NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm

France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur.

Some one million people have fled their homes and at least 10,000 have been killed in what the UN calls "the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Human rights activists say the (Arab Muslim) Janjaweed are conducting a genocide against Darfur's black African population. Those who have fled their homes say the Janjaweed ride on horses and camels into villages which have just been bombed by government aircraft, killing the men and raping the women.

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. AS WAS THE CASE IN IRAQ, FRANCE ALSO HAS SIGNIFICANT OIL INTERESTSIN SUDAN.

Mr Muselier, the French Foreign Minister also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.

"I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said.

So, France would rather stand idle and collect their oil than stop innocent people from getting killed.

*Drags out his Boycott France BumperSticker*

I hope the people realize, in France, that Genocide is going on in Sudan. If the UN doesn't do anything, the UN will no longer be a viable organization.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm



So, France would rather stand idle and collect their oil than stop innocent people from getting killed.

Yeah, so one scandal forever kills the honor of a country. Iran-Contra anybody? How about we let bygones be bygones and try to work together to stop terrorism, since, by definition, terrorists can be anywhere?

Oh, just to throw it out there, Hallibirton had shady ties to both Iran and Iraq, somehow justified by the use of an offshore P.O. Box

I bet this isn't primarily about French oil interests in Sudan. There's not that much there, anyhow. This is about Chiraq and the US. He is waging war on the US, and tagging along his close allies in Berlin. Chiraq has a vision of France leading the EU, and the best way to do that, at the moment, is to play off anti American sentiment on the continent. That means he stonewalls the US, and tells Europeans that it was to stop an American Empire, or to liberate Europe, or something like that. It worked with stunning success over Iraq. However, now France is sacrificing logic for a chance to bash the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm



So, France would rather stand idle and collect their oil than stop innocent people from getting killed.
Why not, they did the same crap in Iraq. France should be placed on the rougue nations list and be part of the Axis of Evil. ;)

France is being logical and intelligent.

Trade sanctions won't work. If the country is rendered poor by sanctions, it will simply become more violent. There will be not only rampaging government forces but also militias, mobs etc. that are all just trying to survive. The only chance to save Sudan is to kill every single perpatrator, otherwise the violence will continue. The only answer to violence is more violence. You could of course also simply allow the cleansing to continue until they have no one else to kill.

France is being logical and intelligent.

Trade sanctions won't work. If the country is rendered poor by sanctions, it will simply become more violent. There will be not only rampaging government forces but also militias, mobs etc. that are all just trying to survive. The only chance to save Sudan is to kill every single perpatrator, otherwise the violence will continue. The only answer to violence is more violence. You could of course also simply allow the cleansing to continue until they have no one else to kill.
So then you also agree that sanctions weren't working in Iraq therefore the use of force was regrettable, but necessary.

*Drags out his Boycott France BumperSticker*

I hope the people realize, in France, that Genocide is going on in Sudan. If the UN doesn't do anything, the UN will no longer be a viable organization.
I think you mean 'credible' not viable. Regardless, they have not been credible for a very long time.

Sudan has oil? Now the US has no excuse for not going there before Iraq.

I think you mean 'credible' not viable. Regardless, they have not been credible for a very long time.

With regards to the UN, lack of credibility and lack of viability are interchangeable.

question: isnt Sudan the head of the human rights commitee in the UN? Or was that Libya?

With regards to the UN, lack of credibility and lack of viability are interchangeable.

question: isnt Sudan the head of the human rights commitee in the UN? Or was that Libya?

Libya with Sudan being on the Human Rights Commission too!

Now that is ridiculous.

I hope the people realize, in France, that Genocide is going on in Sudan. If the UN doesn't do anything, the UN will no longer be a viable organization.
The same happened in Somalia. Then there was an UN intervention in 1993 led by the US, but also other countries like Germany participated in it.
It failed and the US was the first country withdrawling its troops.
What is the conclusion to that? Doing something with good intentions is not always having good results. Especially when there is no political concept to reorder a country, region or whatever.
Today Somalia is still a lawless country and a failed state.

Where is a political concept for Sudan? There is none.
And which one has really an interests in intervening over there? The US? Really?
Currently the US has really other problems to worry about (Iraq, Iran and North Korea). And the US doesn´t have unlimmitted resources.

If there weren't any oil interests at all, still nothing would be done... Eventually its always capitalism that rules, even with the humanitarian UN. Fuck em all.

What can I say? Aren't we all whores for oil?

*hints to Saudi Arabia and US*

"The arabs got the oil we buy everything they sell, if they ever raise the price we'll blow em all to hell" Bullworth 1998

What can I say? Aren't we all whores for oil?

*hints to Saudi Arabia and US*
Well, other are going for Russia in that respect. Which do you consider worse?

Well, other are going for Russia in that respect. Which do you consider worse?
Saudi Arabia. Russia isn't the USSR anymore.

Where is a political concept for Sudan? There is none.
And which one has really an interests in intervening over there? The US? Really?
Currently the US has really other problems to worry about (Iraq, Iran and North Korea). And the US doesn´t have unlimmitted resources.

If there was intervening, I wonder from wich country the soldiers would come. And about the US not having unlimmited resources. The US still hasn't paid its millions and millions of dept they have with the UN. I read an article that stated that the UN had trouble deploying its full strength because the US didn't pay its depts. Anyhow, my point being, the US always seems to manage to get the UN to do what the US wants. So unlimmited resources, if you don't have resources, use someone elses, like the UN's.

