If any country in the World was going to boast of it's record when it comes to wars and conflicts, unless it was Switzerland, they would be asking for a swift whack around the head with a history book.
Recent history is not Hillary Clinton's strong point obviously as she and the Iranian President clashed at the United Nations over Iran's nuclear facilities.
Hillary Clinton said Iran's nuclear ambitions are putting the world at risk and Ahmadinejad retaliated by saying the government of the United States had no evidence his country was seeking nuclear weapons and the USA had not only used nuclear weapons, but also continues to threaten to use such weapons against other countries.
Mrs Clinton hit back stating "Iran will do whatever it can to divert attention away from its own record and to attempt to evade accountability," she said.
Now i don't know how far into history Clinton was going but since the Iran Iraq war which we were continually told Saddam began, America has had Gulf War 2 (illegal), Afghanistan (very iffy), Gulf War 1 (dodgy) and Kosovo (misguided).
Hillary would do well to climb down off that high horse of morality because only Israel could challenge that record and nobody is rushing to defend that place as a hot bed of military restraint.
Ahmadinejad should just say 'I believe the US are trying to create an excuse to invade my country and here is the evidence supporting my case.'
Clinton should just say 'I believe Iran is building a nuclear bomb and here is the evidence supporting my case' and let's see who the international crowd believe.
6 comments:
UN slap-fights are an endless source of pleasure. I recall when Nikita Kruschev lost his composure and took off his shoe during the little Filipino's speech. I laughed so hard my bourbon came out of my nose.
But in all seriousness, the fact that a nation occasionally engages in ethically uncertain actions should not in any way undermine their moral standing. After all, if that were the case then our incursion into Chile in the 70's would be used as some sort of counterpoint to our efforts during World War II.
Nixon chides you bleeding hearts for your moral relativism.
Welcome back Daniel
If that really is Daniel/David, then I applaud his recent acquisition of a sense of humour. I'm finding the 'Tricky Dick' comments quite amusing...
I don't see where your logic on most of these conflicts is coming from. You don't give alternatives.
>Gulf War 1: I'm a bit mixed on this one because one despot is generally no better than another. But it wasn't "illegal" to prevent Iraq from effecting its annexation of Kuwait.
>Kosovo: The ethnic Albanians were being murdered. Regardless "territorial integrity" BS that the local murdering despot may cite in support of his murdering, I would hope that every sensible and civilized individual would see through it. What should have been done? Should everyone have given the Serbian government carte blanche to murder the Albanians off the face of the earth?
>Afghanistan: I agree that the war has not been fought as it should have been fought. But what would the alternative have been?
>Gulf 2: Yeah, that one was dumb and exceedingly sketchy.
-Nog
Gulf War 1 was initially a case of sending the troops to safegaurad Sauid oilfields. It only turned into ousting Saddam from Kuwait when they had got there and wondered what to do next.
Kosovo was a coin flip. The Albanians were slaughtering the Serbs and the Serbs sent in the Army and that's when everyone began taking notice.
Afghanistan was about removing the Taliban from power for not handing over Bin Laden. The famous 'deal' where Bush said they could stay in power if they handed him over means it was never about what it later became.
My fellow Americans, let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a Daniel.
And this time, I'm not lying.
Post a Comment