»Ducky Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 I took the slave comment as, "How long exactly does France have to be the US' yes man before he can think for himself again."
Dr.Worthless Posted October 20, 2004 Report Posted October 20, 2004 We're not asking for a blind following, we're asking for support. Its one thing to disagree with the decision.. its another to do what France is doing, which is using the action in Iraq for a political agenda. They arent interested in anything else other than see'ing the US fail.
»Ducky Posted October 20, 2004 Report Posted October 20, 2004 Its one thing to disagree with the decision.. its another to do what France is doing, which is using the action in Iraq for a political agendaHeh, because we don't use the war at all in our political agendas :-p
talion Posted October 20, 2004 Report Posted October 20, 2004 I thought the oklahoma (sp?) bombing ended up being done by a lifelong american citizen? nothing else to add... monte says it all edit: would be easier to take the poll and mr. worthless seriously if they'd spell things properly (it spells Iraq Irak...)
Dr.Worthless Posted October 20, 2004 Report Posted October 20, 2004 I thought the oklahoma (sp?) bombing ended up being done by a lifelong american citizen?There has been rumors of Mcvey having Al-Qaeda ties. The bombing would for sure fit under terrorist attack, however. edit: would be easier to take the poll and mr. worthless seriously if they'd spell things properly Please, Don't be an internet grammar policeman.
»Ducky Posted October 20, 2004 Report Posted October 20, 2004 http://www.informationhigh.net/upload_files/grammarnazi.jpg
MasterDrake Posted October 20, 2004 Report Posted October 20, 2004 I thought the oklahoma (sp?) bombing ended up being done by a lifelong american citizen? nothing else to add... monte says it all edit: would be easier to take the poll and mr. worthless seriously if they'd spell things properly (it spells Iraq Irak...)<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Uh o you made a writing error, you wrote "oklahoma" but it should be spelled Oklahoma. Tsk tsk ...
talion Posted October 20, 2004 Report Posted October 20, 2004 the comment is more applicable to the poll than to worthless. but worthless is trying so hard to use proper grammar, it ruins the effect. edit: rumours? are you joking? at least forge some do!@#$%^&*ents before trying to make a claim like that.
Aileron Posted October 20, 2004 Report Posted October 20, 2004 Ducky, didn't that use to be a NRA advertisment?(All in favor of gun control raise your right hand) France is by no means a slave to the US. They ceased being a world power about midway through the 19th century and because the allies were idiots they were given a security council vote. Look at them now. They have little military or economic influence on the world, and that's not just because they are "recovering from World War II". Germany recovered from WW1 in only a couple decades during a world wide recession. Japan was atomic bombed during WWII, yet today they are a world power, and rival the US in many industries. Thus, France has had more than enough time to recover from WWII. They are well beyond needing the US for economic support.  Their own economic weakness is their own fault. France is not much different than Spain or Italy. France is a country that was centuries ago a world power, but today not really. The problem here is France has a UN security council vote, so France is convinced that they somehow are a world power and should act like one. The sooner they realise that they do not have the physical power to back up their legal power, the better off the world will be.
MonteZuma Posted October 21, 2004 Report Posted October 21, 2004 France is by no means a slave to the US.Cool. Then they don't have to do whatever Bush tells them to do. Thus, France has had more than enough time to recover from WWII. They are well beyond needing the US for economic support.This US economic support thing needs to be put in context. The US helped rebuild Europe for 2 reasons: 1. Ongoing conflict in Europe would be bad for the US economy2. The US wanted European allies in the fight against communism There were strings attached to Marshall Plan funds. The US got what they wanted. Communism was contained and the economies of both Europe and the US improved dramatically. It was a done deal. Their own economic weakness is their own fault. France is not much different than Spain or Italy. France is a country that was centuries ago a world power, but today not really.I think they care much less about world power and economic success than you and Dr Worthless think. Most people in the world don't think like Americans. The problem here is France has a UN security council vote, so France is convinced that they somehow are a world power and should act like one. The sooner they realise that they do not have the physical power to back up their legal power, the better off the world will be.Physical power suxors if it isn't used wisely. I'd rather have New Zealand or Canada have a seat on the Security Council than any of the countries already there. But as you allude to, common sense, righteousness and democracy doesn't mean anything. In the end it comes down to who carries the biggest stick. At the moment it is GWB. In any case, here is a list of the UN resolutions vetoed by the US since 1972: 1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids. 1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. 1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians. 1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories. 1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians. 1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians. 1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security. 1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians. 1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories. 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quan-*BAD WORD*-y and quality of development !@#$%^&*istance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa. 1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa. 1979 Offers !@#$%^&*istance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement. 1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race. 1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel. 1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations. 1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries. 1979 Offers !@#$%^&*istance to the Palestinian people. 1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories. 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports. 1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states. 1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women. 1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women. 1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations. 