Just like the UN now has to pay up to help Iraq being rebuilt. That wasn't part of Bush's warbudget probably. I became very angry when I heard the US saying it wanted the UN to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq after the US hadn't listened to the UN when it said there weren't WMDs in Iraq and it mustn't go to war. But hm everybody has to listen to the UN, except for the US of course, they don't have to listen to no higher authority. How arrogant is that? And then have the nerve to say the UN has to caugh up the money to rebuild Iraq AND lets not forget that the US said it wanted only American corporations to exploit the oilwells "for Iraqian people" (we all know for whom...), so UN money to build US corporations. Capitalism is so sweet. :mad:

Now lets read between the lines and see it like international politics is being conducted. Humanitarian help is the least of their concern. Humanitarian help is to sooth the civilians and to use as a cover up for a hidden agenda (mostly getting money). So if France doesn't want intervening because it has oil interests in Sudan. And the US wants intervening. Than you know it isn't to help Sudan, its to get those oil interests that France will lose once the UN intervenes (and we know who will get the oil interests, the one who gets the UN on his side). We'll see who abuses the UN for its own purpuses this time.

French government sucks, USA as a country is arrogant and has a huge case of megalomania, sucks too.

Not speaking of American or French people here, just dissing their country.

Saudi Arabia. Russia isn't the USSR anymore.
Though it isn´t a western style democracy either.
Countries can change. I hope Saudi-Arabia is also changing some day. But it needs time.
If you asked 250 years ago in Continental Europe an aristocrat or king about having a parliament he would laugh at you. Well: and 600 years the same would have happened in England.
The Middle East is not ready for democracy yet. It needs more time. On the other hand. We can´t allow that the threaten us. And we need to act accordingly against those who do.

French government sucks, USA as a country is arrogant and has a huge case of megalomania, sucks too.
Not speaking of American or French people here, just dissing their country.
Every country acts what is its national interests. And since the US is the most powerful country it is of course the strongest too push its agenda.
I don´t see oil interests as key though.
Most companies are global companies though, which include companies from other countries. I rather see geostrategic considerations: sending a warning shot to Iran and North Korea, changing the region by pushing for and Iraqi democracy. How realistic that is is another question though.

Though it isn´t a western style democracy either.
Countries can change. I hope Saudi-Arabia is also changing some day. But it needs time.
If you asked 250 years ago in Continental Europe an aristocrat or king about having a parliament he would laugh at you. Well: and 600 years the same would have happened in England.
The Middle East is not ready for democracy yet. It needs more time. On the other hand. We can´t allow that the threaten us. And we need to act accordingly against those who do.
At least Russia isn't a war zone. Basically the entire Middle East is in chaos. Don't you think we should try to get our oil from a less precarious place?

At least Russia isn't a war zone. Basically the entire Middle East is in chaos. Don't you think we should try to get our oil from a less precarious place?
But the Middle East is the region with the biggest supplies. There is no way around it. There is no way other than to try to stabilize the region.
Without that the world economy can´t develop, also the US economy.
The only question is: How to do it the best way. But there is no way around it.

This is about Chiraq and the US. He is waging war on the US, and tagging along his close allies in Berlin. Chiraq has a vision of France leading the EU, and the best way to do that, at the moment, is to play off anti American sentiment on the continent. That means he stonewalls the US, and tells Europeans that it was to stop an American Empire, or to liberate Europe, or something like that. It worked with stunning success over Iraq. However, now France is sacrificing logic for a chance to bash the US.


Get real :rolleyes: , Chirac is not telling anything to other people then the French.
The way you describe things is the way Bush's regime acts, but in the free world things aren't played like in they are in the US.

It is more like:

Bush is waging war on EU and tagging along his close dog in Tell Aviv. Bush has a vision of the US leading the world, and the best way to do that is to play off anti French (and in fact anti EU) in the US.That means he stonewalls the French (and the EU and other free nations that refuse to join the US in the violating of every international law that it signed), attacks oil rich countries and just steals in the world what he needs+it works as camouflage for the economic mess he created in the US. It worked with a stunning succes in Afghanistan and Iraq, next will be Iran. However, now the US are sacrificing logic (the regime never was good at it, remember the unlogical attack for the WMD's on Iraq that are still not found and all the other lies in the war for oil) for a chance to bash France or the free world.

You see just replace the words Bush, US and France in your original propaganda and you have the truth ;)

I wonder what role is the CIA playing in this genocide...

Get real :rolleyes: , Chirac is not telling anything to other people then the French.
The way you describe things is the way Bush's regime acts, but in the free world things aren't played like in they are in the US.

It is more like:

Bush is waging war on EU and tagging along his close dog in Tell Aviv. Bush has a vision of the US leading the world, and the best way to do that is to play off anti French (and in fact anti EU) in the US.That means he stonewalls the French (and the EU and other free nations that refuse to join the US in the violating of every international law that it signed), attacks oil rich countries and just steals in the world what he needs+it works as camouflage for the economic mess he created in the US. It worked with a stunning succes in Afghanistan and Iraq, next will be Iran. However, now the US are sacrificing logic (the regime never was good at it, remember the unlogical attack for the WMD's on Iraq that are still not found and all the other lies in the war for oil) for a chance to bash France or the free world.

You see just replace the words Bush, US and France in your original propaganda and you have the truth ;)
That, however, is not a fair comparison. I can go on for hours about Bush's foreign policy, but I can summarize it in one phrase: Middle East system pertubation. This, I can argue, will ultimatly lead to a Middle East where terrorism is looked at as being as dirty as drug dealing, or murder. France's foreign policy since Charles de Gaulles can be described in one phrase: lead the non-alignment movement. Since the end of the Cold War, they've realized they can turn it into a superpower, and are trying to lead the EU. Now, they are sacrificing logic if it means that they can have a clear opposition to the US. It's nothing new, as it has happened throughout modern history, though moreso since the Cold War ended. And that, my friend, is why I've stated earlier that I'm not a fan of France.
BTW, Tel Aviv is not the capital of Israel. And how is it that the Bush Administration is playing off anti-French sentiment?

So then you also agree that sanctions weren't working in Iraq therefore the use of force was regrettable, but necessary.
weren't the sanctions in iraq due to wmd's that weren't there?

So, France would rather stand idle and collect their oil than stop innocent people from getting killed.
Sudan's actual proven reserves are tiny, it's probably more to do with France wanting to piss the Americans off regardless of the huge numbers of refugees and killing. Arrogant? Yes. All about oil? Hardly.

