NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992676/

Yay, we're going to the UN... again!

We're going to go in, and get a resolution for Iraq, with international support.

One problem.

If none of them worked in the last 14 years, why even bother trying again? Every resolution we've tried has either been bypassed with corruption, or backed out of by coward nations, or simply ignored by our enemies.

Granted, it's a whole different government in Iraq now, but why haven't we just said "screw you" to the UN, and just organize our own coalition of nations... you know, like we've been doing.

Do we really NEED france and germany? They never really helped us in the last century, and now I hear we are STILL asking for their help?

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

Coward nations or guided by self-interest?

And if they are guided by self-interest, then surely they are no better than the US who are always out to protect 'their' interests and 'their' security?

Coward nations or guided by self-interest?

And if they are guided by self-interest, then surely they are no better than the US who are always out to protect 'their' interests and 'their' security?by coward, I mean they refuse to back up the "or else" clause with anything but words.

This UN resolution will be of a different sort to the previous resolutions which failed as they all had to be enforced (eg. embargoes, weapons inspectors), but this resolution is just the UN rubber-stamping Iraq and saying "It's a country." It's meant to increase it's legitimacy in the international communty or something. As it's just a paperwork resolution, it would be hard for it to fail.

This UN resolution will be of a different sort to the previous resolutions which failed as they all had to be enforced (eg. embargoes, weapons inspectors), but this resolution is just the UN rubber-stamping Iraq and saying "It's a country." It's meant to increase it's legitimacy in the international communty or something. As it's just a paperwork resolution, it would be hard for it to fail.In that case. maybe I spoke too soon :)

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

yeah, remember that time in 1778 when France came to your assistance from the "Big Bad British Empire"?

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

yeah, remember that time in 1778 when France came to your assistance from the "Big Bad British Empire"?

Ooh! Burn! :)

Seriously people, why is France a coward for NOT stupidly rushing into an unnessicary war? You'd think that we Americans would have swallowed our pride already, but we still refuse to admit that those French had it right all along, despite the fact that we still lose lives every day in that country.

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

yeah, remember that time in 1778 when France came to your assistance from the "Big Bad British Empire"?They never really helped us in the last centuryread!

but what you say about France never being there when you needed them contradicts what you said about them not helping in the last century. Maybe they haven't helped you in the last hundred years, but that's because they disagree with you. If you required there assistance after you defend a nation, and they haven't promised it to you, they are under no obligation. If you need the assistance, the only way that it becomes a requirement is if you colonise them (or similar.) They don't agree with you on Iraq, therefore they don't need to participate in a war in Iraq.
Also, since you've vetoed so many things, and now practically the only resolutions that DO get through are U.S backed (warning: previous statement may not be entirely accurate, and said hastily), people are starting, more than ever, to see the U.N as completely hollow.

but what you say about France never being there when you needed them contradicts what you said about them not helping in the last century. Maybe they haven't helped you in the last hundred years, but that's because they disagree with you. If you required there assistance after you defend a nation, and they haven't promised it to you, they are under no obligation. If you need the assistance, the only way that it becomes a requirement is if you colonise them (or similar.) They don't agree with you on Iraq, therefore they don't need to participate in a war in Iraq.
Also, since you've vetoed so many things, and now practically the only resolutions that DO get through are U.S backed (warning: previous statement may not be entirely accurate, and said hastily), people are starting, more than ever, to see the U.N as completely hollow.france supported the resolution that lead up to Iraq, then backed out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992676/

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

Yes, for example, during the American Revolution they supported the Americans against the British. French mercenaries fought and died for American Independence and the French navy fought the British navy at sea. They also were the first republic, paving the philosophical path for the American Republic. The US and France used to be best friends.

It's unfortunate that you have such a clear memory of when France needed American help, but such a foggy one when France provided aid to the US.

Edit: Sorry, I see that this has already been covered. I should have read further.

well, this is politics, and you'll find, that more often than not, politicians don't want to put there money where their mouth is.

Why does the U.S. go back to the U.N.? Sadomasochistic?

The U.N. is useless, it doesn't represent the world in any fashion. The security council no longer properly represents real world powers. France should be dropped and India (as well as possibly Brazil) should be given a seat. A whole slew of countries should be simply removed from being able to vote. They are for the most part not democratically elected and bureaucratic corruption is rampant.

The U.S. should simply pull out of the U.N. and attempt to sponsor a new organisation with the aid of China. Like the League of Nations, the U.N., has outlived its utility.

Why does the U.S. go back to the U.N.? Sadomasochistic?

