Thread: Kerry Slams U.S. Foreign Policy

So my disinterest in reading a series of long posts while I'm at work instead of "hitting the highlights", so to speak, means I have a short attention span?

If I am busy and there are long post/ references (as Shek gives and which are very educative and helpful), then I don't squirt one liners or gut reactions.

I bide my time, read and then reply rather than start a huge discussion over nothing!

That is why I am (won't use your vulgar term) 'General'! In my Army, I am just a mere Brigadier!

Not that it makes any difference to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Ray

I don't grudge you your use of vulgar epithets.

I would rather believe that it is part of the psychology.

I, however, find that repulsive vulgarity is not my cup of tea and even under provocation, I would rather not display such nuggets of intelligence or intolerance.

Again, it is the question of psychology and maybe even cultural difference!

Ray, I intentionally used "effing", not even "f*cking*, out of respect for you.

You are right on each issue that you raised of events where the US could not influence the world events during the Clinton era. But if you cared to notice that the US has not been able to influence events even before that. In fact, after WW II, the US downslided!

Right now, it is at the lowest point even worse than during the previous Administration and even the very US public is getting restive and rebellious. It only happened last during the Vietnam era!

So you perceive world opinion of the U.S. as even worse than when we were putting Pershing missiles in Europe?

So Bosnia was Clinton's doing? His private war? The US, as a nation, was not involved?

Not at all we supported it - it was our war too. But it was his idea to get us involved in that conflict in the first place.

It is most interesting to note from your post that US having started the war, is not responsible thereafter to see a logical and peaceful solution. So, by your logic, the US is just to start a war and then leave it to others to sort out the mess. Are you suggesting that the US is merely a warmonger with scant regard for ensuring that the rationale for the same is met? Was the US rationale in Bosnia to kick up trouble and watch the show from the sidelines?

We didn't start any war in Bosnia, sir, we entered an already-extant one. Again your facts are suspect.

so, the Iraq War is following the same pattern (US policy format as per you) as Bosnia? Start a war and hand it over to some else when it is a mess and then stand back and claim it is not your fault!

I don't believe I have made anything close to that argument. I'm a believer in the "we broke it, we fix it" approach.

Ah yes, the world is at fault. The US is always right!

Smacks of arrogance, if nothing else.

When did I say this?

This is an interactive world these days. The imperial and colonial days are over where the ruling nation spoke on behalf of the colonies! Your personal attitude here is of a colonial power Viceroy.

I don't see how.

I can't be responsible for your President's prefernces.



That is not the impression one observes. But since you say so., so be it!

Impression? When have I even posted about Clinton before you brought him up in this thread????

-dale

Originally Posted by Ray

If I am busy and there are long post/ references (as Shek gives and which are very educative and helpful), then I don't squirt one liners or gut reactions.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. The long posts you made here are over the line for me. Nothing personal.[/quote]

I bide my time, read and then reply rather than start a huge discussion over nothing!

That is why I am (won't use your vulgar term) 'General'! In my Army, I am just a mere Brigadier!

Not that it makes any difference to the discussion.[/QUOTE]

Apologies. I see "Brigadier" and I think "Brigadier General". The assignation is withdrawn.

-dale

Dalem,

I will try to put the posts in point form, but it will be as long as it was previously since the facts cannot be condensed.

However, lets ask you something.

1. Under which International Law or precedence can a nation wage war/invade on ground of bringing Freedom and Democracy?

2. If Iraq was such a threat (it allowed UN inspectors unfettered access [Blix]) and she was under sanctions too for being so, how come North Korea did not even warrant a sanction, let alone an invasion like that done on Iraq?

Originally Posted by dalem

I see "Brigadier" and I think "Brigadier General". The assignation is withdrawn.

-dale

Rather magnanimous of you to withdraw the assignation so kindly bestowed on me, I must concede!

'effing' is a horrible and repulsive cuss word in my cultural milieu!