CIA World Factbook ranking by proven oil reserves. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html)

Tel Aviv is not the capital of Israel.

Did not post Jerusalem since I can only see it as a capital of 2 nations, that is why. BTW, your propaganda about the Gaulle is a historical hoax and propaganda, again it is the US that installed most dictatures and is historicly responsable for much more wars, blood, civillian casualties then France. Guess you're just so jalous at France, her beautifull wives, fashion, luxury, nature aso that your frustration of not being born there turned over in a blind hate. :rolleyes:

That, however, is not a fair comparison. I can go on for hours about Bush's foreign policy, but I can summarize it in one phrase: Middle East system pertubation. This, I can argue, will ultimatly lead to a Middle East where terrorism is looked at as being as dirty as drug dealing, or murder. France's foreign policy since Charles de Gaulles can be described in one phrase: lead the non-alignment movement. Since the end of the Cold War, they've realized they can turn it into a superpower, and are trying to lead the EU. Now, they are sacrificing logic if it means that they can have a clear opposition to the US. It's nothing new, as it has happened throughout modern history, though moreso since the Cold War ended. And that, my friend, is why I've stated earlier that I'm not a fan of France.
BTW, Tel Aviv is not the capital of Israel. And how is it that the Bush Administration is playing off anti-French sentiment?This is arrogant bullshit. France doesn't care that much about the US.
I agree France's trying to have as much as it can from the UN. Of course, France's interests are sometimes in conflict with US' ones, but France is not about opposing the US. France just doesn't care about the US so long as its interests are not in conflict.
You talk like alignment equals agreeing with the US. The US is not the world government and no country but the US care about what the US does.

So then you also agree that sanctions weren't working in Iraq therefore the use of force was regrettable, but necessary.
Yes, sanctions were not working in supressing violence and inhumane behaviour in Iraq. The use of force to remove the dictator and stop violence was the only way. It wasn't necessary to use force because it wasn't necassary to remove the dictator, but if they wanted to remove Saddam's regime force was required, not some stupid trade sanction.

There is of course the oil, that was likely the main reason for invading Iraq, since now that Saddam is gone, it is no longer under trade sanctions and can trade freely with the rest of the world.

Yes, sanctions were not working in supressing violence and inhumane behaviour in Iraq. The use of force to remove the dictator and stop violence was the only way. It wasn't necessary to use force because it wasn't necassary to remove the dictator, but if they wanted to remove Saddam's regime force was required, not some stupid trade sanction.

There is of course the oil, that was likely the main reason for invading Iraq, since now that Saddam is gone, it is no longer under trade sanctions and can trade freely with the rest of the world.
Well, it could, if the pipelines and oil fields wouldn´t be under conitued attack of the terrorists. Because of that the oil exports are lower than before the war.

Is it just me or do we see a lot of people saying if France tries to use it's power in the UN then it's worthless, but if the Americans do it, it's fine? Why shouldn't France have as much say in the UN as the Americans? The argument makes no sense. If America was trying to block some thing those same people would be all for it. Israel any one?

"The old Romans referred to the Xtians as "chrestians" which means "simple minded" or "stupid."
If this makes you angry, suck it up, it's not in bold, red letters, ignore it. By Xtians it refers to Christians. "

We also know what happened to ancient Rome. ;)

We also know what happened to ancient Rome. ;)
<+Matsu> Le Beum

Is it just me or do we see a lot of people saying if France tries to use it's power in the UN then it's worthless, but if the Americans do it, it's fine? Why shouldn't France have as much say in the UN as the Americans? The argument makes no sense. If America was trying to block some thing those same people would be all for it. Israel any one?
Why should France - representing 60 million people - have as much power as the US - representing 300 million - in the UN?
And militarily the US spents more than the 22 countries following - if I´m not mistaken.
The US contributes 25% to the worlds GDP. And France? 5% or less I´m not shure. Even countries like Japan (12%) and Germany (7%) are more important economically. And they aren´t even permanent members of the Security Council and don´t have any veto power. Why should the French have that????

We also know what happened to ancient Rome. ;)
Yes: It was run over by germanic tribes at the end - however: They were influenced by Roman-christian culture. Between 800-1806 there was the Holy Roman Empire which was the dominant power during the Middle Age.
Then it was the (roman-speaking) French (17 th to 19 th century Europe), than (indirectly roman-infuenced) Britain and today the New Rome: The United States of America.
So in some way Rome is still alive.

And East Rome (christian orthodox)? Constantinople - later taken over - but the tradition taken over by Russia: "new" East Rome: Moscow.
That finally collapsed in 1991: Though Russia is still an important country though.
But there is today just one Rome: Washington.

Why should France - representing 60 million people - have as much power as the US - representing 300 million - in the UN?
And militarily the US spents more than the 22 countries following - if I´m not mistaken.
The US contributes 25% to the worlds GDP. And France? 5% or less I´m not shure. Even countries like Japan (12%) and Germany (7%) are more important economically. And they aren´t even permanent members of the Security Council and don´t have any veto power. Why should the French have that????The UN is the only thing we have. It needs to be reformed, but not suppressed.

Well, it could, if the pipelines and oil fields wouldn´t be under conitued attack of the terrorists. Because of that the oil exports are lower than before the war.
Yes, but if/when the oil field come under control exports will be a lot higher than during the regime.

Katganistan, that is relevant to this discussion how?

Yes: It was run over by germanic tribes at the end - however: They were influenced by Roman-christian culture. Between 800-1806 there was the Holy Roman Empire which was the dominant power during the Middle Age.
Then it was the (roman-speaking) French (17 th to 19 th century Europe), than (indirectly roman-infuenced) Britain and today the New Rome: The United States of America.
So in some way Rome is still alive.

And East Rome (christian orthodox)? Constantinople - later taken over - but the tradition taken over by Russia: "new" East Rome: Moscow.
That finally collapsed in 1991: Though Russia is still an important country though.
But there is today just one Rome: Washington.Washington is not today's Rome. The US does not control the world.