1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons. 1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people. 1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions. 1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians. 1980 Offers !@#$%^&*istance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement. 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation. 1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women. 1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. 1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right. 1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions. 1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries. 1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes. 1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories. 1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons. 1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament. 1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights. 1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions. 1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seyc-*BAD WORD*-es. 1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions. 1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983). 1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier. 1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967. 1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions. 1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology. 1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts. 1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions. 1982 Supports a new world information and communications order. 1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons. 1982 Development of international law. 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment . 1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights. 1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment. 1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries. 1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions. 1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies. 1984 International action to eliminate apartheid. 1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon. 1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions. 1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon. 1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories. 1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions. 1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities . 1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law. 1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa. 1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians. 1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places. 1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner. 1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development. 8 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians. 1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians. 1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon. 1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States. 1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions. 1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation. 1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions. 1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space. 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. 1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions. 1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace". 1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989). 1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama. 1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan amb!@#$%^&*ador in Panama. 1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua. 1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua. 1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force. 1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions. 1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories. 1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory. 1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions. 1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999). 2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. 2001 To set up the International Criminal Court. 2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.  AND On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).  The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement.  source ...and...since 1984, the US has vetoed 42 resolutions, 4 times as many as the next highest member (the UK). In that time France only vetoed 3 resolutions. Perhaps the UN would function better if the US was removed from the Security Council?
Aileron Posted October 21, 2004 Report Posted October 21, 2004 Look, France is by no means docile. They are much more power hungry than the US and have a track record to prove it when one takes the time to look. Suffice to say, every Canadian is living proof of this.  Nations are by definition sovereign, so the UN technically has no legal right to make any resolution. Also, you make it sound like using a veto is wrong...its our right.  But please, I'd love to see the UN function without the US. -*BAD WORD*-, I'd love it if there was a rebellion in Haiti or a warlord taking over Somalia, and some other nation would lead the peackeeping efforts. Please, give my government a break. Heck, why should we be the global police all the time? Why can't we punch out and let 3rd shift take over, get some much-needed R&R? Maybe if France (or anyone else) leads the peacekeeping efforts to solve some crisis in some third world country, my government can kick back and focus on domestic issues. Heck, maybe I would be the one pissing and moaning about the crappy job the other nation is doing. Seriously, any nation that is willing to step up to the plate and solve the next world crisis is welcom to it.
Yupa Posted October 21, 2004 Report Posted October 21, 2004 the whole security council setup is lame, they should just let Switzerland run the world
