StarDestroyer.Net BBS

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Oh so you claim there was no attempted eradication of the kosovo albanians perhaps?

Those discovered mass-graves are just bullshit? Civilians being evicted and run away from their homes(for being kosovo-albanians)?

I mean, lies, I, what??? I'm stunned, what of those people I know, that came here after the war to escape persecution? Should I tell them they are full of bullshit and they should shut the fuck up with their lies?

His Divine Shadow wrote:
But in retrospect, they where happening, even if on a more limited scale(discovered hidden mass-graves), but most definitly serbian forces where acting like the nazis in early nazi germany, so it's good that fire was put out in time.

By the end of the first round of Rambouillet in February, the Serb side had agreed to the essentials of a political deal. Agence France Presse (2/20/99) quoted a U.S. official as saying that the "political part" of a peace accord "is almost not a problem, while the implementation part has been reconsidered many times."

The U.S. wanted the Kosovo plan to be implemented by NATO troops under a NATO command, and had already made plans for a 28,000-troop force. The Yugoslavian leadership was opposed to the idea, claiming such an arrangement would amount to a foreign occupation of Kosovo by hostile forces.

On February 20, the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency reported from Rambouillet that unnamed "Contact Group members may offer, as a compromise, Milosevic an option under which a multinational force will be deployed under the U.N. or the OSCE flag rather than the NATO flag as was planned before."

Agence France Presse reported the same day that the Serb delegation "showed signs that it might accept international peacekeepers on condition that they not be placed under NATO command" and added that the head of the Serb delegation "insisted that the peacekeepers answer to a non-military body such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe…or the United Nations." A U.S. official confirmed this to AFP: "The discussions are on whether it should be a UN or OSCE force," the official said.

The next day, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declared: "We accept nothing less than a complete agreement, including a NATO-led force." Asked on CNN the same day: "Does it have to be [a] NATO-led force, or as some have suggested, perhaps a UN-led force or an OSCE…force? Does it specifically have to be NATO-run?" she replied, "The United States position is that it has to be a NATO-led force. That is the basis of our participation in it."

Two days later, Albright repeated this position at a press conference: "It was asked earlier, when we were all together whether the force could be anything different than a NATO-led force. I can just tell you point blank from the perspective of the United States, absolutely not, it must be a NATO-led force."

Over the next month, this position was repeated countless times with increasing vehemence by State Department officials. Furthermore, the U.S. refused to allow the Serbs to sign the political agreement until they first agreed to a NATO-led force to implement it.

"The Serbs have been acting as if there are two documents but they can't pick and choose," Albright said (AFP, 3/13/99). "There is no way to have the political document without the implementation force that has to be NATO-led…. If they are not willing to engage on the military and police chapters, there is no agreement."

Finally, on March 23, the day before the NATO bombing began, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke met with Milosevic one last time to deliver his ultimatum: Sign the agreement or be bombed. The response was delivered that night by the Serbian parliament, which adopted resolutions again rejecting the military portion of the accords, but expressing willingness to review the "range and character of an international presence" in Kosovo.

At a March 24 State Department press briefing, spokesman James Rubin was asked about this development:

QUESTION: Was there any follow-up to the Serbian Assembly's yesterday? They had a two-pronged decision. One was to not allow NATO troops to come in; but the second part was to say they would consider an international force if all of the Kosovo ethnic groups agreed to some kind of a peace plan. It was an ambiguous collection of resolutions. Did anybody try to pursue that and find out what was the meaning of that?

RUBIN: Ambassador Holbrooke was in Belgrade, discussed these matters extensively with President Milosevic, left with the conclusion that he was not prepared to engage seriously on the two relevant subjects. I think the decision of the Serb Parliament opposing military-led implementation was the message that most people received from the parliamentary debate. I'm not aware that people saw any silver linings.

QUESTION: But there was a second message, as well; there was a second resolution.

RUBIN: I am aware that there was work done, but I'm not aware that anybody in this building regarded it as a silver lining.

In other words, the State Department was aware that the Serbs had once again expressed openness to an "international presence," but this was not seen as a "silver lining," apparently because only a NATO force was acceptable to the U.S.

In an intriguing corollary to the insistence on NATO forces, a leaked version of the Pentagon's 1994-1999 Defense Planning Guidance report advises that the United States "must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO…. Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs."

This whole subject seems to have escaped the interest of the major media.

Those who support the bombing of Yugoslavia argue that the motives are humanitarian and that all peaceful options for arriving at a settlement in Kosovo had been exhausted. Journalists need to do more reporting on the Rambouillet process to see if that in fact was the case.

Master of Ossus wrote:Two words: Foreign Policy.

