Bush Foreign Policy : unilateralism & differences with Kerry

[Olivier]

two threads of mine have been edited of late, apparently by a moderator




the titles that have been altered are

"the real cause of the death of Arafat"

as been changed to
"Politicizing the Yasser Arafat's cause of death; or, what we don't know can hurt you.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122881&postcount=70

I do not see what the added insinuation means... or what value added it brings





Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved

to

Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved, Satan unavailable for comment
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122938&postcount=126
I had not into of putting any satanic reference in the discussion

Overall, the objective of this person is harassment.
Arbitrary harassment because he does not share my opinions. Why leave intact threads which are either pure provocation of plain false and modify titles respecting forum rule? Why choose to distord the name of the threads I started?

let's see one example on naming a thread :

France: we will use the UN-mandate to continue the occupation of the Ivory Coast => this is plain lie, no french declaration was made about "occupating ivory coast".

and guess what, the guy who created the thread has been promoted moderator ! Now he can toy with what I say in total impunity...

Now If you want to see delirant threads titles just browse the forum..



Now what should I do ?
- I have first protested to the forum owner (newsguy), who answered that moderators are fully allowed change thread titles. This practice is discretionary and completely arbitrary. Any moderator can change a thread name to what he wants. Just because he feels like it.

Ok, now what do I do ? I can either
=========================
solution #1 - accept that the thread I start have a title perverting what the idea I defend.

solution #2 - stop posting and conceide victory to the harasser. This will also overjoy all here that do not share my opinions.


Now although it is certainly not good to give in to harassment, I have choose solution #2. As I wrote to the forum owner "you might as well have the guts to ask me to leave politely and I certainly would not insist".
But the idea that someone can pull strings and make me say what I do not want to say, just because he finds it fun is completely disgusting to me.

I do not know for you, maybe some of you find it fantastic to read a forum like this, but for me this is more than just hindering freedom of expression, this is plain pervert.

So bye all !


Overall I hope I have contributed adding value to the forum and interest to the reader.
I tried to start threads worthy of real debate and to documents my posts as well as I could! I tried not to answer provocation by avoiding the most aggressive of hateful posters.

On the statistic side, I started no less than 113 threads and wrote 1250 posts, which means I easily dedicated two hundred hours to the forum.

these are some of the threads I am the most proud of , Bush is elected, what can we expect in the next years?
• Good news for the Saudis and the iranians: Crude prices hit 21 year high
• Fight against Global warming : Kyoto Protocol becomes international treaty.
• teaching democracy (it's a picture !)
• If America were Iraq, What Would It be Like?
• Another legend down the drain : Iraq's Disappearing Elections (this one is likely to make a comeback)
• a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims
• Israel Has Long Spied on U.S alleges Counterpunch (I think this thread title has been manipulated as well)
• Moore's anti-Bush film wins top Cannes award
• Arab-Israeli Retaliation Tragic, Unhelpful
• Europe must not define itself against America
• about the dangers of blurring the lines between humanitarians workers and armies
• French troops deployed on Sudan border
• Military Draft in the US?
• Reaction in France on Sharon calling french jews to "leave immediately
• Torture by US forces is Iraq is not just isolated incidents (that thread is probably the one with the longuest debate : 481 posts)
• How can the damage of the torture photos be repaired? (with now a variant with the shooting of an unarmed wounded insurged in a mosque)
• Are we de-Baathifying or re-Baathifying this week? (that one was not a success, by it was fun)
• Rebirth at Ground Zero (don’t start optimistics threads here : no success)
• Real politics starting inside iraq? (ditto)
• U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops
• 9/11 panel says there was ‘‘no credible evidence’’ that Saddam had ties with al-Qaida
• Big demonstration in Paris today against anti-Semitism
• europe grows : Israelis rush on europeans passport
• hostilities ending in Falluja? (lucky I put an interrogation mark on that one.. that was started in june)
• France to expel Muslim cleric over abuse

And it makes me extremely sad to realize all these titles can be perverted anytime…



…. So I have decided, that I prefer to remove some of my posts than to have what I mean manipulated against my will, it’s a bit sad, but it seems reasonable to withdraw from a debate when the debate turns out to be a fake. And of course I do not approve of the hatred shown by the people who manipulate this forum to their ends.

