Comments on: Wesley Clark http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/ Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:37:10 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Walter Trtkla http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-47419 Walter Trtkla Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:58:19 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-47419 Wesley Clark represents a culture devoid of morality. He is a human cockroach that has cloaked the once respected uniform of an American officer in Eichmann’s morality and like Eichmann the sooner he is from the scene the better the human race. Wesley Clark represents a culture devoid of morality. He is a human cockroach that has cloaked the once respected uniform of an American officer in Eichmann’s morality and like Eichmann the sooner he is from the scene the better the human race.

]]> By: MOT http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-11017 MOT Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:05:57 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-11017 Matt, I agree that an interview should not be construed as an endorsement etc., but the fact remains that these elitist automatons are never held accountable, much less reminded, of their many past atrocities. Was there some sort of "Damascus road experience" where they were shown the errors of their way and repented or do they simply talk and act as though those things never happened and merrily move onto bigger things to babble about. Some sort of reality distortion field has got to be in operation here. Matt, I agree that an interview should not be construed as an endorsement etc., but the fact remains that these elitist automatons are never held accountable, much less reminded, of their many past atrocities. Was there some sort of “Damascus road experience” where they were shown the errors of their way and repented or do they simply talk and act as though those things never happened and merrily move onto bigger things to babble about. Some sort of reality distortion field has got to be in operation here.

]]> By: Canidate Michael Crosby http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10980 Canidate Michael Crosby Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:26:26 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10980 Canidate Michael Crosby ( dem ) Bush seems to be the last one in line to get REAL intel and most of the people can see this now. I think it's time to start using words like "HIGH" Treason concerning Republicans !! Canidate Michael Crosby ( dem )

Bush seems to be the last one in line to get REAL intel and most of the people can see this now.

I think it’s time to start using words like “HIGH” Treason concerning Republicans !!

]]> By: Reed Richards http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10963 Reed Richards Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:44:16 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10963 All, Wesley Clark is merely a rightwing lunatic dressed as a Democrat.............. All,

Wesley Clark is merely a rightwing lunatic dressed as a Democrat…………..

]]> By: Reed Richards http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10962 Reed Richards Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:43:13 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10962 Marina, Big M, Fred in Japan, Boris Petrovic, I stopped listening to Wesley Clark eons ago. Everyone else would be better off doing the same................. Marina, Big M, Fred in Japan, Boris Petrovic,

I stopped listening to Wesley Clark eons ago. Everyone else would be better off doing the same……………..

]]> By: Big M http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10851 Big M Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:46:18 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10851 This is the same bastard that was at Fort Hood, Texas back in 1993, and was involved in lending military personnel and equipment to the feds to incinerate, burn, shoot, gas and bulldoze the Branch Davidians at Waco. His appointment to NATO was a reward for his cooperation in that act of murder. F*** him! This is the same bastard that was at Fort Hood, Texas back in 1993, and was involved in lending military personnel and equipment to the feds to incinerate, burn, shoot, gas and bulldoze the Branch Davidians at Waco.

His appointment to NATO was a reward for his cooperation in that act of murder.

F*** him!

]]> By: Bridport http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10778 Bridport Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:12:57 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10778 Nice message. I am sure you'll comment my blog.. Ciao Nice message.
I am sure you’ll comment my blog..
Ciao

]]> By: Marina http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10586 Marina Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:41:37 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10586 W. Clark is a war criminal. After his stint in the former Yugoslavia he is he is trying to remake his image as a peace maker over Iran... ? Give me a break! W. Clark is a war criminal. After his stint in the former Yugoslavia he is he is trying to remake his image as a peace maker over Iran… ?
Give me a break!

]]> By: Boris Petrovic http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10566 Boris Petrovic Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:38:10 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10566 Mr. Clark, You've bombed my country spilling depleted uranium throughout intact hills and mountains... Hypocrisy! This is horrible and it hurts much... Mr. Clark,

You’ve bombed my country spilling depleted uranium throughout intact hills and mountains…

Hypocrisy! This is horrible and it hurts much…

]]> By: Fred in Japan http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10544 Fred in Japan Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:54:25 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10544 Gawd these elitists are disgusting. The only reason Clark is scared of Iran becoming a bully in the region because it will force the other bully to f@#$ off back across the Atlantic. And of course Israel will still be the big dog in that region. Also, I'm not sure about the Mecca issue being important. But at least Clark is mentioning the "O" word, albeit as a "P" word (petroleum/petrochemicals). You down wit OPP? In regards in Hamas and Hizballah, people can class them as "terrorists" but to me they are legitimate resistance AND are popularly elected. As others have said, are they any worse than the Israeli (or any) army? At least Hizballah and Hamas aren't aggressive invaders. Gawd these elitists are disgusting. The only reason Clark is scared of Iran becoming a bully in the region because it will force the other bully to f@#$ off back across the Atlantic. And of course Israel will still be the big dog in that region.
Also, I’m not sure about the Mecca issue being important. But at least Clark is mentioning the “O” word, albeit as a “P” word (petroleum/petrochemicals). You down wit OPP?
In regards in Hamas and Hizballah, people can class them as “terrorists” but to me they are legitimate resistance AND are popularly elected. As others have said, are they any worse than the Israeli (or any) army? At least Hizballah and Hamas aren’t aggressive invaders.