Here's Clinton's MO:

1. Hear about problem.
2. Decide whether or not to act on problem. If yes, go to step 3. If no, proceed to step 6.
3. Do something that is not remotely effective, solves nothing, and preferably makes things worse. Proceed to 4.
4. Realize something's not going right. Proceed to step 5.
5. Stop doing step 3. Wait for situation to resolve. Proceed to step 6.
6. Point out to the American people that they first must define sexual relations before investigating Forni-Gate.

Darth Wong wrote:Apart from the blowjob thing, whose importance is vastly overstated, how does this distinguish him from every other president? My beef with Clinton was PardonGate. I couldn't care less about his sexual improprieties, and getting a blowjob on "company time" is no more egregious to me than presidents taking ridiculously long "working vacations", which most of them do (must be nice to unilaterally decide when and where to take a long vacation).

Darth Wong wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:Two words: Foreign Policy.

Here's Clinton's MO:

1. Hear about problem.
2. Decide whether or not to act on problem. If yes, go to step 3. If no, proceed to step 6.
3. Do something that is not remotely effective, solves nothing, and preferably makes things worse. Proceed to 4.
4. Realize something's not going right. Proceed to step 5.
5. Stop doing step 3. Wait for situation to resolve. Proceed to step 6.
6. Point out to the American people that they first must define sexual relations before investigating Forni-Gate.

Apart from the blowjob thing, whose importance is vastly overstated, how does this distinguish him from every other president? My beef with Clinton was PardonGate. I couldn't care less about his sexual improprieties, and getting a blowjob on "company time" is no more egregious to me than presidents taking ridiculously long "working vacations", which most of them do (must be nice to unilaterally decide when and where to take a long vacation).

Vympel wrote:This may be off topic- but can I say that the habit of every single presidential scandal being suffixed with 'Gate' is one of the most fucking annoying habits in all of American politics?

Vympel wrote:This may be off topic- but can I say that the habit of every single presidential scandal being suffixed with 'Gate' is one of the most fucking annoying habits in all of American politics?

Master of Ossus wrote:
When you look at most of the other "Great" American Presidents, you'll find that almost without exception they managed to get things done at home and abroad, and didn't often get entangled with things that they did not manage to solve. For example, neither of the Roosevelts was ever trapped by foreign entanglements, even though both of them engaged in MASSIVE foreign policy actions during their presidencies (and, in fact, redefined the presidency to allow them to do so).

ArmorPierce wrote:I pretty much agree with Wong. I don't say much though because it seems that just about everyone at this board thinks that Bush is some kind of savior even after him being shown to favor a religion.

weemadando wrote:Yes, and as Dr Theodore Lowi states in his papers on the US Presidency, since the Roosevelt's the office of President has held powers above and beyond those granted to them by to constitution and some indeed, in conflict with the checks and balances laid out by the consitution.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Step 7: distract the American people and media from your antics by starting a war in some far off place. Aka wagging the dog.

jegs2 wrote:

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Step 7: distract the American people and media from your antics by starting a war in some far off place. Aka wagging the dog.

...while the media that vaulted Clinton into power says, "Uh huh, uh huh, we need this war..." and nary a liberal protester to be found ... much unlike now, but then a Democrat does not hold the office of president now...

Howedar wrote:

ArmorPierce wrote:I pretty much agree with Wong. I don't say much though because it seems that just about everyone at this board thinks that Bush is some kind of savior even after him being shown to favor a religion.

Oh for fucks sake, as if thats the biggest problem with the man...

Hameru wrote:The media tried to ruin Clinton. Broadcast networks ran every story they could on Clinton's cock, while the christian networks and many pundits were saying Clinton fathered a black baby, that Hillary murdered Vince Foster (after Starr, of all people, concluded it was a suicide) and some other nutty stuff.

IG-88E wrote:

Hameru wrote:The media tried to ruin Clinton. Broadcast networks ran every story they could on Clinton's cock, while the christian networks and many pundits were saying Clinton fathered a black baby, that Hillary murdered Vince Foster (after Starr, of all people, concluded it was a suicide) and some other nutty stuff.

And yet they somehow missed the fact that the Clintons deorated their Christmas tree with condoms wrapped in gold foil, nude statuetes, and the like.

Vympel wrote:This may be off topic- but can I say that the habit of every single presidential scandal being suffixed with 'Gate' is one of the most fucking annoying habits in all of American politics?

IG-88E wrote:And yet they somehow missed the fact that the Clintons deorated their Christmas tree with condoms wrapped in gold foil, nude statuetes, and the like.

Darth Wong wrote:

IG-88E wrote:And yet they somehow missed the fact that the Clintons deorated their Christmas tree with condoms wrapped in gold foil, nude statuetes, and the like.

Is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

Alex Moon wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

IG-88E wrote:And yet they somehow missed the fact that the Clintons deorated their Christmas tree with condoms wrapped in gold foil, nude statuetes, and the like.

Is that supposed to be scandalous for some reason?

IIRC, the tree was one for public viewing at the White House.

[edit] I believe that there were also sex toys like cock rings and whatnot on it as well.