[Olivier]

The main strategy, of course, is the war against terrorism. What would you recommend?

The key question is whether the war against terrorism necessitated the war against Iraq. If you believe it did not, or if you believe the war in Iraq has been carried out in an egregious way, then you can see how that war in Iraq has undermined the war against terrorism in a number of conspicuous ways. It has diverted resources, both financial and military, away from the war against terrorism. And secondly, and more significantly in the long run, the war in Iraq has severely antagonized the people in the Middle East, the prospective targets of our democratization initiative. The way the war in Iraq has been fought has undermined and eroded the goals that the administration has been pursuing. One of the pillars of American foreign policy, in the words of the Bush administration, is to preserve our alliances. That is one of their goals, but the Iraq war has undermined that goal.

The overriding point that I would make is that, throughout the Cold War, administrations made careful calculations about when to use multilateral initiatives, when to act collectively with our allies, when to be responsive to their needs or their attitudes or their concerns, and when not to be. It is not the principle of multilateralism; it is the way it is carried out. I think this administration has demonstrated an incapacity to make effective judgments. Ultimately, the benchmark of good foreign policy is the exercise of good judgment, the determination of when to use the right types of instruments of policy, whether they be unilateral or multilateral. I think this administration has exercised extremely poor judgment in making these sorts of determinations.

If John Kerry wins the election, will he be able to fix things?

I am not certain how effective Kerry's foreign policies will be. Despite his emphasis on multilateralism, in his discussions about North Korea and his allusions to Iran, he is implying that we need to take tougher, more unilateral action. That is how I read what he has to say. If that is the case, he may be simply trying to distinguish himself from the Bush policy on Iraq as well as on these other issues, without necessarily taking a principled stand, or showing good judgment. So it is far from clear to me that Kerry's policies themselves would make a huge difference in the overall foreign policy.

But I have the following caveat: Bush has so antagonized our major allies, particularly in Europe, that I do think that any rational observer of the international situation would come to the conclusion that Kerry has a much better chance of securing allied cooperation and collaboration in Iraq and elsewhere than the Bush administration. I also think that the types of tactics that the Kerry team has articulated on Iraq have better long-term possibilities for winning the goodwill of the peoples in the Middle East. Most important is that Kerry is likely to bring a new attitude to the Palestinian-Israeli question that I believe is absolutely indispensable to the development of a successful overall policy in the Middle East. The Bush administration's failure over four years to seriously tackle that issue is a great negative in its record. The prospect that the Kerry people would at least try to approach this issue with renewed vigor and imagination is important.

http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot1_090104.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[Gabriel]

But I have the following caveat: Bush has so antagonized our major allies, particularly in Europe

BS. France, Russia, and Germany were never strong allies with the US anyways. We have since strengthened relations with Pakistan (Very helpful in war on terror) many eastern bloc coutries, and Italy. We've "antagonized" some "major allies" but have gained many more TRUE allies. Ones that know what oppression is and appreciates our efforts.


I am not certain how effective Kerry's foreign policies will be.

I love how the above line is later followed by the below line.


I do think that any rational observer of the international situation would come to the conclusion that Kerry has a much better chance of securing allied cooperation and collaboration in Iraq and elsewhere than the Bush administration.

[Roland]

BS. France, Russia, and Germany were never strong allies with the US anyways. We have since strengthened relations with Pakistan (Very helpful in war on terror) many eastern bloc coutries, and Italy. We've "antagonized" some "major allies" but have gained many more TRUE allies. Ones that know what oppression is and appreciates our efforts.
Quite insightful, Gabriel.
I still hear these words with old names in it: We have since strengthened relations with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and armed him well, when the mullahs came to power. Now it's just another despotic muslim regime that barely controls it's own taliban infested country. TRUE allies. Ahh, your royal Saudi investor-friends (Bin Laden-familiy doesn't count). And Guantanamo. They surely represent Americas celebrated values (Help me name those values, please. I forgot the details). Make Berlusconi of Italy an american honoris causa!
What do you know about oppression?
By appreciating your efforts you mean the people you saved from visiting their evil families in evil Cuba are applauding? Belgium cheering because america blackmailed them to change some minor laws?

[TheyAre]

I'm confused.

Since when was opinion presented as fact...

Wait. French. My bad. I forgot for a minute there.