MonteZuma Posted October 21, 2004 Report Posted October 21, 2004 They are much more power hungry than the USThey are not. and have a track record to prove it when one takes the time to look. Suffice to say, every Canadian is living proof of this.How so? Nations are by definition sovereign, so the UN technically has no legal right to make any resolution.No. The UN has every right to make a resolution. That is why it was established. Also, you make it sound like using a veto is wrong...its our right.Bingo! Sometimes it is wrong, but if the US has a 'right' to do it then so does France. But please, I'd love to see the UN function without the US. -*BAD WORD*-, I'd love it if there was a rebellion in Haiti or a warlord taking over Somalia, and some other nation would lead the peackeeping efforts.The US doesn't lead every peace keeping effort everywhere in the world. Please, give my government a break.Please give the French government a break. Heck, why should we be the global police all the time?I ask myself that all the time. Nobody made the US go to Iraq. Why can't we punch out and let 3rd shift take over,For that to happen, your government will need to co-operate with the UN. BINGO!  Maybe if France (or anyone else) leads the peacekeeping efforts to solve some crisis in some third world country,Like France in the D.R of Congo or Australia in East Timor or the African Union in Sudan? The US contributes relatively few personnel to UN-backed peace-keeping operations. In fact the top 10 contributors of personell to UN peacekeeping efforts are Pakistan (8,936), Bangladesh (8,219), Nigeria (3.588), Ethiopia (3,445), Ghana (3,320), India (3,044), Nepal (2,614), South Africa (2,514). Uruguay (2,489) and Jordan (2,067). The US is ranked 29th with just 365 people. Lots of countries contribute to international peace-keeping efforts. You just don't care to know about it. my government can kick back and focus on domestic issues.Your government won't ever do it because it has too much self-interest in interfering with international affairs Seriously, any nation that is willing to step up to the plate and solve the next world crisis is welcom to it.Which world crisis has the US single-handedly solved since WW2? I don't think anyone wants the US to be the world's policeman, except GWB. He has said as much.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 21, 2004 Report Posted October 21, 2004 Cool. Then they don't have to do whatever Bush tells them to do.I never said France had to.. I've said from the begining that its perfectly legit for France to have differing opinions. But now that the decision is made, we're a year into the engagement, and its in the best interest of every party involved for this thing to work out positivly, why is it France still refuses to participate? To this day they still hold veto power over ANY resolution the US brings to the table.  "But worthless.. it was the US that started the war.. not france, why should they help?"  At very least.. because we helped them when they were in a war that we didn't create, but they did.. At very least because its in the worlds interest to have a stable Iraq.. AT VERY LEAST because thats what friends do... While I do see your arguement, Monte, what I'm trying to say is.. A stable Iraq is in the interest of the world community. For france to continually refuse to help in the effort is !@#$%^&*anine.  But please, I'd love to see the UN function without the US. -*BAD WORD*-, I'd love it if there was a rebellion in Haiti or a warlord taking over Somalia, and some other nation would lead the peackeeping efforts.The US doesn't lead every peace keeping effort everywhere in the world. Name me a major "peace keeping effort" in the last 20 years that hasn't been spearheaded by the united states. Why can't we punch out and let 3rd shift take over,For that to happen, your government will need to co-operate with the UN. BINGO!Frankly, the majority of the UN security councle is against the US.. you said it yourself. These countries do not have the power, economically, militarily, or socially, to undermine the United States.. so you better bet your bottom dollar that they would do it using the UN as a front. Of all those resolutions you posted that the US has veto'd.. ive seen a central issue in them being the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Am I suprised? Nope.. after all it took US intervention to prevent the Jews from being absolutly wiped from the face of this earth. European powers could have stopped this from happening when they saw the signs.. instead they tried appeasement. Maybe if France (or anyone else) leads the peacekeeping efforts to solve some crisis in some third world country,Like France in the D.R of Congo or Australia in East Timor or the African Union in Sudan? The US contributes relatively few personnel to UN-backed peace-keeping operations. In fact the top 10 contributors of personell to UN peacekeeping efforts are Pakistan (8,936), Bangladesh (8,219), Nigeria (3.588), Ethiopia (3,445), Ghana (3,320), India (3,044), Nepal (2,614), South Africa (2,514). Uruguay (2,489) and Jordan (2,067). The US is ranked 29th with just 365 people. Lots of countries contribute to international peace-keeping efforts. You just don't care to know about it. Here's some statistics for you.. The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945. We provided more than $3 billion in contributions, both cash and in-kind, to the UN system in 2002. (In-kind contributions include items such as food donations for the World Food Program). The United States funded 22 percent of the UN regular budget, as well as more than 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Additionally, the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities, mostly for humanitarian and development programs. - 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries./1 -- 17.1% of the United Nations Children s Fund budget to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 162 countries./1 -- 14.1% of the United Nations Development Program core budget to eradicate poverty and encourage democratic governance./1 -- 25.8% of the International Atomic Energy Agency budget to ensure safe and peaceful application of nuclear energy and prevent the illicit use of nuclear material for weapons./2 -- 22% of the World Health Organization core budget as well as significant voluntary resources, helping to prevent and control epidemics and to improve standards of health./2 -- 25% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget to help protect refugees and facilitate their return home or re-settlement in another country./1 -- 25% of the International Civil Aviation Organization budget to ensure safe, efficient and economical air travel. In 2004, the US has contributed 22% of the TOTAL UN BUDGET. France.. 6% Yeah.. the US is an insignifigant member... Seriously, any nation that is willing to step up to the plate and solve the next world crisis is welcom to it.Which world crisis has the US single-handedly solved since WW2? I don't think anyone wants the US to be the world's policeman, except GWB. He has said as much. We're not trying to be the world's policeman.. we're trying to eliminate terrorism. I can really understand why Europe isn't that interested.. they've grown so accustomed to terrorism that they see it as a "nuesance".. much like John Kerry does.. Terrorism is NOT a minor issue. Europeans might be ok living with the possibility of a psycho blowing himself up on their busses, or flying airplanes into their buildings, but I will never see the day where i become accustomed enough that I will learn to just live with it..
