This is hilarious (US foreign policy)

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I do wonder if this current US administration actually thinks before it does anything dealing with foreign policy. I thought Clinton's foriegn policy was bad, but Bush is just atrocious! He's a big dumb ox who doesn't give a damn that he's ****ing everything up.
Makes me wish I'd voted for Gore .

We have the most short sighted, moronic foriegn policy of any Western nation. If I dare say it, Mugabe might be a better foreign policy US President than Bush, the retarded. One wonders how long it will take to rebuild the bridges that have been burned by this utter imbecile.

Is this truly you, Imran?
I suppose you are just kidding.

And if not: WHAT happened? I hope all is well?

Get well soon!

[DinoDoc]

Unilateral foreign policy decisions give him gas, S. Kroeze. He just needs to take some Tums and he'll be OK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kroeze, it is me. I'm disgusted with this administration. His bull**** is really grating on me, and I've basically left the Republican Party (kind of hard to officially leave a party if you don't have a position in it ).

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Kroeze, it is me. I'm disgusted with this administration. His bull**** is really grating on me, and I've basically left the Republican Party (kind of hard to officially leave a party if you don't have a position in it ).

Dear Imran,

Thanks for replying!

I find this still very hard to grasp. I remember you as the most pronounced supporter of G.Bush jr. and the Republican Party on Apolyton. I once visited your website and remember seeing mainly various anti-Clinton cartoons ('Making them serve!" etc.)

It is not my intent to ridicule you, but could you please try to explain in greater detail what made you change your opinion about G.Bush?
Is it just his foreign policy or are there other aspects with which you strongly disagree?
Is R.Reagan still your favourite American president?

I always strongly detested G.Bush and he has more or less turned out as I had expected. I have to admit that his administration handled Afghanistan quite intelligently, far better than I would have thought possible. I have also quite some confidence in C.Powell.

It is a pity, I think, that America has only two political parties. This doesn't give the electorate much choice.
In Holland we have basically three large parties (and several smaller ones), and I dislike ALL of them to some degree.
My guess is you would vote on the VVD, a 'liberal-conservative' party.

Do you still agree with the Supreme Court decision not to allow a recount in Florida?
I hope the prewar voting machines will be replaced next November.

Best wishes!

S.Kroeze

PS: Perhaps you still remember my post after the Supreme Court decision:

Hung be the heaven's with black, yield day to night!
Comets, importing change of times and states....

[alofatti]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I do wonder if this current US administration actually thinks before it does anything dealing with foreign policy. I thought Clinton's foriegn policy was bad, but Bush is just atrocious! He's a big dumb ox who doesn't give a damn that he's ****ing everything up.
Makes me wish I'd voted for Gore .

We have the most short sighted, moronic foriegn policy of any Western nation. If I dare say it, Mugabe might be a better foreign policy US President than Bush, the retarded. One wonders how long it will take to rebuild the bridges that have been burned by this utter imbecile.

It is a good thing to hear this! One less for those Republicans!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, Reagan is still my favorite American President, and I disagree with Bush's foreign policy mainly, which will impact our domestic politics in far more serious ways than most Americans realize.

And yes, I still agree with the US Supreme Court that the recount asked for by Gore was flawed and should have been stopped.

[DinoDoc]

What is it that ticks you off? The not signing every treaty put before us?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The blatent disregard for any semblance of diplomacy or tact in foriegn policies. The whole attitude that we can do everything ourselves, pissing off even our allies because Bush can only use a hammer to make his points.

[Thucydides]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Personally if I were in charge, these requests for immunity would only be prefaced with the serious threat of removing the peacekeepers. It would remove the need for pointless horsetrading.

Ned: Under the international law that OFITG seems to hold dear, we had no right to intervene in the Kosovo situation.

I hate to inform you of this, but the US and other NATO countries are in Kosovo now because of UN Resolution 1244. You can find a copy of the resolution at http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm
So I fail to see how the US presence in Kosovo is illegal if it's under UN authority that were in Kosovo in the first place.

