Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Re the format

You have to put the first paragraph in the top box and the rest in the second box. Otherwise you get several paragraphs on the front watchblog page and it takes up too much room. I did the same thing you did on my first try.

Now for a short comment on content, although on one of your side points.

Communism doesn’t even work in theory. All that is good in Marx is not original and all that is original is not good. It is amazing such a silly ideology could hold sway for so long and cause so much suffering.

Jack:

I think Communism works in small groups, but not for large populations. In a relatively small group, you can find good workers, but in a large population, you are forced to keep the good workers hostage in order to cover for the poorer workers. It also helps if the commune is voluntary rather than enforced.

However, I agree with Steven that the UN simply is not working. I’d love to see something like that work, but in its current form, it really has no power other than that of persuasion. And persuasion doesnt work often if not backed by force.

I admire anyone who has the balls to open himself up to attack. Your Post is not badly written though it lacks more detail.

That being said. I find your myopic view of a vast organization to be typically Republican in its ignorance and simplistic view of the world.

What would you say about East Timor and the UN success there? What about the work they do on Women’s Rights, Children’s Rights and Racial Equality? Are UNICEF, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, WHO and others wasting their time? How many children got vaccinated from polio? How many children got fed? In addition to “Charity Work”, the UN also coordinates information transfer between countries. Weather Data, Criminal Data and other vital statistics are collected and given to such organizations as AMA, INTERPOL and USAID. Have you given any thought about that?

And speaking of corruption. I heard that your Tom DeLay is about to be indicted for unethical behavior. Your Republican Congress is set to change the Rules to allow a CORRUPT politician to stay at his post. What does that say about YOUR Party?

Before you start spouting druggie Rush Limbugh’s Propaganda, I suggest you do your own research first and stop embarrassing yourself.

Aldous.

Thank you for the formatting critique, jack. I’ve fixed it. My mistake.

Aldous, I’d reply right now to many of your comments, however I’ve got to start Half-Life 2, as I’ve been delayed a whole 19 hours and 15 minutes already! :P

I always respect a guy who puts video games first on his agenda. Are you sure you are not a Progressive? Joke. Good Luck with that.

Aldous.

I don’t know that the UN should have more power. I dislike it because it can independently generate sanctions and enact them against a government’s interest, and that erodes sovereignty. In general, I dislike all arbitrary IGO’s for this reason.

There are, however, ones that I like for results if not in theory. The WTO is primary among them. Why? Because the WTO has teeth. Large, dollar-shaped teeth that’ll rip you apart if you fail to keep your end of the bargain — which is the other part I like: you’ve gotta sign on before they can enforce any sanctions against you, or even write you an angry letter. Just look at the sanctions leveled against the US over the steel tariffs, or what one professor of trade law called “billions or tens of billions of dollars in consequences” for not lowering domestic farm subsidies. The WTO doesn’t mess around; it won’t send you a firmly-worded letter. And, better yet, it’s actually doing a job I agree with: opening borders and liberalizing markets.

As to style: An example is always good. Why not report the findings of the 21 billion in oil-for-food money that was illictly appropriated as evidence that it was corrupt, working even against its own stated aims?

Also, you don’t really present a good argument. They don’t have the muscle? No, your argument would conclude that they don’t have the resolve (considering that they’ve sent in troops multiple times, then pulled out in fear). Also, “cowards!” isn’t a great rallying cry for civil debate. And you focus on Sudan, without telling us why it would be symptomatic of a larger illness within the UN itself. Just a few points that I noticed.

Many of the specialized UN Agencies do a good job. Most of the specialized Agencies are resident in Geneva. We don’t see much of them or hear much in the news, but they do essential work. They work well because they are not particularly political

The two parts of the UN that are broken are the Security Council and the General Assembly. They are resident in New York and are in the news a lot. They are very political.

So we really are talking about two different things. You would hardly know they are the same organization.

It is a myth in some circles in the U.S. that we don’t get much from the UN. It is a myth in other U.S. circles and in many foreign counties that the U.S. does not do its fair share in the UN. The U.S. works through the UN in many ways and is today and has always been the largest contributor to the UN.

The problem is that the UN works by consensus and it is subject to vetoes. That means that the UN is always weak in the face of actual force. The UN has never actually established peace and it can’t actually keep the peace if the belligerent parties really intend to fight. We Americans need the UN, but we have to recognize its severe limitations.

