Talk:Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Fox News Section
It is too anti-clinton. This is becuase of the statements opinions from people who do not like Clinton were put in this section. I deleted all of them. I think they can be put back if the other side is shown as well. and just to note, a 9/11 commision guy (forget his name) came on FOX news after Clinton's interview and validated everything Clinton said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.120.230.238 (talk • contribs).
- I'm just not sure why a businessman and media commentator (Ijaz) is featured front and center in this section in place of the later conclusion of Bush's 9/11 Commission.Gmb92 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Both are mentioned and both need to be mentioned. Clinton's motivation for not pursuing the matter was because of lack of legal justification. Detractors of the President will say his lack of action led to 9-11 while supporters of the President say he didnt act too hastily as his successor President Bush did. Both points need to be mentioned to give the reader an insight to Clinton's goals and actions.Arnabdas 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Northern Ireland Section
It wasn't just 'the IRA' that 'claimed' that all of its weapons were decomissioned. The IICD and two members of the clergy, one representing each community, verified it. --Eamonnca1 02:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changes Should Be Made to Rwanda Paragraph
I propose making several changes in the paragraph about Rwanda. Several additions could clarify the Clinton Administrations handling of the genocide. Additions that I would like to see added are in the bold font:
In April 1994, a civil war erupted in Rwanda between Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. Over the next few months, an estimated 500,000 to 1 million Rwandans, mainly Tutsi, were massacred. A few weeks after the war began, millions of HutusA had fled the country for safety, spawning the growth of refugee camps in neighboring countries. President Clinton brilliantly managed a public relations exercise aimed at minimizing public awareness of the atrocities thus enabling the policy of non-intervention in non-strategic conflicts to be pursued unchallenged, although the Clinton Administration was fully aware of what was happeningB. All use by US government officials of the explosive word "Genocide" was forbidden and the US put pressure on the United Nations to back Belgian demands for a complete withdrawal of UNAMIR soldiers despite the heroic resistance of the force commander on the ground, the Canadian General Dallaire and the willingness of Ghana and Ethiopia to provide troops to replace the Belgian contingent. As thousands more died of disease and starvation in these refugee camps, Clinton ordered airdrops of food and supplies for Hutu refugees and geoncidairesA. In July, he sent 200 non-combatant troops to the Rwanda capital of Kigali to manage the airport and distribution of relief supplies. These troops were subsequently withdrawn by October 1994. Clinton and the United Nations faced criticism for a weak response to the massacre. When Clinton traveled to Africa in 1998, he apologized for the international community’s failure to respond to the massacres. When speaking about the Rwanda Crisis, Clinton called it his worst failure, admitting "I blew it."C
A = BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1288230.stm, 1 April, 2004
B = The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1182431,00.html, 1 March, 2004
C = The New Yorker - http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060918fa_fact1, September 18, 2006
Mvblair 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing no objections after eight months, I think it's OK to make these additions. They're valuable because they speak about the administration's interests and objects in foreign policy. Mvblair 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It says that Pres. Clinton apologized in his speech but he didn't and never has. Saying he was wrong not to act is a way of suggesting that he was in some way mistaken. That he answered a question the wrong way. Apologizing for inaction would say that he knowing ignored genocide. He doesn't do this. ([1] paragraphs 5 & 6) I think this should be changed to reflect his actual words which indicate that he feels bad about the situation but doesn't want to admit that or make it seem as though he may be responsible for knowingly and publicly ignoring genocide. Jordinho (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I changed the wording to be more reflective of Clinton's "apology." In the speech, I think the apology is implicit, although you're right, he never actually says the words "sorry" or "apologize." Mvblair (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] reasons and facts needed for balkan section
what were the reasons for clinton being so profoundly pro-albanian? what was his interaction with tony blair who also played a great part in cajoling leaders of NATO countries to take an anti-Serb position or to at least permit NATO forces to launch military strikes on Serbian civilians to assist the Albanian takeover of Kosovo? Also to say the attacks were devastating is not really enough. Up to 5,000 Serbs (or as few as a 1,000) are said to have died in the attacks, which included a primary school... can this be detailed in the article? Relatively few Albanians had been killed in the preceeding years of conflict, despite the majority of them supporting terrorist organisations aimed at driving Serbs from their Kosovan homeland.
Also to say Yugoslav forces "were mobilised into" Kosovo is deceptive, as it gives the impression that there weren't any there before, as Kosovo was a part of Yugoslavia, "Yugoslav" forces would have been there since the end of the second world war. It is like saying "U.S. forces were mobilised into Texas"!!!Richy-rik 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with most of your points, specifically the need for referencing. However Im sorry I dont quite agree with your analysis of the Kosovo situation. I think if you are going to start referencing and citing the Serbians that died (which official estimates place at only 3,000 Serbs then you need to also place the fact that about 10,000-12,000 ethnic Albanians were killed , mostly by the Serbian forces at the time. Relatively few Albanians were terrorists, some of those killed were were primary children. However this a matter of debate that belongs in the Kosovo war article, not Bill Clinton's. Secondly I dont think Clinton had to cajool leaders into getting NATO to force the Serbians to peace is true either. Clinton was known for being extremely weak in regards to acting forcefullyin the conflict, which is why it took so longer for action from NATO to happen. This is agreed upon by several of his biographers. Most importantly Clinton was Pro-American and any therefore pro the ideas of intervention in conflicts to restore peace, freedom and the 'free market' where it economically suits his country and capitalism. I think if you want to detail more why the Clinton administration got involved in the war I think you need to cite the fact the Serbian government at the time didnt want peace. Rambouillet Agreement LordHarris 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
i dispute most of the facts you quote above, regarding the kosovo conflict. especially regarding the albanian casualties etc. www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=194[[2]] this is an article from a printed news magazine, and originally from the reputable, i believe, strafor, inc. which at its simplest says that thousands of bodies have simply not been found(of albanian mass casualties), despite a thorough search by the NATO occupation force and that only enough have been found that can be accounted for by the fierce fighting between KLA fighters invading kosovo, mainly from bases in albania proper (hundreds of casualties, not 10,000). i agree clinton didnt do much cajoling, that was primarily done on this side of the atlantic by one anthony blair (attorney) !! who at the time had good relations with clinton. but surely as c in c of the forces which carried out the bombing of civilian targets in serbia clinton had to have a political stance on that. as for saying serbia didnt want peace , well there was no war until NATO forces invaded and attacked serbia. only an uprising by terrorist/rebel insurgents. you say most albanians didnt support the kla.... well from personal contact with albanians i do know that they are an intensely proud and nationalist people, who even if they didnt agree with the tactics of the kla would support its aims and would always put there nationalist identity before any other loyalty (ie they would hide kla members, give money, etc). further rambouillet asked for nato to have rights over the whole of yugoslavia... which would be contrary to the doctrine of sovreignty.
that must be right, what you say about the bulk of this information belonging in the kosovo war article.... maybe now i have found a quotable source... i have few more as well now(!) i'll add a few words in there to the effect that the casualty figures are disputed?Richy-rik 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merging Clinton Doctrine
I don't think these two pages should be merged. Both Bush and Monroe have a doctrine page, as well they should. This page outlines the history of the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration, while the doctrine page discusses the general tenets of it. As there are a set of foreign policy doctrine pages already for many different doctrines, we should follow that format and leave them separate. Otherwise, where would the Kennan Doctrine be merged into? George F. Kennan, who wrote it, or Harry S Truman, who first implemented it? But then Truman had his own doctrine... I think they should remain as separate pages.GrumF14 18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