The U.N. is useless, it doesn't represent the world in any fashion. The security council no longer properly represents real world powers. France should be dropped and India (as well as possibly Brazil) should be given a seat. A whole slew of countries should be simply removed from being able to vote. They are for the most part not democratically elected and bureaucratic corruption is rampant.

The U.S. should simply pull out of the U.N. and attempt to sponsor a new organisation with the aid of China. Like the League of Nations, the U.N., has outlived its utility.

yup, but what would you say about Blighty? Do you think it should be dropped? After all, we couldn't even retake the Falklands if it fell again.
Nevermind, I'll have to repair the damage.
*Is sick*

france supported the resolution that lead up to Iraq, then backed out. That was not backing out. It was them knowing that all peaceful alternatives were not exhausted and there was no "smoking gun" to legitimize the invasion. Overall, they made a good call.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992676/

Yay, we're going to the UN... again!

We're going to go in, and get a resolution for Iraq, with international support.

One problem.

If none of them worked in the last 14 years, why even bother trying again? Every resolution we've tried has either been bypassed with corruption, or backed out of by coward nations, or simply ignored by our enemies.

Granted, it's a whole different government in Iraq now, but why haven't we just said "screw you" to the UN, and just organize our own coalition of nations... you know, like we've been doing.

Do we really NEED france and germany? They never really helped us in the last century, and now I hear we are STILL asking for their help?

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

Yes, you jingoistic, insolationist, chickenhawk, we DO need France and Germany if for no other reason than to prove we are capable of behaving better than those that we are fighting against.

As a nation based on laws and built on consensus, we must allow ourselves to be bound by those laws and our actions influenced by that consensus, both in our own country and in our dealings with the world. The one international forum that exists for the airing of disagreements and the resolution of conflicts with violence as a last resort is the UN and we OWE the UN and the spirit of America to at least try and work with it.

Is the UN perfect? No, of course not. What political institution is? But it's the best we have at the moment and if we abandon it then we take a monumental leap backwards both in social evolution as well as in political reality.

One thing that we in the US frequently forget is that THERE ARE MORE OF THEM THAN THERE ARE OF US. If we continue to behave as if we are the only ones with any right to control our destiny and the only ones on the planet then eventually they will figure that out and, unless we want to start handing out nukes like party favors, then they will win.

Going to the UN at this point may only be a token, but it's an important token and an important signal. Working to build consensus on the future of Iraq sends a message that this administration says too rarely: we are not dictators. To blithely ignore the UN and, in a very real way, the rest of the world is a grevious mistake that would haunt us for the rest of our country's future. It would be to admit that we are no better than savages and the only way we can relate to one another is not through laws or agreements or even diplomacy, but looking down the barrel of a gun.

the un approved the war in afghanistan, did they not?
and france and germany and canada and england and half the freakin' world helped out for that one.


possibly because there was an actual reason to do so, whereas iraq was a totally unprovoked attack by the u.s.

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

yeah, remember that time in 1778 when France came to your assistance from the "Big Bad British Empire"?They never really helped us in the last centuryread!

they won you a country, you ungrateful bastard.

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

yeah, remember that time in 1778 when France came to your assistance from the "Big Bad British Empire"?They never really helped us in the last centuryread!

they won you a country, you ungrateful bastard.

and vice versa

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

yeah, remember that time in 1778 when France came to your assistance from the "Big Bad British Empire"?They never really helped us in the last centuryread!

they won you a country, you ungrateful bastard.

and vice versa

how serious do you think i was being?
aside from that, the u.s. only came into the world wars becasue they were beign attacked... not out to help their allies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992676/

Yay, we're going to the UN... again!

We're going to go in, and get a resolution for Iraq, with international support.

One problem.

If none of them worked in the last 14 years, why even bother trying again? Every resolution we've tried has either been bypassed with corruption, or backed out of by coward nations, or simply ignored by our enemies.

Granted, it's a whole different government in Iraq now, but why haven't we just said "screw you" to the UN, and just organize our own coalition of nations... you know, like we've been doing.

Do we really NEED france and germany? They never really helped us in the last century, and now I hear we are STILL asking for their help?

*sigh* France, they've always been there when they needed us.

The Germans are in Afghanistan.

The French help in Gulf War 1.

In WW1, who do you think taught the green US soldiers in WW1?

The cowboy mentality will not work in this day and it only makes us look bad in the world.

The Neo-Cons don't want world peace. A step in our development is a world goverment.

Finally, the you owe us is bull. France owes our grandparents and or great-grandparents.