The UN is the only thing we have. It needs to be reformed, but not suppressed.

too many competing interests in the UN. Reform isnt going to work. Any event in the world is going to be good for some group of member countries and bad for some others. That is why it is so difficult for the UN to do anything MEANINGFUL. Distributing humanitarian aid is about the best things it can really do. Even a completely external event(say a pending asteroid impact) would probably run into problems in the UN.

Washington is not today's Rome. The US does not control the world.
Rome didn´t controll the whole world - even not all of Europe.
But they controlled the Meditareanean.
The US needs to pacify the Wider Middle East in order to protect itself but also to make shure that no rivaling power - like Iran or others - rises up and threatening the world. Aside of the terrorism threat.
The solution to that would be the US reordering the region - through direct or indirect intervention - to establish an Pax Americana over the region - and in the long-run the world.
And that is what the Romans did as well. After Ceasar and other expansions there was under Augustus a Pax Romana - a rather peaceful period. It was not the worst period in human history. On the conterary.
A Pax Americana could be great for man kind as well.
That is why I wouldn´t oppose it. Though I have sometimes doubts that the US is able to establish such a system due to some structural weaknesses it has. And it can´t go for it in such a manner than Rome. It needs to more careful in pushing for it. But it would of course require the Americanisation (culturally) of the region at least up to a certain degree.

*Drags out his Boycott France BumperSticker*

I hope the people realize, in France, that Genocide is going on in Sudan. If the UN doesn't do anything, the UN will no longer be a viable organization.

The UN allready isnt a viable organization, theres about 10 countries in Iraq now. And the last time I checked they had no clearence.

too many competing interests in the UN. Reform isnt going to work. Any event in the world is going to be good for some group of member countries and bad for some others. That is why it is so difficult for the UN to do anything MEANINGFUL. Distributing humanitarian aid is about the best things it can really do. Even a completely external event(say a pending asteroid impact) would probably run into problems in the UN.
And what is the alternative?
War?
The world is complex and the UN is struggling to work but without the UN there is war.

Why should France - representing 60 million people - have as much power as the US - representing 300 million - in the UN?
And militarily the US spents more than the 22 countries following - if I´m not mistaken.
The US contributes 25% to the worlds GDP. And France? 5% or less I´m not shure. Even countries like Japan (12%) and Germany (7%) are more important economically. And they aren´t even permanent members of the Security Council and don´t have any veto power. Why should the French have that????

Okay, then by your logic India should have more say then the US. The 5 were given veto power for a reason. Thus should all be equally able to use it. Or not. I personally think the UN should do away with the veto power for all countries. The veto was only ever given in practical use because of the cold war. To keep the Americans from passing self serving resolutions against the USSR. So, since the cold war is over, why not allow a free vote? That is the way it should be in my opinion. The world should not be held hostage by any one country, France or the USA.

Okay, then by your logic India should have more say then the US. The 5 were given veto power for a reason. Thus should all be equally able to use it. Or not. I personally think the UN should do away with the veto power for all countries. The veto was only ever given in practical use because of the cold war. To keep the Americans from passing self serving resolutions against the USSR. So, since the cold war is over, why not allow a free vote? That is the way it should be in my opinion. The world should not be held hostage by any one country, France or the USA.
On the conterary. It was given to the five winning powers of World War II (the important onces , hehe - sorry).
Wether that system is today justified is another question. In my opinion it isn´t. BTW, India isn´t even a permanent member of the SC.
And I would distribute the votes according to economic strength - giving the US a veto power or any country with more than 15% of the worlds GDP (that is only the US with 25%).
If a reform isn´t possible - and it looks since the 1990s that although of the end of the Cold War it isn´t, I would see a development in which the UN - which never was relevant anyway - becomes completly irrelevant.
Probably the G8 could take over the position of the Security Council. It at least contains the economically important countries. Maybe China and India could be invited into it as well - at least India - China should democratise themseve first - probably a partly-membership (for the ecnomic part) is possible.

And what is the alternative?
War?
The world is complex and the UN is struggling to work but without the UN there is war.

UN did NOT stop the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan!
UN did NOT stop the Iran-Iraq War
UN did NOT stop Yugoslavia

These three were wars though Yugoslavia is not considered a war, the UN did NOT stop the genocide of muslims there.

Face it! UN has not done anything worthwhile.

And what is the alternative?
War?
The world is complex and the UN is struggling to work but without the UN there is war.

The alternative is the same that it has been this century. When a given country feels its in its best interests to go to the UN, then it does. When it does not feel that going to the UN is in its best interests, then it does not go.

The UN is a nice enough place for people to sit around and discus things, but it is far from a "world Government".

No, war isnt the alternative to the UN. The UN has sanctioned only 2 wars since its existance. The Korean war and the Persian gulf war. Yet, there have been many more than 2 wars, invasions and wholesale slaughters since the UN's creation and none of those responsible have any meaningful consequences. It simply does not have the ability to do anything more than saying "bad boy, dont do it again".

Since the UN has shown itself to be impotent, exactly how is it preventing the world from degenerating into war?

If we kill all of the Arabs, we can split the oil with Europe and all be happy!!!


Get your guns, I'm going hunting for rag heads
:sniper:

I wonder what role is the CIA playing in this genocide...
jups, we all know what cruelties they tought the contras in nicaragua and other South-American countries. Beautifully trained by the CIA.

The alternative is the same that it has been this century. When a given country feels its in its best interests to go to the UN, then it does. When it does not feel that going to the UN is in its best interests, then it does not go.

The UN is a nice enough place for people to sit around and discus things, but it is far from a "world Government".

No, war isnt the alternative to the UN. The UN has sanctioned only 2 wars since its existance. The Korean war and the Persian gulf war. Yet, there have been many more than 2 wars, invasions and wholesale slaughters since the UN's creation and none of those responsible have any meaningful consequences. It simply does not have the ability to do anything more than saying "bad boy, dont do it again".