Dalem,

The respect is mutual as individuals, even if I don't agree with you.

I am sure there will be errors in those long posts of mine. Attack that and leave me more educated.

Originally Posted by Ray

Dalem,

I will try to put the posts in point form, but it will be as long as it was previously since the facts cannot be condensed.

However, lets ask you something.

1. Under which International Law or precedence can a nation wage war/invade on ground of bringing Freedom and Democracy?

International laws are not binding, treaties are binding. Which treaties did the U.S. violate by invading Iraq?

2. If Iraq was such a threat (it allowed UN inspectors unfettered access [Blix]) and she was under sanctions too for being so, how come North Korea did not even warrant a sanction, let alone an invasion like that done on Iraq?

Because we screwed up wrt N.K., and we don't have the regional freedom to act in N.K. like we do in the M.E. But I'm not inherently against attacking N.K. anyway - show me a good plan and I'll vote people in for it.

Oh, and I take exception the the "unfettered" part. Maybe Blixy wasn't reading his own reports, but access was anything BUT "unfettered".

-dale

Originally Posted by Ray

Rather magnanimous of you to withdraw the assignation so kindly bestowed on me, I must concede!

'effing' is a horrible and repulsive cuss word in my cultural milieu!

Ah, so I stepped in it, in my ignorance. I apologize profusely, sir, and I will go edit out that word. In English it's just a euphemism for the "F" word.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Ah, so I stepped in it, in my ignorance. I apologize profusely, sir, and I will go edit out that word. In English it's just a euphemism for the "F" word.

-dale

It is alright.

I have got used to many things out here.

It is also education.

I will take to the US like a duck to water when I go there!

May even use it to show that 'I am one of the boys!"

Let us go through this calmly.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by dalem

International laws are not binding, treaties are binding. Which treaties did the U.S. violate by invading Iraq?

There were no treaties governing Iraq or was there? UN resolutions were the nearest to the issue.

International laws are binding.

However, invading for humanitarian reasons or for Freedom and Democracy is a new one!

It sets a precedence for China to invade to spread Communism since they feel it is better than Democracy!

Back to the Cold War.

Because we screwed up wrt N.K., and we don't have the regional freedom to act in N.K. like we do in the M.E. But I'm not inherently against attacking N.K. anyway - show me a good plan and I'll vote people in for it.

South Korea and Japan are all there to give regional flexibility! But.........then there is China!

At least sanctions should have been demanded and implemented with equal vigour. It would have been even handed. What about Pakistan? It had WMDs and also was the home industry for terrorism. It became the 'frontline' ally! I am not mentioning Pakistan because I am Indian, I am going by the parametres laid down in the State of Union address.

Oh, and I take exception the the "unfettered" part. Maybe Blixy wasn't reading his own reports, but access was anything BUT "unfettered".

I rather go by what Blix had to say as I would do about America by Americans than from Indians who make fleeting visits to the US to give that 'been there, done that' drawing room chatter.

And anyway, I am trying my best to concise my posts that has upset you in office so that you could give your views.

BattleStar Galactica......
is quite simply....
The Dumbest show on TV right now!!!

I vented about it.....

Just Venting.....

Originally Posted by Ray

I rather go by what Blix had to say as I would do about America by Americans than from Indians who make fleeting visits to the US to give that 'been there, done that' drawing room chatter.

But see Ray, you are basing your long and no-doubt elegant arguments on falsehoods, so why should I bother? There was NOT unfettered access - there were endless complaints about delays, false leads, denied interviews, prohibited overflights, etc. Bottom line is that Saddam was supposed ot brign Blix's boys TO the places and say "here are our prohibited UAV attempts", "Here are our prohibited medium-range missiles", "here are our places where the stockpiles we HAD before were destroyed without direct UN observation as we were bound to do".

He never did any of that. He did the opposite. And because I am not Hans Blix I am unable to draw my own conclusions from that? Please.

-dale