For Joe

I think I need to make a distinction between Communism and Marxism. Communism is the kind of thing practiced by monks and in small groups can work, as long as you don’t need much innovation. Marxism is the thing I despise for being pernicious, vicious and wrong.

I think the state of the current UN is epitomized in the Srebrenica incident. Not a day should go by without the Europeans and other apologists for the UN being reminded of it.

Dutch peacekeepers basicaly caved into Serb intimidation, forcibly expelled refugees from their base and stood by while more than 1000 were slaughtered. The blue helmets didn’t fire a shot or raise a finger to stop it—worse, they essentially collaborated by marching the victims out to their deaths.

And this is the only organization which can bestow international legitimacy?

Minor quibble: we should also distinguish between Marxist thought and the use Marx was put to by Marxist revolutionaries. In Das Kapital, Marx was hardly advocating a totalitarian entity like the USSR. In fact, he at least in part envisioned the socialist state as a refinement or end-product of captitalism. Present day Canada is probably closer to what Marx had in mind than Cuba.

Martin:
Those Dutch Peacekeepers you talk about did not have any ammunition. The Dutch Officers warned his superiors what was happening WEEKS in advance but no help came. Unless you are into heroic suicides, the Dutch Troops had no choice but do nothing.

Aldous.

And before we say anything about the UN’s failures, turning their backs on those that needed help, let’s not forget about the US’ own back-turning on the Iraqi citizens and Cuban citizens, both of whom we persuaded into revolution only to ignore them when they needed us most.

I think that the UN is a complete failure in nearly every effort to stop oppressive behavior in soverign nations, however. Just that there aren’t many others doing a much better job. We still have people in Bosnia and the Ivory Coast appears to be France’s new Vietnam, I wonder how long before they suck us into another one …

Now THAT is comforting. UN Peacekeepers in a war zone protecting the population without ammunition.

Again, this is exactly the problem with the UN—worthlessness. They’ll go through the trouble of sending hundreds of soldiers somewhere to keep the peace, but it offends their delicate sensibilities to bring ammunition. All I can say is Wow!

And this is the organization we should depend on for international “legitimacy” and for securing the peace?

Martin:

The United Nations delegates this to Countries involved. It does not appoint Commanders. The inexperienced and CHEAP Dutch Government was incharge of Peacekeeping. They sent in their Troops with the absolute minimum needed for Peacekeeping. No extra ammo, No air support, No Reserves, etc. Your insult to the Dutch Soldiers is unwarranted. They were willing to fight. The problem lay with the inexperience of the Dutch in this kind of situation.

As for securing the Peace in a hostile environment, the United States has unlimited resources doing this in Iraq. How much success are they having “Securing the Peace” there?

Aldous.

“the United States has unlimited resources doing this in Iraq. How much success are they having “Securing the Peace” there?”

More than if we had sent them in with no ammo!

Troops without ammo do not have the “absolute minimum needed for peacekeeping.” Inexperience is no excuse for sending soldiers into potential battle unprepaired.
I don’t know much about the situation, but from these posts, it seems the Dutch were not able to acomplish their mission because they were not prepaired. This is inexcuesable.

Aldous:

Whether the Dutch troops were responsible for the Srebrenica slaughter or not, the point is that they were operating under UN auspices.

If the Dutch troops did not have the proper training or equipment to carry out any semblance of their mission, then why did the UN place them in such a position. One can look at other dire failures from the UN as well. They typically lack the will and courage to make strong stands.

Remember the citizen in Tienamen Square who stood in front of the tank in the famous picture. He was unarmed and facing a tank, and the tank was being operated by soldiers who had shown no regard for human life. What he did took courage. Would that the UN forces would show just a little of the same.

There is a fine line between the U.N as an international organization and the UN as a world government. The UN is only alloted as much power as its members give it. and the likes of George Bush are consistently undermining the UN by taking matter into his own hands (Iraq, Afghanistan). The UN works for conflicts and situations that are not initially profitable of one nation-state government in which to involve itself (ie. Sudan, Rowanda, etc.) But for conflicts where there is an obvious profit for a government to pursue, the UN is useless.

