Madeline Albright slams Bernie Sanders for lack of knowledge on foreign policy-

  • Thread starter SouthoftheAndes
  • Start date
There is a special place in Hell for Madelline Albright.
The sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein killed over half a million Iraqi children. When she was asked whether it was worth it , she replied it was worth it.



You think there aren't any elites in Western society that have the greatest say in foreign policy decisions.

Bernie was against the Iraq war while Hillary was for it. Hillary lost the 2008 nomination because she was for the Iraq war and Obama was against it.

Hillary was 1 f the parties pushing for the US to bomb Libya and she has been supportive of the US getting involved in Syria. Hillary is pro war.

Hillary is pro getting rich regardless of the outcome
 
Hillary is pro getting rich regardless of the outcome
Hillary wants to go down in the history books as the 1st female President. She would make a deal with Kim Jon Un, Al Baghdadi and every other notorious person if she thought it would secure her the presidency.
 
Hillary wants to go down in the history books as the 1st female President. She would make a deal with Kim Jon Un, Al Baghdadi and every other notorious person if she thought it would secure her the presidency.

I think sanders really let her off the hook during the last debate when she called him out on his indirect suggestion about her taking super pac donations...

I would have let her have it.
 
Are you serious? I don't like the vague allusions to "elites," but do you really think that Bush's aid of the coup d'etat or Obama's campaign against Gaddafi was ideological or based at all on national security or actual human rights concerns?

You piqued my curiosity. What was it based on?
 
You gotta be ready to make the tough decisions and stick with them



But like the President elect has much to do with formulating foreign strategy. It's more a matter of appearing knowledgeable in public.
 
You gotta be ready to make the tough decisions and stick with them



But like the President elect has much to do with formulating foreign strategy. It's more a matter of appearing knowledgeable in public.


/Albright credibility on the subject.
 
Hillary wants to go down in the history books as the 1st female President. She would make a deal with Kim Jon Un, Al Baghdadi and every other notorious person if she thought it would secure her the presidency.

I'm sure they've already donated to the Clinton Foundation.
 
Albright is correct but has as obv bias. There is also the question of whose doctrine is more correct. I am not as isolationist as Bernie but I can sympathize, if I was sure his was the right approach I would go with him, experience be damned.

No POTUS has had FP experience since G.H.W. Bush.
Its an overrated qualification, especially when considering what Bush Sr did with it.
 
No POTUS has had FP experience since G.H.W. Bush.
Its an overrated qualification, especially when considering what Bush Sr did with it.

While I'm sympathetic as my post should indicate, the diff in the two bushes is an argument for experience, .
 
Hillary wants to go down in the history books as the 1st female President. She would make a deal with Kim Jon Un, Al Baghdadi and every other notorious person if she thought it would secure her the presidency.

Do you find that reprehensible? I seem to remember you belonging to the "we should deal with ruthless dictators as long as they keep things 'stable'" camp. Unless I'm misremembering, that willingness to side with murderous autocrats wouldn't be a turn off, politically, to you.
 
You piqued my curiosity. What was it based on?

I meant the "coup d'etat of Hugo Chavez," not just a random coup.

Chavez and Gaddafi were both extremely critical of global neoliberalism in regard to trade imbalances and the exploitation of Venezuelan/Libyan resources to benefit only the ultra-wealthy and moved to nationalize resources and
allow, if at all, NATO members to only purchase at an appropriate-by-their-standards price. Given that, at the time of the coup on Chavez, Venezuelan oil comprised 12% (I think that's the figure) of US oil imports, it makes sense that, while the US government would have obvious political stake in allowing their country and economy to gain the best possible access to oil and such, there is certainly an element of private interest as well.

Meanwhile, despite being cast as evil dictators by the American media, it looks pretty clear that both countries were made better by those two and are floundering in their wake.
 
While I'm sympathetic as my post should indicate, the diff in the two bushes is an argument for experience, .

Not attacking. Just pointing out that the whole "he/she doesn't have FP experience" is a disingenuous argument.

Not just the Ws. -- btw, it has recently come out that Cheney and Rumsfeld actually kept information away from W during the buildup to war.

Clinton: Rwanda, delayed support to Bosnia because of Hillarycare, sanctions on Iraq that killed 500,000 children and is cited as 1 of the 2 main reasons for 9/11 and the hatred Muslims (even non radicals) hate America.

Obama: expanded the "War on Terror", Libya, Syria, Yemen, drone strikes.

All of these guys relied on their advisors and then used their judgement to make the decisions they made.
Did JFK/RFK have FP? I don't recall that they did, but they got us thru the Cuban Missile Crisis (JFK also fucked up during the Bay O'Pigs, but still).
 