MonteZuma Posted October 21, 2004 Report Posted October 21, 2004 Name me a major "peace keeping effort" in the last 20 years that hasn't been spearheaded by the united states. I guess that depends on what you call a major peacekeeping effort. But the US is the only superpower. It has the largest economy and the most powerful military. Most other governments are unable to "spearhead" a major peacekeeping effort. Most other governemnst rely on a multinational response. That is why, if you don't want to be the world's policeman, the US must work with the UN. There is no other organisation capable of fulfilling this role, except maybe NATO. Frankly, the majority of the UN security councle is against the US I disagree. Someone on these forums even went so far as to say that Russia was sucking up to the US. The only stiff opposition is likely to come from China. ..you said it yourself. These countries do not have the power, economically, militarily, or socially, to undermine the United States..  They don't have the power to economically, culturally or militarilly undermine the US, but I would argue that in terms of credibility, the US has been undermined by world popular opinion. The poll kinda demonstrates that. Of all those resolutions you posted that the US has veto'd.. ive seen a central issue in them being the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Am I suprised? Nope.. after all it took US intervention to prevent the Jews from being absolutly wiped from the face of this earth. European powers could have stopped this from happening when they saw the signs.. instead they tried appeasement. They tried appeasement and when it didnt work they turned to war. The US tried neutrality, which is just as bad, if not worse than appeasement, and did not even bother to take sides until Pearl Harbour. In any case, the allies did not go to war against Germany because of the jews. They went to war to protect the sovreignty of Belgium and Poland.  As for the UN resolutions, They were passed to protect Palestinians. The US has no interest in doing this. Does this give you any clues as to why the US is hated by many muslims in the middle east? The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945. The US has also had the largest economy since 1945. - 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries. Much of this US surplus food that is dumped. US and European subsidies are one of the main driving forces for famine in the third world. In 2004, the US has contributed 22% of the TOTAL UN BUDGET. The US accounts for 22% of the world GDP, so this amount, and the others that you mentioned, sound fair to me. Germany and Japan are the next biggest UN contributors and yet they don't even have a permanant seat on the security council. Where is the justice in that? France.. 6% France accounts for only 3% of world GDP, so they are making a bigger individual sacrifice than you and your countrymen. We're not trying to be the world's policeman..  George Bush said: America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge - thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.  Yes. Your president's policy is to use it's power to be the world's policeman. we're trying to eliminate terrorism. Your government wants to do much more than that. I can really understand why Europe isn't that interested.. they've grown so accustomed to terrorism that they see it as a "nuesance" Hardly. Most of modern day Europe encounters much less violence and terrorism than the US.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 21, 2004 Report Posted October 21, 2004 The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945. The US has also had the largest economy since 1945.Still no justification. If you have one member contributing nearly 1/4'th of the total budget of an organization, and the #2 contributer bumping that to nearly 1/2 (japan with roughly 20% contribution) just because they have the "largest economy", there's no fairness in that. Yeah.. each country pays their portion.. etc etc.. but when one countries portion is 1/4'th of the total budget, and another countries is 1/16'th, and those countries have equal power... I'm sure you can see the problem. They don't have the power to economically, culturally or militarilly undermine the US, but I would argue that in terms of credibility, the US has been undermined by world popular opinion. The poll kinda demonstrates that. The point I was trying to convey monte was that I wouldn't be suprised if countries like France.. who really can't be justified as a super power any longer, are using the only power they have left (the UN) to attempt and influence their political goals, with no interest to the greater good. The US accounts for 22% of the world GDP, so this amount, and the others that you mentioned, sound fair to me. Germany and Japan are the next biggest UN contributors and yet they don't even have a permanant seat on the security council. Where is the justice in that?It isn't.. we should remove France and give Japan their position.  France.. 6% France accounts for only 3% of world GDP, so they are making a bigger individual sacrifice than you and your countrymen. No they aren't.. I see what you're saying.. "Since they make less, they are actually giving MORE percentage wise than the US..." Sorry, if one country is giving 5 million, and the other 50 million, I don't care how much of a percentage the 5 million is, the 50 million is 10x more helpful.  America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge - thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace. Yes. Your president's policy is to use it's power to be the world's policeman.So wait.. you're against that idea? Surely you don't believe that everyone should just butt out and let countries push their way into world politics by gaining nuclear weapons and hanging them over free countries heads.. Thats whats being accomplished, and I'm more than happy to have my country be the "worlds policeman" European countries needs to butt out of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.. I don't want them being the worlds policeman...  we're trying to eliminate terrorism. Your government wants to do much more than that. I realize thats what a nice majority of people think, but frankly you have no proof beyond theories. When/if America monopolizes oil production in Iraq.. i'll agree with you, up until this point that hasn't happened. I can really understand why Europe isn't that interested.. they've grown so accustomed to terrorism that they see it as a "nuesance" Hardly. Most of modern day Europe encounters much less violence and terrorism than the US. huh? Europe as a group has been experiencing terrorism for nearly 600 years, well before the US even existed. With events like the school children massacre in Russia, train bombings in Spain, how can you even make a claim like that? This isn't about "My region has less than your region..." Trust me, if France was to ever do something that the terrorists didn't like, french blood would be spilled on french soil. Hopefully it doesn't take something like that to wake the french people up, but I'm afraid it just might, the French have a long history of needing something catastrophic to occur for them to wake up, much like the US.
