Noone speaks of MIGHT's here. Serbian minority is being oppressed AT THE MOMENT... Read some facts, man. You caused an exodus of almost 300,000 Serbs since you occupied our land!

Dear God... No comment. I am speechless when I hear statements like this one.

From where? Do you have a source other than your own word?

Its not that I think you are lying. But you are obviously biased.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

complete and utter horse manure.

you're just making things worse around the world, if the US stopped poking its nose where aint needed, then we'd have no problems LOL.

__________________
I have something to hide.

Lets put it this way: why do you even discuss this topic if you have poor or no knowledge at all (which is so obvious)? I do not intent to waste my time on quoting and providing links for you since you've already proved that you don't want to take a look at them. Even if you did, you would not (at least) try to be objective.

So, if you want to discuss the topic of Kosovo - read some facts, gain some information and then come back.

And here is a little review of US freedom fighting policy throughout the 20th century:

Look at the evidence:

* Before World War II, for example, the United States could have admitted many Jews fleeing from Hitler's Europe; it did not.
* During World War II, the United States could have bombed the death camp at Auschwitz, slowing down the Nazi killing machine; it did not.
* When hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Indonesia in 1965; the killers were cheered on by the U.S. government who even provided lists of communists to exterminate.
* When the Pakistani army began slaughtering and raping hundreds of thousands of Bengalis in 1971, sending millions into exile, U.S. policy was to (in Kissinger's words) "tilt in favor of Pakistan."
* When Indonesia invaded East Timor, leading to the deaths of one third of the population, it received weapons and diplomatic support from Washington. Just this past week, White House press secretary Joe Lockhart was asked whether the United States supported independence for East Timor. "Not that I am aware of," he replied.
* When the Khmer Rouge was responsible for monstrous killings in Cambodia, the United States encouraged China to aid the Khmer Rouge and provided covert aid of its own.
* When the government of Guatemala killed 200,000 people in the 1980s, it was with United States aid and encouragement.
* When upwards of half a million people, mostly members of the Tutsi ethnic minority, were exterminated in Rwanda in 1994, the Clinton administration demanded that a UN force already on the scene be reduced and obstructed efforts to save lives, even failing to apply diplomatic pressure against the killers.

Investigation of all these cases and many more -- the Turkish treatment of Kurds in Turkey, for example -- reveals a consistent pattern which has nothing to do with concerns for repressed populations and everything to do with calculations of U.S. elite and geo-political interests. In every case policy would have been roughly opposite to what took place, if there had been humanitarian concerns. There weren't, and there aren't.

Isolationism has been attempted before. World War II was the result.


To gain the knowledge. This is how I learn.

But when someone claims something is a fact, it is common sense that they should provide evidence to support that fact.

This is an anonymous forum...I don't know you. I don't know anything about your real experiences or education or knowledge. Technically speaking, I don't even know for a fact that you are not an American posing as a Serbian (though I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really are Serbian).

That being said, I cant simply take your word as if it were an objective fact. I'm not saying opinions are not important. Just that they do not supersede objective facts.

I (and most other users on here) use 3rd party sources to support our claims. The reason people accept my sources is that they are under scrutiny. If you lie on here, you stand to lose nothing of value. If CNN or Fox or the BBC lies and gets caught, they stand to lose a lot of money.

They are certainly biased, but they will not lie about facts, because they know their competitors will not hesitate to expose them. CNN has been caught doing this twice that I can remember, and CBS got caught once as well. No mainstream news organization is going to risk a loss of market share (profit) if they can help it. Greed therefore keeps them honest.

That is why your word is insufficient. It is nothing against you personally. I don't accept opinions as fact from Americans either.


No one is forcing you to. You don't even need to respond to my posts at all if you don't want to. Thats the beauty of these public forums.



No one is objective. There is not a single person who has ever been born who was capable of being entirely objective.



No argument here. When I look down my nose at other cultures, I include previous versions of America as well. Our ancestors were morally inferior to us.


Exactly. Which is why Neocons (of which I am one) support Preemptive doctrine. It is one of the reasons we supported the invasion of Iraq.



I dont doubt it. Paleocons support a more isolationist policy and do not have the moral restraints Neocons do when it comes to foreign policy. Paleocons were in control of our government during the incidents mentioned above.