Since the UN has shown itself to be impotent, exactly how is it preventing the world from degenerating into war?

And with the UN, only the US goes to war, they don't listen to no one.

On the conterary. It was given to the five winning powers of World War II (the important onces , hehe - sorry).
Wether that system is today justified is another question. In my opinion it isn´t. BTW, India isn´t even a permanent member of the SC.
And I would distribute the votes according to economic strength - giving the US a veto power or any country with more than 15% of the worlds GDP (that is only the US with 25%).
If a reform isn´t possible - and it looks since the 1990s that although of the end of the Cold War it isn´t, I would see a development in which the UN - which never was relevant anyway - becomes completly irrelevant.
Probably the G8 could take over the position of the Security Council. It at least contains the economically important countries. Maybe China and India could be invited into it as well - at least India - China should democratise themseve first - probably a partly-membership (for the ecnomic part) is possible.

France had little to do with winning WWII.. but any way.. Oh and India is a democracy.

GDP has nothing to do with it. Why should the USA have more say? You have yet to come up with any argument that makes any sense. You base this on their GDP? How about basing it on some thing more relevant, like which country would use more sense and judgement.. and quite frankly that country is neither France or the USA.

The alternative is the same that it has been this century. When a given country feels its in its best interests to go to the UN, then it does. When it does not feel that going to the UN is in its best interests, then it does not go.

The UN is a nice enough place for people to sit around and discus things, but it is far from a "world Government".

No, war isnt the alternative to the UN. The UN has sanctioned only 2 wars since its existance. The Korean war and the Persian gulf war. Yet, there have been many more than 2 wars, invasions and wholesale slaughters since the UN's creation and none of those responsible have any meaningful consequences. It simply does not have the ability to do anything more than saying "bad boy, dont do it again".

Since the UN has shown itself to be impotent, exactly how is it preventing the world from degenerating into war?It is like a law. It doesn't stop murderers. But when there are murderers, you don't advocate making murder legal. You suggest enforcing the law.
Thes is what should happen.
1/ reform the UN.
2/ enforce its laws.

It is like a law. It doesn't stop murderers. But when there are murderers, you don't advocate making murder legal. You suggest enforcing the law.
Thes is what should happen.
1/ reform the UN.
2/ enforce its laws.

In that case then the UN did NOT follow through on its own resolutions which are binding actually, the Security Council Resolutions that is. The UN did not follow through on them thus the UN has become worthless.

UN did NOT stop the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan!
UN did NOT stop the Iran-Iraq War
UN did NOT stop Yugoslavia

These three were wars though Yugoslavia is not considered a war, the UN did NOT stop the genocide of muslims there.

Face it! UN has not done anything worthwhile.
I quite understand your UN-bashing. However you have to look at the fact what the UN is and how decisions are made.
The most importan organ is the Security Council with its 15 member which needs 9 yes votes for a resolution.
The 5 permanent members are of the utmost importance since all of them have Veto rights. And that are the US, Britain, France, China and Russia.
So, the inefficency of the UN is caused by the fact that those powers can´t agree and that all of the other four can veto any US decision.
It is therefore a structural problem.
The UN can´t work without the US. But it can´t work as well if the other permanent members try to block it as well. Especially Russia and China - even much more than France - is stopping the West from pushing resolutions through it.
So, you can say the failure of the UN is actually the failure of the Security Council and the five veto powers (though to a different degree).

By the way: The UN was founded by the US and based on an US idea. It would be great if the US would now use the crisis as an opportunity to come up with suggestions for an UN reform. Whether it is possible? Well I don´t know. But at least it should be tried to do so.

It is like a law. It doesn't stop murderers. But when there are murderers, you don't advocate making murder legal. You suggest enforcing the law.
Thes is what should happen.
1/ reform the UN.
2/ enforce its laws.

To use your analogy: reform/enforcement cannot work because the "murders" are the ones making the laws AND the ones enforcing the laws.

The UN doesnt have resources that its members dont give it.

In that case then the UN did NOT follow through on its own resolutions which are binding actually, the Security Council Resolutions that is. The UN did not follow through on them thus the UN has become worthless.
The UN did follow its resolutions.

And with the UN, only the US goes to war, they don't listen to no one.


You really have no idea about world history do you? You dont even know about this century or even the past 50 years. And here I though the American education system was substandard. Do you know anything of value?

The UN did follow its resolutions.

Name 1 that they actually acted on

To use your analogy: reform/enforcement cannot work because the "murders" are the ones making the laws AND the ones enforcing the laws.

The UN doesnt have resources that its members dont give it.The members should provide more resources to the UN.
Of course it will take time. But I think it is the only way forward. You don't change the world over night.

France had little to do with winning WWII.. but any way.. Oh and India is a democracy. .
De Gaulle would see that different. Acutally Britain and the US played the main role. Though their was the League of Nations (with Britain and France as permanent member of that security council - by the way even Germany was a member of that from 1926-33).
And India is the biggest democracy. It is at least more democratic than Russia for example.

GDP has nothing to do with it. Why should the USA have more say? You have yet to come up with any argument that makes any sense. You base this on their GDP? How about basing it on some thing more relevant, like which country would use more sense and judgement.. and quite frankly that country is neither France or the USA.
And who measures that? You? GDP is a objective criteria. The power of a country at the end of the day boils down to its economy. And it is a flexible measure. If there is an economic rise of a country it should have more power. Why not? It is just accepting the realities.. The UN system doesn´t and that makes it irrelevant because it doesn´t represent the world realities.
And you shouldn´t complain about my suggestion. Canada is no member of the SC of the UN. IN my system - based on the G8 - or a G9 or G10. Canada would actually have more influence than today - though no Veto right.- That should be reserved to the most important country only - and that is the US - at least as long as it is in that position.

Name 1 that they actually acted onWhat do you think the UN was doing in Iraq?
Playing cricket?

Name 1 that they actually acted on
I can name two. North Korea 1950 and Iraq 1991.
I absolutely agree that the UN is very inefficent. I have explained my ideas and positions about the issue in other posts here.