Fat cunt should go back to stuffing her face with Arby's and stfu
 
Some of Albright's "we need to elect a woman" is out of resentment over sexism and glass ceilings she had to deal with. She probably believes she was more than capable to be a great president even though much says otherwise.
 
The sad part is, Albrights father was a Czech diplomat, and stationed in Belgrade prior to WW2. Serbian people protected them from being rounded up with the other Jewish citizens, and helped them escape to England. She repaid this favor later by bombing the shit out of that city. This makes me like Bernie even more.
 
The sad part is, Albrights father was a Czech diplomat, and stationed in Belgrade prior to WW2. Serbian people protected them from being rounded up with the other Jewish citizens, and helped them escape to England. She repaid this favor later by bombing the shit out of that city. This makes me like Bernie even more.

I bet there were a lot of individual acts of kindness done by Bosniaks to Serbs over the centuries, but that didn't prevent the latter from attempting to wipe out the former.
 
"We have to have a president that is ready on Day 1 to deal with problems," Albright told NBC News in an exclusive interview. "I have never seen such a complicatedinternational situation, and we can't afford learning on the job."


In most cases, that's exactly what we're likely to get. It's what we got with Obama, and I personally think he got up to speed quite well.


Sounds an awful lot like the scare tactics I hate from the right, the kind used to keep Bush around 4 more years.
 
I bet there were a lot of individual acts of kindness done by Bosniaks to Serbs over the centuries, but that didn't prevent the latter from attempting to wipe out the former.

If we're talking Bosnian war history, you should be aware that Serbs, Croats and Bosnians all internally agreed to divide Bosnia in 3 parts.

In 1992, the politicians from 3 sides signed the Lisbon Agreement, and that war was about to be avoided. 10 days after the agreement was signed, Warren Zimmerman, US' ambassador in Yugoslavia met with Alija Izetbegovic, and the next day, Alija went against the document he just signed. A month later, a Serbian man was gunned at his kids wedding by radical Islamic Bosnians, dressed no different than regular civilians.

That war could have been entirely avoided if it was not for involvement of foreign powers.
 
There is a special place in Hell for Madelline Albright.
The sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein killed over half a million Iraqi children. When she was asked whether it was worth it , she replied it was worth it.



You think there aren't any elites in Western society that have the greatest say in foreign policy decisions.

Bernie was against the Iraq war while Hillary was for it. Hillary lost the 2008 nomination because she was for the Iraq war and Obama was against it.

Hillary was 1 f the parties pushing for the US to bomb Libya and she has been supportive of the US getting involved in Syria. Hillary is pro war.

Hmm by your logic

"Bernie supports killing little children with drone strikes."
"Bernie supports the "evil zionist state" and turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia violence"

I mean if you want me to play it that far and like an idiot I can. Just so you know by the way true socialists dislike Sanders because they claim he represents 'statism' with capitalism. Why did I mention that? Because you are starting to state the same stuff that hardcore 'socialists' and "non-interventionists" like to spew. And if that is the case then I thought id return fire with what they say about Bernie Sanders.

Or if you want to go the conspiracy route check this out it might appeal to all the infowars fans



1) Iraq was a mistake but for 100th million time I don't fault her or Joe Biden or anyone for making that vote especially when they were U.S. Senators and were shown faulty/false evidence by the Bush administration. You know that Senators meet in private with the administration and their sources right? Plus she later came out against Iraq as did Kerry.

2) Don't be ridiculous she lost 2008 because Obama ran a better campaign all around, had more charisma, and had more crossover appeal to other demographics. Hillary was called "too left" and Obama did not run on a platform of extreme liberalism.

3) Bernie supported intervention in Libya. And it was the right call

4) She supports just like Sanders a multilateral and united plan to deal with Syria she does not support the same things Republicans want. Nor does she support nuking Iran. Although, personally I think the Iran deal will blow up in our face later.

Are you serious? I don't like the vague allusions to "elites," but do you really think that Bush's aid of the coup d'etat or Obama's campaign against Gaddafi was ideological or based at all on national security or actual human rights concerns?

It was.

Libya was a human rights concern which is why France, Canada, the UK and even other EU nations got on board. You mean to tell me that "big bad evil America' somehow convinced them all to do/go against their own interests? Libya was a multilateral intervention with UN security council approval (narrow but still) and got the support of most of the free thinking world. It was completely different than Iraq in which not even NATO was on board and which Bush told France to f#ck off and the UN and invaded anyways.
 
Back
Top