<Clinton doesn't have a foreign policy>
Pat Jennings,
Well if the people here on the threads would ever take their time and start reading instead of babbling and falling for senseless and dumb babblers on SI they would have made tons of money.
Your President may have known or not what his State Department was up to. Eddy Blinker was. And he is just a ordinary guy.
So please take your time, take note of the date and read this.
Selling the U.S Military on the game plan!IMO
Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering
Address to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, February 10, 1999
Mandates and Basis for Use of Force
One mark of a great civilization is that it does not use military force lightly. We value life. As the international system has developed, so have the norms and laws that guide the use of force.
The UN charter provides several possibilities for use of military force, including Article 51, which provides for individual and collective self-defense. Two other justifications require Security Council approval and are therefore subject to veto by any of the five permanent members. Under Chapter VII of the Charter, force is justified to maintain and restore international peace and security when the Security Council approves it, and under Article 53, the Security Council authorizes enforcement actions of regional organizations. Forces can also be deployed in cases where the relevant parties have provided their consent,such as often occurs in peace operations.
During the Cold War, the question of legal justification was not often posed by our adversaries - or perhaps it is more accurate to say that whether it was posed or not, not all countries were likely to refrain from military force because of uncertainty over the legality of their actions.
Deterrence as a doctrine helped to rule out the use of force by our adversaries in some instances. In other cases, the West saw the use of force as an act of self-defense. However,there is an increasing desire now, especially in the West, to be certain of clear authority before acting. We can see this most clearly within NATO, where some of our Allies have argued that a UN mandate is always necessary when NATO acts outside its territory.
The U.S. and other allies disagree.
Who are the others, EDDY BLINKER likes to know? Great Britain and Mr.Blair perhaps? Did MR.Schroeder from Germany know about this briefing? Or our Foreign Minister Mr.Fisher?
The U.S. believes that the right to deploy forces in such areas as the Balkans depends on an evaluation of all the circumstances, including whether there is a direct risk to Treaty members.
For example, individual or collective self-defense is appropriate against an aggressor who has used force against others AND when there are important national interests at stake.
NATO members have the right to act in accordance with their obligations under the Washington Treaty. Were we limited to taking action only under express Security Council approval,we would effectively give Russia and China a veto over all such NATO actions.
That is unacceptable.In our view, the United States and its NATO Allies must decide when it is appropriate to use force to defend the Alliance.
In this new security environment,we face serious questions, particularly when military force is used to intervene in an internal conflict.Such questions include whether an alliance must wait until its members' territory is directly attacked or whether it might exercise the use of force as part of preventive diplomacy.Our allies' interest in intervening in humanitarian crises is also under review, with some seeking a new standard that would call for the use of force for this purpose.
Another potential justification for force would be against rogue states or near-rogue states that use force first, such as Iraq against Kuwait or Milosevic inside Serbia against Kosovo Albanians, in a manner contrary to international legal norms.
In these cases, while it has been a struggle, the UN Security Council often has taken steps and called for action. So too has NATO on the basis of its own commitments in the Washington Treaty.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now here you have part of the gameplan advertised on the internet.
And the stupid Germans bought the pig in the poke without looking
if it had any legs to stand on.
Lots of innocent people can be killed. And please do yourself a further service. Start thinking about all those rockets in Russia and a possible guardchange in the Kremlin which have nothing to lose but power to gain.
I am still waiting to see the agreement signed by the Albanians in the Kosovo.Did anyone find it yet?
Of course all the reporters are busy. Who in all those TV shows has ever asked to see this famous paper to which the criminal from Belgrade refused his signature.
He did not sign it with a gun to his head and he will not sign it with all the bombs in the world falling down on him.
He wants that you bring in your ground troups. And make no mistake you will oblidge because that's the plan Stan. Get it?
Greedings,
Eddy Blinker
|