I quite understand your UN-bashing. However you have to look at the fact what the UN is and how decisions are made.
The most importan organ is the Security Council with its 15 member which needs 9 yes votes for a resolution.
The 5 permanent members are of the utmost importance since all of them have Veto rights. And that are the US, Britain, France, China and Russia.
So, the inefficency of the UN is caused by the fact that those powers can´t agree and that all of the other four can veto any US decision.
It is therefore a structural problem.
The UN can´t work without the US. But it can´t work as well if the other permanent members try to block it as well. Especially Russia and China - even much more than France - is stopping the West from pushing resolutions through it.
So, you can say the failure of the UN is actually the failure of the Security Council and the five veto powers (though to a different degree).

By the way: The UN was founded by the US and based on an US idea. It would be great if the US would now use the crisis as an opportunity to come up with suggestions for an UN reform. Whether it is possible? Well I don´t know. But at least it should be tried to do so.

You are correct in your analysis. That is why a body like this CANNOT work. At best it can stop some small globally insignificant island nation from fighting a war over coconut rights against another small globally insignificant island nation.

I dont think it is possible to fix the situation unless the world was willing to give the UN control over all the worlds military. Of course, then you also have the UN control over all the world's wealth to fund those troops without the UN worrying that some country will pull financial support if the military does something.

I for one am not about control over my life to people whom I do not have a hand in electing.

So many people seem to misunderstand the UN. The UN is only as good as the sum of it's parts. The UN can't do any thing. It's up to the member states to. The UN is not an army or a force. It's only a venue for diplomacy. It's all it ever has been. It's all it was ever suppose to be.

So many people seem to misunderstand the UN. The UN is only as good as the sum of it's parts. The UN can't do any thing. It's up to the member states to. The UN is not an army or a force. It's only a venue for diplomacy. It's all it ever has been. It's all it was ever suppose to be.
That is right. And it especially depends on the SC of the UN and on the five permanent member with Veto right. As long as Russia is an authoritarian state and China a communists dictatorship it is going to remain inefficent and irrelevant, since the Veto almost anything.
Now, should the West not act because of that?
Well, it did act in the case of Yugoslavia in 1999 without UN mandate.
Nato acted - even France was on board that time.
So, obviously there are other ways around the inefficent UN: like Nato or my idea G8 (or G9 or G10) which could replace the UN if it isn´t possible to reform it - and it looks that it is impossible.

I quite understand your UN-bashing. However you have to look at the fact what the UN is and how decisions are made.
The most importan organ is the Security Council with its 15 member which needs 9 yes votes for a resolution. The 5 permanent members are of the utmost importance since all of them have Veto rights. And that are the US, Britain, France, China and Russia.

Your telling me stuff that I already know. I also know how they select the other 10 members of the council too.

So, the inefficency of the UN is caused by the fact that those powers can´t agree and that all of the other four can veto any US decision.
It is therefore a structural problem.

Your right, it is a structural problem. That needs to be rectified somehow but alas, that will not work. I say scrap it and start over.

The UN can´t work without the US. But it can´t work as well if the other permanent members try to block it as well. Especially Russia and China - even much more than France - is stopping the West from pushing resolutions through it.

Exactly. China stopped the UN on Yugoslavia so NATO went in without UN Authorization. Ironically, the Chinese embassy was accidently bombed.

So, you can say the failure of the UN is actually the failure of the Security Council and the five veto powers (though to a different degree).

I do blame the Security Council. I can't blame the General Assembly because they General Assembly has no power whatsoever. All of the GA votes are Non-Binding.

By the way: The UN was founded by the US and based on an US idea. It would be great if the US would now use the crisis as an opportunity to come up with suggestions for an UN reform. Whether it is possible? Well I don´t know. But at least it should be tried to do so.

I know we created it. I can't help but know we created it. Its part of WWII history. We also created the League of Nations too but Congress never ratified Wilson's 14 points. As for reform, I doubt it'll be possible. Nations will block reform because they like how it is currently set up for some odd reason.

So many people seem to misunderstand the UN. The UN is only as good as the sum of it's parts. The UN can't do any thing. It's up to the member states to. The UN is not an army or a force. It's only a venue for diplomacy. It's all it ever has been. It's all it was ever suppose to be.

correct.

However there was the hope that the UN would be able to stop aggressor nations from invading others. It was supposed to prevent these invasions under the belief that the remaining nations would bandy together and take action. It worked well in the persian gulf war(Im not sure if I should include Korea or not)., but that is about the only times it has worked.

So lets respect the UN for the only thing it is capable of being. A place where a bunch of countries can get together and settle minor issues.

What do you think the UN was doing in Iraq?
Playing cricket?

would have been more usefull if they were. and this applies to both sides of the Iraq debate. When there are only two sides, its hard to let both sides down, but somehow the UN managed to do that. :)

Your right, it is a structural problem. That needs to be rectified somehow but alas, that will not work. I say scrap it and start over..
I´m probably not as distant to you as you think. I´think about NATO or the G8 taking over the role of the Security Council. What do you think? - I´ve summoned up some ideas in earlier post here.



Exactly. China stopped the UN on Yugoslavia so NATO went in without UN Authorization. Ironically, the Chinese embassy was accidently bombed. ..
Well, there are some doubts that it is a coincident. In Iraq "coincidentally" a Russian convoy with diplomatic staff was bombed as well. But lets leavet those speculations.


I do blame the Security Council. I can't blame the General Assembly because they General Assembly has no power whatsoever. All of the GA votes are Non-Binding...
And wyh don´t you say that? Just say: I play the Security Council. The general assemble isn´t that bad - it is irrelevant anyway.


I know we created it. I can't help but know we created it. Its part of WWII history. We also created the League of Nations too but Congress never ratified Wilson's 14 points. As for reform, I doubt it'll be possible. Nations will block reform because they like how it is currently set up for some odd reason. - To those countries belongs Britain as well. They would never give up their veto right - neither does France.
So, why not using other structures like NATO or G8 - they could be modified - as I´ve pointed out.