]]> By: cowbot http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10542 cowbot Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:51:09 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10542 Congratulations to Charles Goyette for the handling of this interview. He was polite, but didn't waste any time on secondary issues; he cut right to the final question of 'why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons'. Clarke had obviously prepared and answer for this but you heard him stumble a bit due to the directness and persistence of Mr. Goyette's questioning. Clarke's choice of answers were revealing. He tried to make the case for why Iran in particular must be prevented from gaining nuclear weapons, rather than making the argument that the US wants to support non-proliferation in general. If you listen closely you can hear a bit of a stammer as he puts forth his arguments for why Iran in particular must be denied the bomb at all costs. When he claims they must be prevented from becoming a stronger regional power, he carefully avoids bringing up the underlying reasons for why the prospect of why the prospect of a nuclear Iran merits all the concern. There are two doctrinal pillars that underly his position (and that of most Democrats and Republicans). The first is that the USA has some essential national interest to dominate that region of the world for mercantilist strategic control of its oil reserves. This is a highly bellicose position to take, because it asserts that the US must have its hands on the economic oxygen supply of other countries in the near-term, and it must threaten first, then bomb any country that even poses a challenge to this goal. However the benefits of this strategy only hold as long as the mideast remains a major oil supplier. The second pillar of his position is that the US must intervene and be prepared to commit violence in order to assure that Israeli domination of the region is never met by any nation even approaching military parity. Never mind that Israel,thanks to the German taxpayer, now has an unstoppable second strike capability sufficient to turn several of its neighbors into 'glass craters'. That is not sufficient to this crowd. The doctrine states that they must have complete and utter impunity in their actions. Is th From the day JFK's opposition to Ben Gurion's bomb was shot-down, it has become difficult to keep these two doctrinal assumptions apart when examining motivations underlying US foreign policy. Is 40-50 years of oil domination worth going into global debt, and threatening the world by force of arms to forgive it? Is cementing Israel's freedom to act unilaterally (without consideration of her neighbors) in the middle east really worth more millions dead? I do not think Mr. Clarke is a fool. His call for negotiations (which are not negotiations but absolute demands) before the use of force is more clever than simply bombing. It is our duty to inform people how this is not in fact the voice of prudence and good-faith, but rather only a slightly prettier facade to a diabolical plan. Congratulations to Charles Goyette for the handling of this interview.

He was polite, but didn’t waste any time on secondary issues; he cut right to the final question of ‘why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons’.

Clarke had obviously prepared and answer for this but you heard him stumble a bit due to the directness and persistence of Mr. Goyette’s questioning.

Clarke’s choice of answers were revealing. He tried to make the case for why Iran in particular must be prevented from gaining nuclear weapons, rather than making the argument that the US wants to support non-proliferation in general. If you listen closely you can hear a bit of a stammer as he puts forth his arguments for why Iran in particular must be denied the bomb at all costs. When he claims they must be prevented from becoming a stronger regional power, he carefully avoids bringing up the underlying reasons for why the prospect of why the prospect of a nuclear Iran merits all the concern.

There are two doctrinal pillars that underly his position (and that of most Democrats and Republicans). The first is that the USA has some essential national interest to dominate that region of the world for mercantilist strategic control of its oil reserves. This is a highly bellicose position to take, because it asserts that the US must have its hands on the economic oxygen supply of other countries in the near-term, and it must threaten first, then bomb any country that even poses a challenge to this goal. However the benefits of this strategy only hold as long as the mideast remains a major oil supplier.

The second pillar of his position is that the US must intervene and be prepared to commit violence in order to assure that Israeli domination of the region is never met by any nation even approaching military parity. Never mind that Israel,thanks to the German taxpayer, now has an unstoppable second strike capability sufficient to turn several of its neighbors into ‘glass craters’. That is not sufficient to this crowd. The doctrine states that they must have complete and utter impunity in their actions. Is th

From the day JFK’s opposition to Ben Gurion’s bomb was shot-down, it has become difficult to keep these two doctrinal assumptions apart when examining motivations underlying US foreign policy. Is 40-50 years of oil domination worth going into global debt, and threatening the world by force of arms to forgive it? Is cementing Israel’s freedom to act unilaterally (without consideration of her neighbors) in the middle east really worth more millions dead?

I do not think Mr. Clarke is a fool. His call for negotiations (which are not negotiations but absolute demands) before the use of force is more clever than simply bombing. It is our duty to inform people how this is not in fact the voice of prudence and good-faith, but rather only a slightly prettier facade to a diabolical plan.

]]> By: Marycatherine Barton http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/comment-page-1/#comment-10480 Marycatherine Barton Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:58:05 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/01/wesley-clark/#comment-10480 Wesley Clark is a dangerous fool. Wesley Clark is a dangerous fool.

]]>