Comments on: Uncle Sam Does Osama’s Dirty Work

By: Richard Ong

Richard Ong — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:03:39 +0000

I cannot cite a source just now but I recall from somewhere that Albanian Muslims become the majority in Kosovo by immigrating illegally?

By: properly scared (but southern!)

properly scared (but southern!) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:31:31 +0000

Sickening.

However–if the US will consistently apply the Kosovo principle, let us agree that the Confederate States of America have a better claim to independence that the Kosovars.

By: William A. Cubbedge

William A. Cubbedge — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:31:45 +0000

Dear All,

I have really enjoyed this conversation. But enough of all this- I’ve just had a daughter!

Look at her pictures
here!

Yours Truly,
Will “Daddy” Cubbedge

By: Paul Priest

Paul Priest — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:24:22 +0000

I’m sorry but I’m afraid none of you are actually giving any reference whatsoever to what actually created this debacle.
I’m referring to Rambouillet and the preceding devious machinations of Milosevich ; who ran rings round NATO ; whenever external hostilities were threatened he recapitulated and withdrew giving NATO no justification for aggression.
In order to prevent a recurrence of this in the Kosovo conflict NATO deliberately created a war [you need only consult US government and UK parliamentary reports on this] The terms of Rambouillet were completely unacceptable to Serbia [it was virtually a proposition to dismantle the entire serbian state and turn it into a NATO-run military state] Serbia said it would agree to reasonable terms ; [they even offered kosovan semi-autonomy] ; but they simply could not give away their country into the hands of the West. The subsequent press statements were misleading to say the least – the implication was that Serbia refused to make any moves towards reconciliation. Thus commenced the blanket bombing.
Remember too that France had proposed at the UN security council a peacekeeping force to keep the Serbian forces and the KLA apart [this was backed by Russia] – this proposal was vetoed by the US – in other words the US [via NATO] wanted the KLA to resume terrorist activities, and the Serbs to overreact with murderous draconian counter-measures – thus justifying NATO intervention !
In other words a war was deliberately inaugurated in order to get to Milosevich and wreak revenge upon him for NATO’s previous embarassment after his retreat from Croatia and Bosnia; and retreat and submission regarding kosovo every time external intervention was hinted at !
Whether one agrees with the intent or aim, the actual process was both reprehensible and inexcusable ; but these events seem to have disappeared into governmental files while a pseudo-counterfactual seems to pervade both the popular history and media accounts of what occurred in former Yugoslavia….
If Kosovo is in the state it is – at least some of the blame should be afforded to the deliberately hostile and over-politicised policies of the west.

By: William A. Cubbedge

William A. Cubbedge — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:49:39 +0000

Dear Christine,

By “your side” I mean American monarchists, or, more specifically, folks who think that the United States acted ultra vires in its creation of the modern American state. I consider myself a monarchist, but only insofar as it concerns other people’s monarchies.

Yours Truly,
Will Cubbedge

By: William A. Cubbedge

William A. Cubbedge — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:30:09 +0000

Dear Mr. Cusack,

Well, to assert the rights of Great Britain over New Amsterdam, one would have to acknowledge a general Right to Property by Conquest, at least at some point.

I would say that the simple answer to your question is, to paraphrase one of your fellow statesmen, the only thing acknowledged in New York by the Treaty of Paris was . . . New York itself.

Yours Truly,
Will Cubbedge

By: Andrew Cusack

Andrew Cusack — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:17:24 +0000

I can see how the right of conquest argument would carry some weight with others, but not for a New Yorker. Except for a brief re-capture by the Dutch and an even more brief capture by the rebels, New York remained British from 1664 until the last royal troops left on November 25, 1783.

So you will no doubt understand that from a New Yorker’s perspective, it is much easier to perceive independence as a grant than as an acknowledgment, for what in loyal New York was there to acknowledge?

By: Stuart P

Stuart P — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 08:30:19 +0000

Bravo Herr Cusack – glad to see there are still many issues on which we are in firm agreement!

By: Christine

Christine — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 07:21:16 +0000

I agree: we will have disagreements over the historical records. The ideological roots of the Revolution trouble me most, as linked as they are to that godless and evil rebellion in France responsible for the martyrdom of so many faithful priests and religious. When Thomas Jefferson cried, “The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants,” he was referring to King Louis XVI, a saintly monarch, who died insisting his innocence, with his faithful confessor by his side. To support the American Revolution is, in a sense, to throw your lot in with his executioners.

[D]oes it not do your side a disfavor to admit that the Hanovers ruled as the heirs of usurpers?

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “your side”. As to the Hanoverians, one could argue they gained legitimacy over time by several factors: (1) King George III’s rule was recognized by the Pope; (2) he was recognized by the Cardinal Duke of York (the true king); (3) the longevity and stability of the Hanoverian reign would have ruled out a revolutionary overthrow to restore the Jacobites; (4) thus, any serious attempt at restoration was given up.

By: William A. Cubbedge

William A. Cubbedge — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:47:40 +0000

Dear Christine,

I. While William and Mary may have been usurpers, (1) they did have to assent to the Bill of Rights as a condition of their usuptation, making it a condition of their reign, as well as the reigns of their successors, and (2) in any case, the subjects of the Crown, by all rights, had an expectation that the Crown would, as a condition of its sovereignty, uphold the Bill of Rights. Also, does it not do your side a disfavor to admit that the Hanovers ruled as the heirs of usurpers?

II. We will have disagreements regarding the historical record. But, as regards the violation of the Bill of Rights, beside keeping a standing army and quartering, I would throw in the dissolution of legally established legislatures, the establishment of kangaroo courts, unlawful extraditions, and the disarming of Protestant subjects. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few.

III. My case is hinged on the acknowledgment, it is true. But, that fact that there is an acknowledgment I think is sufficient to prove my original point, that there was no grant of liberty. A grant is a unilateral act, ex., the Indian Independence Act of 1947. The Treaty of Paris was an bilateral act of two nations. Regardless of the language, this alone must be some proof of a pre-existing, or at least retroactive, acknowledgments of the independence of the United States on the part of Great Britain. I’m not saying that George recognized the independence of the United States in 1776, but rather, he recognized it from 1776. Likewise, it matters little to my initial argument why George recognized it as an established fact before the Treaty was signed, only that he did.

Yours Truly,
Will Cubbedge