Do we really want the UN to be some kind of world government with a military etc.? I mean we already have the world bank so I guess it doesn’t have much farther to go.

The UN. Hmmmm.

A good idea gone bad.

The UN is supposed to be there to keep peace, gain peace, and right the wrongs of our world. It is supposed to be the group that works TOGETHER for the good of EVERYONE.

It is now so politically (and financially)driven that it is nearly impossible to put the good of everyone above the self interests of participating nations.

Look behind the scenes at what is going on.
What countries are working together against others? Which countries have spun off into little groups of their own inside the UN?
Why are decisions made by countries?
Most are made for Political reasons in their own countries. Afraid of losing votes and being voted out of office. Self interest. Forget what is actually the right thing to do.

If France asks us to help them in the Ivory Coast, I say NO.
Not because of Iraq alone.
Because France(Chirac) is the lead force that is working against the U.S. and trying to bring us down. Chirac does not like P.Bush and I don’t believe he likes the U.S..
He wants France to be the world power that everyone turns to for answers to their problems. I say let him do it. Let France take on the responsibility. Chirac thinks he is so smart and has all the answers.
They are off to a good start in the Ivory Coast.
Let France try their hand at it and see how things turn out.
Just don’t call on the U.S. for help when it gets screwed up.

People in our great country think we need to be more like ‘Europe’. Forget it. We need to be more like the America we used to be. Proud.

Winning the peace in Iraq?
It takes time when there are people who believe that anyone who is not Muslim should be dead.
Allah, their GOD, told them that anyone who is not Muslim should be dead. Some GOD. Sounds more like the DEVIL to me.
Give the U.S. a warning so they have time to convert to Islam? How long do we have to convert 300 million people? 6 months? A year?
Then what? Those that we could not convert should be slaughtered?
Nice Radical form of a Religion.
Would that be the far left? or the far right?

Steven
Great post. But since it is not a favorable one and criticizes a form of world govt, many people will attempt to tear your post apart.
The UN is a corrupt organization and the very thought of our troops serving under foreign commanders should have every US citizen very concerned. I threw away ten years in the military because I refused to serve under the UN.
Were you aware that the UN actually controls land in parts of the US?

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRLandSov299.html

Were you aware that our Supreme Court judges use foriegn precedents when ruling and that they believe that the UN and EU laws should and will apply to American citizens.

http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0198.html

Good first post Steven.

bugcrazy,

The political spectrum isn’t really a line — it’s a circle. Far Left and Far Right get closer together the farther you go. Consider Hitler (far right) and Stalin (far left). They make Bush and Kerry look like moderates!

And radical religion isn’t the problem in the Middle East. It’s what the problem hides behind. Their problems are mostly political and societal.

Oh, and I too miss “the America we used to be”, but for different reasons. We used to be humble. We used to be willing to stand side-by-side with lesser nations, instead of lording over them. And we used to understand that “International Cooperation” means nations cooperating with each other, not other nations cooperating with us.

The biggest problem with the UN (specifically the Security Council) is us. We frequently veto what would otherwise be unanimous council resolutions. Then again, the SC was designed to reign in superpowers (in a bipolar world), and, as the only remaining superpower, we don’t want THAT, do we?

“The biggest problem with the UN (specifically the Security Council) is us. We frequently veto what would otherwise be unanimous council resolutions. Then again, the SC was designed to reign in superpowers (in a bipolar world), and, as the only remaining superpower, we don’t want THAT, do we?”

No, we wouldn’t. Our law of the land is our constitution, not SC resolutions. But it doesn’t really matter if we veto them or not. It’s all for show, since the UN doesn’t enforce it’s resolutions anyway. So how is our veto a problem?

The real problem with the UN is the corruption, as evidenced by the skimming of billions (and billions) from the food-for-oil program. That’s one reason why they did not want us to enforce their Iraq resolutions.

It’s funny how they chastise us for Iraq, while turning a blind eye to France bombing the you-know-what out of the Ivory Coast (What’s that war about again? I haven’t actually heard a reason for it, even with all the coverage it’s been getting.). It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that J.C. was in on the food-for-oil skim, could it? Of course not. France and the UN are perfect. What was I thinking?

Traveler
Try this real quick:

Blame America first for everything!

It helps when your trying to justify the UN.