I'm not making the claim that the US foreign policy is 100% to my liking even now, just that we are headed in the right direction. Better late than never.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Quote:
No, you won't let anyone get away with anything of course. The only government that's allowed to get away with anything is US government. For the rest of us, it's a big no no.

If you're a non-democracy, then yeah, pretty much.

Dear dear me. And who's to be the judge of what's a non-democracy, me wonders? And is the matter of international politics really that clear cut do you think? Incidentally, I don't see you chucking sticks and stones at Turkish government these days?


Quote:
Anyone else try and protect their interest, territory or citizens, you stop and figure out first which side suits American purposes best, decide who "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" are going to be, and then proceed according to the well-thumbed script.

Non-democracies do not have the right to protect their interests or territory, and we dont really recognize their authority over their citizens either.

Which neatly brings us back to the question of who's to decide the right and wrong of things in affairs of mice and men, don't you think? And flush international law down the drain while you're at it. Oh sorry, you did that already.


Quote:
Don't go stomping round the world in your heavy boots, bringing freedom and democracy for all at gun point.
Or what?

Or in laymen terms, you'll get a lot of general resentment and bad blood, not to mention a few religious nutters every now and again who'll get it into their head that killing innocent American civilians is a good way to put the point across. Sadly.


Quote:
Also kindly ask yourselves why is it that US is being criticised and disrespected as you say by foreign nations?
Because other nations either hate us for what we represent (democracy) or because they envy us.

Its lonely at the top, heh heh

Envy? Hatred for democracy? Would that it was that simple.

That's about it. U.S foreign policy has never and is not currently based on any sort of consistent humanitarian concerns. That's why you get funny things like Cuba embargos without embargos against governments equal or worse. It's a policy of pragmatism plain and simple. Which is fine. But let's not pretend the opposite. It sounds hypocritical and stupid.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Other democracies. You can find a definition here.

Now you don't have to wonder anymore. You're welcome.


Yes.

You determine if the masses have legal control over their own government. If the answer is "yes", then it is a democracy. If the answer is "no", then it is not a democracy. The specific structure is irrelevant. A Constitutional Monarchy (for example) still fits the definition of a democracy so long as the masses have control of the Constitution.


How are they not a democracy?



The masses. We are giving those masses a voice.



We had to flush...the crаp was starting to overflow the toilet.



We're willing to take that risk. The alternatives are worse.



Did I stutter?



Explain what is pragmatic about the Cuban Embargo.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

It was put in place because Fidel seized American assets in Cuba. It had nothing to do with Fidel's politics. We even formerly recognized his government when he took power. He (like most dictators) was fine by us. Until he took the assets of American companies. We had to respond. Ergo, embargo. It had nothing to do with humanitarian anything.

The actual law regarding Cuba wasn't even formally passed until 1992. That's when the whole "democracy" angle was invented. Which was hilarious. If that were the case we would have embargos all over the globe. China, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. etc. Their governments are equal or worse, but a "humantarian" embargo would result in negatives for America. Hence, we predicably have no such embargos. Some commies are just fine I guess. Which is totally fine. I am not against pragmatism. Just don't pretend otherwise. It sounds stupid. Our utter hypocrisy is one of the many valid reasons our government is so despised all over the globe. We don't care and never have. That's why that picture of Rummie with Saddam is so (*)(*)(*)(*) funny.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

[quote=Sadistic-Savior;438901]Other democracies. You can find a definition here.

Now you don't have to wonder anymore. You're welcome.

Thank you for the definition, it was most gracious of you, still what made you think it was necessary to supply it I really don't know I somehow fail to remember though, aren't all world democracies supposed to be included in this deciding vote? They weren't last few times.


Quote:

You determine if the masses have legal control over their own government. If the answer is "yes", then it is a democracy. If the answer is "no", then it is not a democracy. The specific structure is irrelevant. A Constitutional Monarchy (for example) still fits the definition of a democracy so long as the masses have control of the Constitution.

And if the government or people that legaly elected it displease you, then you topple it, and put a "better one" in its place. Chile anyone?

Quote:
Incidentally, I don't see you chucking sticks and stones at Turkish government these days?

How are they not a democracy?


Uh, I don't know. Maybe the whole Kurdish question stands in the way somehow.