Even if you argue that Nato originally Bombed Serbia without UN authorization, According to the article you posted Dino Doc, we had a right to do so without prior UN Security Council authorization as a way to help them repel armed agression and insure humanitarian relief. So was only the peace treaty that required Security council approval, not the actual bombings, and the UN did provide support for the former.

At any rate, regardless of the legitimicy of the bombing by the UN, it was still the right thing as well as the practical thingto do. Every other action to prevent the genocide by the Serbs was attempted, including appeasement by the UN. If the UN was doing it's job instead of downplaying the seriousness of the tragedy taking place in Bosnia and Kosovo, we would have been able to bomb Serbia under UN authorization instead of NATO's. As it was, we undoubtly stopped a great deal of mass murder, rape and untold number of refuges from streaming into other countries (which was destabilizing other countries as well).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Thucydides


I hate to inform you of this, but the US and other NATO countries are in Kosovo now because of UN Resolution 1244. You can find a copy of the resolution at http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm
So I fail to see how the US presence in Kosovo is illegal if it's under UN authority that were in Kosovo in the first place.

Even if you argue that Nato originally Bombed Serbia without UN authorization, According to the article you posted Dino Doc, we had a right to do so without prior UN Security Council authorization as a way to help them repel armed agression and insure humanitarian relief. So was only the peace treaty that required Security council approval, not the actual bombings, and the UN did provide support for the former.

At any rate, regardless of the legitimicy of the bombing by the UN, it was still the right thing as well as the practical thingto do. Every other action to prevent the genocide by the Serbs was attempted, including appeasement by the UN. If the UN was doing it's job instead of downplaying the seriousness of the tragedy taking place in Bosnia and Kosovo, we would have been able to bomb Serbia under UN authorization instead of NATO's. As it was, we undoubtly stopped a great deal of mass murder, rape and untold number of refuges from streaming into other countries (which was destabilizing other countries as well).

This argument is quite sound and I wholly agree with it.

Ditto, Iraq.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Thucydides
According to the article you posted Dino Doc, we had a right to do so without prior UN Security Council authorization as a way to help them repel armed agression and insure humanitarian relief.

1) Aggression against whom. Serbia was a sovereign country that was fighting a rebellion to its rule in Kosovo. It has never to my knowledge been a recognized right of an ethnic or religious minority to secede within the international community.

2) It was the bombings that made the humanitarian situation on the ground worse than before.

3) As was stated in the article, you're stretching the right of humanitarian intervention way beyond the limits traditionally placed upon it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It has never to my knowledge been a recognized right of an ethnic or religious minority to secede within the international community.

DinoDoc, The Versailles Treaty had a lot to do with the right of "self-determination." This basic "right" has often been promoted by the UN, most recently in E. Timor (a Christian enclave in a Muslim country). As well, the action in Kosovo was consistent with paragraph 3 of Chapter I of the UN Charter:

"To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

[chequita guevara]

Just as many Kosovar Albanians fled north into Serbia as into neighboring countries. That should tell you a little something about the character of the "ethnic-cleansing" of Kosovo.

[Thucydides]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Just as many Kosovar Albanians fled north into Serbia as into neighboring countries. That should tell you a little something about the character of the "ethnic-cleansing" of Kosovo.

I'm really not too sure what conclusions your exactly drawing from this, even if this is the case (a source would be nice). There was a sysmatic campaign to force Muslims out of Kosovo, not Serbia. If it was possible for a refugee to flee to Serbia but not Albania then I'm sure they would. That doesn't imply that life was good in Serbia, only that it sucked less then being terrorized in Kosovo.

It was the bombings that made the humanitarian situation on the ground worse than before

only because the bombings pissed the Serbs off, not because really did much in terms of damage. If you don't believe me, try reading http://shr.aaas.org/kosovo/policyorpanic/toc.html

[chequita guevara]

There is little evidence of an organized terror campaign to drive the Albanians from Kosovo. There is eveidence that irregulars did some of this, however the vast majority of people who fled did so because they were terrified of the bombing, at least according to the refugees themselves at the time.