To those countries belongs Britain as well. They would never give up their veto right - neither does France.
So, why not using other structures like NATO or G8 - they could be modified - as I´ve pointed out.France and the UK would agree to share their veto power with the EU.

BTW, the G8 is the root of all evils.

France and the UK would agree to share their veto power with the EU.

BTW, the G8 is the root of all evils.
I'm pretty bloody sure the UK would not share it's right of veto with anyone!

I'm pretty bloody sure the UK would not share it's right of veto with anyone!Well they would if Bush said so.

Well they would if Bush said so.

Highly Doubtful! Even Blair would balk at that and Bush would not ask the Brits to do that anyway.

Well they would if Bush said so.

Oh I don't know about that. I'm sure Blair is regretting the day he ever decided to get mixed up with Bush and co. He's even said publicly he wants Kerry to win in the upcomming election. Blair isn't too happy with Mr. Bush from what I understand.

france stands for nothing. they do not believe in any policy that requires militarization. hence why the appeasement of saddam hussein was in place (heres some funding, now how about some below market oil) hence why they gave 2 shits about the Taliban, hence why they give 2 shits about Sudan (just give us our oil please) hence why they almost became part of germany not once but TWICE, hence why the purposefully attempted to derail any and all military discovery in bosnia-herzegovnia regarding genocide and mass graves.

france cares not about anything. they think if they just ignor it it will go away.

even when french nationals were taken hostage the french government went out of its way to praise the hostage takers for taking good care of their prisoner citizens.....WTF!!!!!!!


france has not been anything even close to a world power since napoleon's rise. they are a useless nation with useless leadership.

their asslicking relationship with germany is a disgrace. those 2 nations are the biggest reason why the UN is always so bogged down in political BS to be an effective international tool.

bottom line: France is a crap nation lead by a crap government - ifthe french people had half a brain and any balls at all they would vote out the whole lot ofthem and send them packing for some politicans and leaders with some spine, and not the cowards who are presently there. unless of course, all the french people are cowards themselves..which is a possibility considering their history of getting their asses kicked militarily.

flamebait.

Creighton Reign, by your post you have done a great effort to explain what many Europeans dislike about the US...
Now if France is such a shitty natiion, give me proof US is culturally a richer nation than France is, tell me about your identic language... no wait tell me how the US has a richer culture than Europe (apart from the indian cultures the US systematically destroyed).

Bring out the Freedom Fries! Onward Christian Soliders!

*rolleyes*

their asslicking relationship with germany is a disgrace. those 2 nations are the biggest reason why the UN is always so bogged down in political BS to be an effective international tool.


Their "asslicking" relationship? You mean, like the UK and the USA, eh?

Please elaborate how those two nations bog down the UN? Last time I checked the Germans basically yes-nodded everything the US agreed to as well and vice versa. Only that thingg with Iraq until the Germans (finally?) realized they actually have balls and opposed for what they thought was right (or wrong?).

Creighton Reign, by your post you have done a great effort to explain what many Europeans dislike about the US...
Now if France is such a shitty natiion, give me proof US is culturally a richer nation than France is, tell me about your identic language... no wait tell me how the US has a richer culture than Europe (apart from the indian cultures the US systematically destroyed).

To be fair, he only seems to be really bitching about france. Not the rest of europe.

It's just a troll. No need to feed.

You really have no idea about world history do you? You dont even know about this century or even the past 50 years. And here I though the American education system was substandard. Do you know anything of value?


Hmm, be carefull when judging people. I know the history of the UN and I know the US didn't listen when the UN said there weren't any WMD in Iraq, the US was supported only by Aznar and UK and Turkey (because they wanted to kill some curds...preventing them from getting an own state). Maybe some other countries too, but not that important. The UN didn't want war and didn't want the US to go to war. Anyway, I'm a history teacher, you wank.

Hmm, be carefull when judging people. I know the history of the UN and I know the US didn't listen when the UN said there weren't any WMD in Iraq, the US was supported only by Aznar and UK and Turkey (because they wanted to kill some curds...preventing them from getting an own state). Maybe some other countries too, but not that important. The UN didn't want war and didn't want the US to go to war. Anyway, I'm a history teacher, you wank.

LOL

I am supposed to believe you are a history teacher when you spell "Kurds" with a "C"? It isnt a typo, the "C" key is nowhere near the "K" key.

curds is a form of yogurt.

Go peddle your ignorance to people more ignorant than yourself.

LOL

I am supposed to believe you are a history teacher when you spell "Kurds" with a "C"? It isnt a typo, the "C" key is nowhere near the "K" key.

curds is a form of yogurt.

Go peddle your ignorance to people more ignorant than yourself.He may have mispelled what he said was still right.

He may have mispelled what he said was still right.

Unlikely given the following things.

1) He believes that only the US ignores the UN and goes to war
2) he says things like "they dont listen to no one" instead of "they do not listen to anyone". Okay, in all fairness English might not be his first language. However, Kurdistan and Kurds are proper names and would be spelled the same way in any language. And Like I said, the "c" key is nowhere near the "k" key on the keyboard.

While my spelling and grammer are horrible, I dont claim to be any sort of teacher.

My guess is that he is some little kid with half a clue about something.

If in fact he really is a history teacher, then I pity the state of European teaching standards.

Unlikely given the following things.

1) He believes that only the US ignores the UN and goes to war
2) he says things like "they dont listen to no one" instead of "they do not listen to anyone". Okay, in all fairness English might not be his first language. However, Kurdistan and Kurds are proper names and would be spelled the same way in any language. And Like I said, the "c" key is nowhere near the "k" key on the keyboard.

While my spelling and grammer are horrible, I dont claim to be any sort of teacher.

My guess is that he is some little kid with half a clue about something.