No, we wouldn’t. Our law of the land is our constitution, not SC resolutions. But it doesn’t really matter if we veto them or not. It’s all for show, since the UN doesn’t enforce it’s resolutions anyway. So how is our veto a problem?

By this logic, Saddam Hussein wasn’t doing anything wrong because the “law of the land” there was Iraqi law, not SC resolutions. Is that about right? If so, then we just lost our reasons for invading Iraq.

If we expect to hold others accountable to International Law, then we need to follow it ourselves.

Oh, and the US Constitution specifically states, in Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution…and all Treaties made, or which shall be made…shall be the supreme Law of the Land….

It would seem that the UN Charter, as well as other applicable “treaties” made by the US, are indeed the “supreme Law of the Land”, my friend. At least, if you believe the US Constitution.

No, the UN isn’t perfect. But it’s better than nothing. In fact, it was FAR more effective in removing WMDs from Iraq than our invasion was. Even by the Bush administration’s pre-war estimates, sanctions had led to the destruction of AT LEAST 85% of Iraq’s WMDs. (The debate was over whether the last 15% existed.) Compare that with what we’ve found post-invasion. If it can do that without even “enforcing its resolutions”, I’m pretty impressed!

“By this logic, Saddam Hussein wasn’t doing anything wrong because the “law of the land” there was Iraqi law, not SC resolutions. Is that about right? If so, then we just lost our reasons for invading Iraq.”

No, enforceing UN resolutions FOR THEM was only one of the many reasons President Bush gave for invading Iraq.

“the UN isn’t perfect. But it’s better than nothing.”

Hmm… That’s the entire debate here isn’t it.
I’ll tell you what… If the UN takes all the oil-for-food money it stole and spends it ALL on security and rebulding in Iraq, I’ll agree with you.

And if Chirac gives his cut back to the Iraqis and resigns in discrace, I might start liking the French too. But that’s not going to happen either, is it?

Rob,

You say that the UN did a better job of disarming Iraq than the US, that just ignores the reality of history. Iraq was trying to bide it’s time and not give up its weapons until the UN got bored with ‘the game’ as they saw it. Indeed, countries like France and Germany were willing to stop sanctions in the mid ’90s, if it hadn’t been for the US and the UK standing firm and keeping the pressure on after the inspectors were thrown out in 1998, Hussein would still be in power today and happily making new weapons as he had intended to do.

Rhinehold:
Whoa, whoa. Let’s be fair, here. As late as July 2001, Bush was saying that we actually needed to lighten sanctions against Iraq in certain areas. And, frankly, Hussein DID NOT HAVE any weapons. Nor did he have any appreciable program for weapons after 1996. Nor did he have any designs on a weapons program. He needed to get the US and UN out of his face before he would dare try it. While not necessarily the best method, it was undoubtedly working.

I do agree that the UN needs to grow a pair, but if that comes to pass, I think it will go a long way to keeping us out of wars that don’t really involve us.

Truth is, though, we need to recognize the UN does serve a purpose: it is an inhibiting factor to those who would wage wars of conquest, to regional conflicts that would expand to affect the world. It’s not perfect, but it doesn’t have to be. It’s something, and the peaceful world it encourages sustains our global economy.

Without it, we have a chaos of unleashed rivalries and designs which would create a constant drag on our ability to ship and trade overseas. Of course if you like having to deal with a million little brushfire wars to keep trade routes open, you’re entitled to your opinion.

Frankly, I think the revulsion to the UN has more support in the apocalyptic born-again fiction than it has in reality.

Steven, you and many other posters here display an amazing lack of knowledge about the UN. I’ve covered all that previously.

The funniest thing about this thread is, the same people who are railing about the UN being an evil global government are also trash-talkin’ the UN for not being more powerful. You can’t have it both ways, guys. Thanks for the chuckle. :)

The UN has no executive power. It has no troops of its own, nor does it have military commanders. The US has a veto over any UN military action and we supply most of the troops and logistics for any operation.

If the Security Council passes a resolution to deploy peacekeepers, it’s because the President of the United States wants it to do so. If there aren’t enough troops, or they’re badly led, it’s because the President of the United States made the decision not to send troops or to put a US officer in charge.

Annon has requested troops for protecting the UN election workers in Iraq. So far, of the 191 member countries, only Fiji has offered to send troops - a small number of troops.

