Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Old hawks wrong for US foreign policy

As many have noted already, Obama seems to have adopted with Hillary the aggressive foreign policy of the Clinton administration. Mary Ellen O'Connell - an international law professor at the University of Notre Dame - wrote an article against this trend. It shows that Hillary is not the only hawk in the new administration, but one of many. It looks like little will change in US foreign policy when Bush leaves.

See also the following articles: Barack Obama criticised for failure to signal change in foreign policy and Obama's Uninspiring National Security Team.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Clinton's foreign policy in the former Yugoslavia was defensive, as he helped Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo defend themselves from foreign invaders. He only bombed Serbia as as last resort when they refused to call off their wars.

Anonymous said...

Not defensive as it pertained to the USA....

The Serbs must be some fighters. According to you, they were able to fight a three front war plus defending against aerial attacks from a fourth force. Yet they still get characterized as the agressors.

Anyway, you got what you wanted, time to stop the victim charade.

Anonymous said...

The Serbs were aggressors since they engaged in unprovoked wars against Croatia, Kosovo, and Bosnia, despite never having been invaded or even threatened with invasion from these territories.

This is not "according to me". This is what happened. Of course, it was very foolish. Serbia's unprovoked efforts to slaughter ten of thousands of people in neighboring nations drew the ire of those who oppose aggression and imperialism.

Now, the Serbian army is confined to the actual borders of Serbia. What is so wrong about that?

Serbia fought at least a three-front war. A veritable holocaust/blitzkrieg against the nations of the former Yugoslavia. They even attacked Slovenia, but this war was very brief and was shut down quickly.

The "aerial attacks" you refer to were defensive, and only as a last resort when Serbia refused to pull its armies back to Serbia.

The only "victim charade" is Serbia claiming was any victim.

I don't hate Serbia just because I don't think its armies have a right to slaughter people and set up rape camps in non-Serbian nations. Just like I don't hate England because I say it has no right to control India.

Anonymous said...

whatever you say...

ANON said...

Oh, I forgot to tell you a very sincere Congratulations! As a result of the US and NATO actions that resulted in Bosnia and Kosovo unilaterally declaring independence, there is now a thriving drug trade, sex trade, gun trafficking, and actual al quaeda presence in those areas "liberated" from Serbia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
2000/mar/13/balkans

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: As Serbia is now a nation that does not govern non-Serbian foreign nations like Kosovo, your dream of a Serbian empire subjugating other nations is dead. But you can find solace in nursing your nationalist hatred.

Anon: Does the sex trade somehow mean that Kosovo and Bosnia (which seceded from a conquering foreign nation) ishould be annexed to Serbia against their will?

That is an interesting justification for Serbia to come in and commit genocide against the people of these countries again. Somalia has even more crime problems than Kosovo and Bosnia. Should we annex Somalia Serbia and let Serbia slaughter the pesky people there too?


As for Kosovo and Bosnia seceding in a "unilateral" fashion, these places were forcibly joined to Serbia in the early 20th century, against their will. That was very unilateral, and that was the big mistake.

This is such bizarre logic. Anything to justify the idea of Serbia conquering these places, right? And if they did not have crime rates, you'd find other meaningless justifications.