the other minions will have to realize is that the US cannot "secure" the world anymoreso than we can secure our borders.

The US was NEVER going to solve the Korean peninsula problem but Bush just proved that he could make it worse. So despite the Clinton era failures . . . Bush "accomplishments" are demonstrably worse. If Maddy (as you call her) enabled through benign neglect; Bush Leaguers embolden through sheer idiocy.

How exactly did Bush make it anymore worse than it already was? Throughout the entire administration of Clinton the N.Koreans worked on their bomb. When Bush found out about it he confronted them? What do you think we should have done? Kept on ignoring it like Clinton?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: BlancoNino


Why don't we just bomb the hell out of the middle east? The breeding and fighting will never stop...and if we try to impose democracy and fight a two-sided war, we lose men, we kill innocent civilians, and after everything is done, things go back to the way they were and terrorists will still want to destroy america. If we bombed the hell out of everything...the only thing we still lose are innocent civilians...such is life.

Why don't we leave them the fvck alone? If see a bunch of fundie idiots running around praising allah with TNT up their asses, I'd just quietly back away and let 'em do whatever they like to do.
:thumbsup: Yup I agree.

I suppose it's lot easier to sell "terrists hate our way out life" to mass of idiots than admit that a series of foreign policy fvckups over the past 15 years created an environment that breeds islamic fundamentalists. But we just had to have our troops in saudi arabia...

Yup totally agree.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hey Maddy, how did N. Korea turn out?

Better than it did under the current administration . . .

You cant be that obtuse can you?

The situation with North Korea contrasts sharply with that of Iraq, which Bush says must voluntarily divest itself of weapons of mass destruction or face a U.S.-led military coalition. Jan 2003 article on Newsmax

Hmm, I wonder . . . real international threat in DPRK vs contrived threat in Iraq. Where did the thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of civilians, and a good $300B go? I guess you can be that obtuse . . .

The Clinton Clan had a weak DPRK policy . . . basically kicked the can down the road a touch. The Bush Junta basically encouraged them to shift into high gear.

What do you suggest we do with a nation who has a nuclear weapon? Would you support an invasion and the possible leveling of Seoul? I am glad you arent so obtuse and acknowledge Maddy's work enabled N. Korea to develope a nuclear weapon. Unlike some people who have convinced themselves the second Clinton left office N.Korea went from 0 to Nuclear bomb in under 2 years time.

As someone that's actually been to Seoul . . . of course I'm not in favor of any kind of attack 1993 or 2003. Granted, neither are the South Koreans. Something you and the other minions will have to realize is that the US cannot "secure" the world anymoreso than we can secure our borders.

The US was NEVER going to solve the Korean peninsula problem but Bush just proved that he could make it worse. So despite the Clinton era failures . . . Bush "accomplishments" are demonstrably worse. If Maddy (as you call her) enabled through benign neglect; Bush Leaguers embolden through sheer idiocy.

How exactly did Bush make it anymore worse than it already was? Throughout the entire administration of Clinton the N.Koreans worked on their bomb. When Bush found out about it he confronted them? What do you think we should have done? Kept on ignoring it like Clinton?

i havent read enough about clinton and NK to comment on that aspect of it, however, saying stupid little things to NK and shaking a finger is by NO MEANS any better than what you are claiming clinton did..you naughty naughty NK stop making bombs or we wont like you!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Hey Maddy, how did N. Korea turn out?

Better than it did under the current administration . . .

You cant be that obtuse can you?

The situation with North Korea contrasts sharply with that of Iraq, which Bush says must voluntarily divest itself of weapons of mass destruction or face a U.S.-led military coalition. Jan 2003 article on Newsmax

Hmm, I wonder . . . real international threat in DPRK vs contrived threat in Iraq. Where did the thousands of US lives, tens of thousands of civilians, and a good $300B go? I guess you can be that obtuse . . .

The Clinton Clan had a weak DPRK policy . . . basically kicked the can down the road a touch. The Bush Junta basically encouraged them to shift into high gear.

What do you suggest we do with a nation who has a nuclear weapon? Would you support an invasion and the possible leveling of Seoul? I am glad you arent so obtuse and acknowledge Maddy's work enabled N. Korea to develope a nuclear weapon. Unlike some people who have convinced themselves the second Clinton left office N.Korea went from 0 to Nuclear bomb in under 2 years time.

As someone that's actually been to Seoul . . . of course I'm not in favor of any kind of attack 1993 or 2003. Granted, neither are the South Koreans. Something you and the other minions will have to realize is that the US cannot "secure" the world anymoreso than we can secure our borders.

The US was NEVER going to solve the Korean peninsula problem but Bush just proved that he could make it worse. So despite the Clinton era failures . . . Bush "accomplishments" are demonstrably worse. If Maddy (as you call her) enabled through benign neglect; Bush Leaguers embolden through sheer idiocy.

How exactly did Bush make it anymore worse than it already was? Throughout the entire administration of Clinton the N.Koreans worked on their bomb. When Bush found out about it he confronted them? What do you think we should have done? Kept on ignoring it like Clinton?

i havent read enough about clinton and NK to comment on that aspect of it, however, saying stupid little things to NK and shaking a finger is by NO MEANS any better than what you are claiming clinton did..you naughty naughty NK stop making bombs or we wont like you!

Bush cutoff shipments of aid which were guranteed by Clinton. Both money and food. So the N. Koreans funded their nuke programs off the US tax payers money and food. Doesnt that just bring a nice warm feeling to your heart?

I think confronting the issue and cutting them off is about the best you can do. They broke the treaty so let them feel the consequences. It doesnt make any sense whatsoever to keep paying them to break the treaty, or does it?