Instead of blaming the UN, you guys should be asking why no other militarily capable nations want to be involved in Iraq.

The U.N. went in, and they had several members shot at and they left! What cowards they show themselves to be!

These were the unarmed UN observers and aid workers like Margaret Hassan or Sergio Vieira de Mello, right?

Steven, stick to Half-Life.

Stephen when in the history of the UN have they inhibited wars of conquest? In cases when the UN has done so, it’s actually been the US wearing the UN seal of approval. Without the threatened might of the US military, the UN is no more effective at stopping or fighting wars than the Poukeepsie County PTA.

What is the UN doing about genocide in Darfur? Why is China in Tibet? If North Korea decides to invade South Korea tomorrow, what is the UN going to do about it? They’ll do exactly what they have the ability to do—nothing.

I agree that a radically reformed UN would have the potential to do good, but it won’t help them “to grow a pair” as long as the only nation with the ability to project power is the US.

Now, some Americans are worried by the idea of the EU becoming a counterweight to American power. I disagree. With greater power comes greater responsibility, and this disfunctional dependence on America to do everything (and then to blame us when we can’t do everything) will only end when Euoropean nations come down out of their utopian cloud where they spend virtally all of their money on social programs while hiding behind our skirts (and attacking us the entire while).

Certain things must happen. First and foremost, France has to be booted from the Security Council. Not as any petty payback for annoying the US, mind you, but to accurately reflect the real geopolitical situation. The idea of Germany, the UK and France sharing one Security Council seat seems a good one. India, Japan, and South America need to be given their due.

And Europe, as a whole, needs to massively improve and update their military capabilities. As long as many of them basically have third-world militaries, the strain on us is only going to mount.

The Europeans have become very adept at playing world opinion against us to deflect attention from themselves even while depending on us for defense.
So far, they’ve had nothing to lose. For a case in point,l ook at what happened in the Balkans, a disaster right on their doorstep.

They did nothing to stop it, while condemning us for inaction. But when we acted through NATO, they turned out to protest in mass, their media attacked every aspect of the war’s conduct, and European diplomats issued their predictable round of protests about civilian casualties and our choice of bombing targets. Once again, the US cleaned house and the Europeans were able to sit back and give sympathy to the other side. With us on their side, they can afford to flirt with tryants and terrorists and escape blame or responsibility for anything.

Martin:

The United States is the leading supporter of Tyrants and Dictators in the World. The US supported Saddam Hussien. The US blocked a Security Council Resolution when Saddam gassed his own people.

In regards to France. France has been very active in South Africa as a stabilizing Force. The Ivory Coast Incident is an accident (Ivorians bombed the French troops by mistake). In any case, France is the only Western Country actively promoting peace in that continent. You would know this if the US media would actually care about the Black Continent.

Aldous.

Aldous, I guess if you believe that maintaining colonial domination with guns and bombs is “stabilizing,” then it’s pretty easy to give the French a pass for their behavior in Africa. Look at what they’re doing in Algiers, stabilizing a very oppressive regime, rife with massive human rights abuses, in order to keep effective control of a major French source of oil. The French efforts in Africa, if you bother to investigate, are largely in their oil rich North and West former colonies. This isn’t like Iraq at all, where we plan to get out as soon as possible. If you want to see where “blood for oil” really dominates a foreign policy, you need look no further than the behavor of the French. And this is before you even begin to factor in France’s hand in Iraq’s food-for-oil honey-pot. Of course, this scandal just doesn’t appeal to the left’s anti-American sensibilities, so we just don’t hear that much about it (yet).

Meanwhile, the US gives billions of dollars in humanitarian aid throughout the African continent. And private donations from US foundations and wealthy individuals—of money, medicine and food— outstrip donations from anywhere else and (according to some studies) actually keep millions of Africans alive.

I guess that the citizens of the Ivory Coast, where it’s no longer safe to show your face without armed guards if you’re French, just don’t share your enthusiasm for living in subjegation under the Grand French Oil Empire.

Martin:

I think this Oil-for-Food Scandal is just a distraction to keep the American Public from focusing on Iraq. Nothing like a scapegoat to keep the people focused somewhere else.