MonteZuma Posted October 22, 2004 Report Posted October 22, 2004 I don't have time to address every point or refine my analogies, but: Why should power in the UN be linked to financial contribution? China and India have much less ability to pay, but surely the opinion of an Indian or a Chinese is just as relevant as your opinion? When you vote for your president, the person paying the most tax does not get more votes or more power or more control over the choice of president than a person paying less tax. Why should this be the case in the UN? Superpowers shouldn't have any more of a say in world affairs than a minor power - or someone living in Nauru or Fiji or Albania or whatever. The fact that more powerful nations, including those in the Security Council, do have more of a say is a flaw in the current system. It is not a desirable feature of the system. You have totally exaggerated the terrorism situation in Europe. The US does want to be the world's policeman. The GWB quote demonstrates that beyond doubt.
Aileron Posted October 22, 2004 Report Posted October 22, 2004 The UN isn't a legal power. It can't judge nations by those means, because the UN has no authority in and of itself. It needs the support of large powers to keep itself running, so it needs to give extra power to its chief contributers. Without that support, the powerfull nations would abandon the UN and it would collapse.
Arianax Posted October 25, 2004 Report Posted October 25, 2004 As a European I have to say that I don't see Terrorism as a nuisance (cant spell that ) take for example the train bombing in Spain, the spanish didnt say 'oh, !@#$%^&*, thats really messed up the plan for today' It effectively changed the election result and caused a huge protest from the spanish people, showing some bad!@#$%^&* solidarity on their part. The French have needed a bit of a kickstart for things because like it or not, the french economy is screwed, it has been since they decided to Fight lotsa wars at once, seven years + American 'revolutionary war' (w/e they call it) But enough on the History. Europe - Scared of Terrorism.
MonteZuma Posted October 25, 2004 Report Posted October 25, 2004 France isn't exactly an economic basket case. In fact at the moment it is one of the better performers in Europe. And it is the 5th largest economy in the world. To write off France as an insignificant world power is dumb.
MasterDrake Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 !@#$%^&* france everyone hates them anyways
»nintendo64 Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 No, MasterDrake, Nobody hates France, but what people hate is the stereotype of the french created by propaganda.
MasterDrake Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 really hahah you need to ask around out of the island a little bit, and look what some of these people say about americans haha
Petrajs_Killer Posted October 26, 2004 Report Posted October 26, 2004 Indeed. I think the world would be a happier and safer place if the US respected other's sovereignty and walked its own path without telling others how to walk and without stepping on the innocent little guy.Wrong. Iraq tried to invade both Iran and Kuwait. He also g!@#$%^&*ed, m!@#$%^&*-murdered, and abused his own people. But that's not what we're talking about. It's all about Mr. mean-boy with the stupid boyish grin Bush and his policies. We also don't care about the beheadings, and the recently-captured British female captive, now do we? It's all Bush's fault! Him! Him! Him! And only him! Its a shame the US didn't acknowledge that until Pearl Harbour.Wrong yet again. The US already knew of the thread. The President allowed this to happen to mobolize the country into war. I can really understand why Europe isn't that interested.. they've grown so accustomed to terrorism that they see it as a "nuesance".. much like John Kerry does..Which is why unimportant countries like Australia don't care much about the war on terrorism. They're far away from the killings, that to them it all seems like fantasy. The media just feeds them fantasies that the world is okay. Which then engenders ignorant people with a false view of the world. The fact that more powerful nations, including those in the Security Council, do have more of a say is a flaw in the current system. It is not a desirable feature of the system.!@#$%^&* right more powerful nations deserve more say in world issues. It's so easy to make such an irresponsibale statement when you live in such a small country. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of a country the size of Maine having a say in such things as our security. The world is not equal. This is a fact of life. Much the same was as destroying nations/iden-*BAD WORD*-ies that only wish harm among others. So we need to neutralize the treath of these Islamo-fascists, all the while not be persuaded by their simpathizers, liberals like you.
Recommended Posts