If in fact he really is a history teacher, then I pity the state of European teaching standards.He might not be a teacher, what he said was still true (maybe not the teacher part, but I don't care I just want to point out that I agree with what he said).

weren't the sanctions in iraq due to wmd's that weren't there?
No, it was Iraq's lack of compliance with UN resolutions, particularly the ones they agreed to tro end the first Gulf War.

No, it was Iraq's lack of compliance with UN resolutions, particularly the ones they agreed to tro end the first Gulf War.
What? They complied.

He might not be a teacher, what he said was still true (maybe not the teacher part, but I don't care I just want to point out that I agree with what he said).

Okay, forget the teacher part. What he said is not true. The World has a long history of having wars that werent sanctioned by the UN. The statement he made about only the US going to war without the UN is wrong on its face. And if you agree with his statement then you are also incorrect.

What? They complied.

kicking inspectors out is complying?

Not allowing inspectors to interview scientists outside IRAQ(along with the scientists' families) is complying?

Not giving inspectors open access to whereever they wanted to go whenever they wanted to go is complying?

kicking inspectors out is complying?

Not allowing inspectors to interview scientists outside IRAQ(along with the scientists' families) is complying?

Not giving inspectors open access to whereever they wanted to go whenever they wanted to go is complying?
OK they stopped complying at one point, because they had no light at the end of the tunnel. There was no ending for the sanctions, no hope.

Still at the end of the day, they let the inspectors back.

On the other hand, the US violated the UN charter without any reason.

He may have mispelled what he said was still right.

it is even more unlikely that he is a history teacher because for some bizarre reason he believes 1 of the 2 following options

1) that turkey is somehow a member of the UN security council

or

2) that the coalition attacking Iraq is only composed of US, UK, Spain, Turkey, and a few other countries.

when the actual coalition looks like this

Western Europe:
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Netherlands
Iceland
Italy

Baltic States:
Estonia #
Latvia #
Lithuania #

Central Europe:
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia #
Hungary

Balkans:
Albania #
Macedonia #
Romania #
Bulgaria #
Turkey
Croatia #
Slovenia #

Eastern Europe
Ukraine

Japan
South Korea
Singapore
Philippines
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
Palau
Tonga North America:
United States of America
South and Central America:
El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras

ANZ:
Australia

Middle East:
Kuwait

Africa:
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Uganda
Rwanda
Angola

OK they stopped complying at one point, because they had no light at the end of the tunnel. There was no ending for the sanctions, no hope.

Still at the end of the day, they let the inspectors back.

On the other hand, the US violated the UN charter without any reason.

Hmm All he had to do was throw open ALL DOORS and let them go where ever they wanted to go. Also have FULL DISCLOSURE of its program and they did not!

There was light at the end of the tunnel but Saddam Hussein tried to bluff his way out and lost the pot. All he had to do was comply and that would've been it. He did not comply so......

LOL

I am supposed to believe you are a history teacher when you spell "Kurds" with a "C"? It isnt a typo, the "C" key is nowhere near the "K" key.

curds is a form of yogurt.

Go peddle your ignorance to people more ignorant than yourself.

Has it occurd to your measely brain that I may speak a language other than English? Maybe you should try writing a language other than your native tongue with out any typos, shrimp for brains.

Koerden, in my language, Curds in yours? I wrote curds, english tends to use a c. An honest mistake. I teach history in my language not in English.

it is even more unlikely that he is a history teacher because for some bizarre reason he believes 1 of the 2 following options

1) that turkey is somehow a member of the UN security council

or

2) that the coalition attacking Iraq is only composed of US, UK, Spain, Turkey, and a few other countries.

when the actual coalition looks like this

Western Europe:
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Netherlands
Iceland
Italy

Baltic States:
Estonia #
Latvia #
Lithuania #

Central Europe:
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia #
Hungary

Balkans:
Albania #
Macedonia #
Romania #
Bulgaria #
Turkey
Croatia #
Slovenia #

Eastern Europe
Ukraine

Japan
South Korea
Singapore
Philippines
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
Palau
Tonga North America:
United States of America
South and Central America:
El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras

ANZ:
Australia

Middle East:
Kuwait

Africa:
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Uganda
Rwanda
Angola

Lovely, so if that's the actual coalition, mind telling me what all those other nations actually contributed? Your 'coalition' was nothing but a bunch of countries attempting to curry favour with the US by not kicking up a fuss. Barely any bothered to actually contribute in a meaningful way.

Hell, some of the 'coalition' didn't even want to be named, it was that popular.

Oh, and Turkey didn't attack Iraq. In fact, it was touch and go as to whether they'd even let the US use their facilities for the invasion, it was that unpopular. Australia however, was the 3rd major partner at the time of invasion I'm pretty sure.

Bit sick of this old right winger argument about the 'coalition'.

it is even more unlikely that he is a history teacher because for some bizarre reason he believes 1 of the 2 following options

1) that turkey is somehow a member of the UN security council

or

2) that the coalition attacking Iraq is only composed of US, UK, Spain, Turkey, and a few other countries.

when the actual coalition looks like this

Western Europe:
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Netherlands
Iceland
Italy

Baltic States:
Estonia #
Latvia #
Lithuania #

Central Europe:
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia #
Hungary

Balkans:
Albania #
Macedonia #
Romania #
Bulgaria #
Turkey
Croatia #
Slovenia #

Eastern Europe
Ukraine

Japan
South Korea
Singapore
Philippines
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
Palau
Tonga North America:
United States of America
South and Central America:
El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras

ANZ:
Australia

Middle East:
Kuwait

Africa:
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Uganda
Rwanda
Angola

How many of them supported from the beginning? Who did we always see together with the Americans? Aznar and Blair. The others helped later on, when the invasion was fact.

(I never suggested that Turkey was a UN member, is said Turkey wanted part in the invasion to stop the "K"urds from getting an independent state or country).

Anyhow to make things short, the UN was against a war in Iraq. The UN inspectors didn't find any WMD, American inspectors didn't find any WMD. And no they weren't transported to Syria. The time and manner in which it was said clearly showed that that was something to save skins.