Funny you should mention Algiers. Do you then consider the bombings and assasinations in Algiers the act of Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

The French were enforcing a ceasefire in Ivory Coast when one side decided to attack the rebels. they hit the French by accident. The French had no desire to “Regime Change” anything. The French feel responsible to their former colonies.

As for the US “getting out” of Iraq, you do know the Administration is planning to build 6 to 8 military bases in Iraq to “support” the Government? Just because Bush says he WANTS to get out does not mean he will. The best estimates indicate at least a 5 year stay in Iraq.

In regards to donations, the United States gives the LEAST in proportion to its GNP. It is a Millionaire and a Pauper. A Millionaire gives 1% of his income ($100) while a Pauper gives 30% ($10). Does that make the Millionaire more generous than the pauper?

Aldous.

Stephen when in the history of the UN have they inhibited wars of conquest? In cases when the UN has done so, it’s actually been the US wearing the UN seal of approval. Without the threatened might of the US military, the UN is no more effective at stopping or fighting wars than the Poukeepsie County PTA.

Duh, Martin. That’s what I’ve been saying. That’s what the UN does: it provides legitimacy.

Or are you arguing that the UN should start training its own military forces?

Martin:

I forgot to point out that the recent Election in Afghanistan were managed by the United Nations. The United States provided the security but its the UN that made that election possible.

Aldous.

Actually, Aldous, it was NATO that provided security for the Afghan elections. The bulk of US forces in Afghanistan are out in the boonies looking for bin Laden.

Aldous,

“I think this Oil-for-Food Scandal is just a distraction to keep the American Public from focusing on Iraq.”
????????????????
Stopping this was one of he positive results of the war. If we’re going to discuss the UN, we can’t ignore obvious corruption. The program was meant to feed the Iraqi people, not to line the pockets of Sadam, Chirac and a bunch of UN bureaucrats.

“The Administration is planning to build 6 to 8 military bases in Iraq to “support” the Government? The best estimates indicate at least a 5 year stay in Iraq.”

Our military actions in Iraq are now being done at the request and/or with permission from the Iraqi government. They are now a part of our military planning. Our entire force will not be staying for six years. One of our primary missions is to train an Iraqi military so we won’t HAVE to be there.

I was reading through the discussion American Pundit linked to earlier. In it he said:

“Again, I sense a misunderstanding of the nature of the UN. It’s not, and was never intended to be an independent, non-governmental organization. It’s a forum for governments to discuss and resolve international issues, not a body dedicated to doing what is good for the world.”

I think the UN itself is conflicted on whether it’s a world government or not. It makes resolutions it expects countries to obey, but it has no way of enforcing them. They rely on the militaries of member nations who don’t usually want to get involved in other people’s conflicts.

I don’t think the UN should expect current resolutions to be followed OR enforced. The reason the current resolutions are next to worthless is because they are passed even though no one has any intention of following them or enforcing them.

Like AP said, the UN was intended to be a forum, not a government. There’s way too much politics in the UN and not enough diplomacy. Perhaps the resolutions should discussed and passed the way treaties are, and enforced the way treaties are. Maybe the resolutions should be made directly by the nations involved with whatever problem, with input from others, and then voted on by the UN?
This is just a suggestion for discussion; I’m not claiming it’s a solution…

It is a good thing that the UN sets up charitable organizations, but they should be run directly by the members not the UN itself. A lot of the corruption in the UN is due to the fact that money intended for charity is being skimmed. The UN can still have supervision even if the money doesn’t go directly through them.

I think this quote from bugcrazy sums up our whole problem in Iraq:

If France asks us to help them in the Ivory Coast, I say NO. Not because of Iraq alone. Because France(Chirac) is the lead force that is working against the U.S. and trying to bring us down. Chirac does not like P.Bush and I don’t believe he likes the U.S.. He wants France to be the world power that everyone turns to for answers to their problems. I say let him do it. Let France take on the responsibility. Chirac thinks he is so smart and has all the answers. They are off to a good start in the Ivory Coast. Let France try their hand at it and see how things turn out. Just don’t call on the U.S. for help when it gets screwed up.

People in our great country think we need to be more like ‘Europe’. Forget it. We need to be more like the America we used to be. Proud.

Now think of it as if a Frenchmen said this:

If the U.S. asks us (France) to help them in Iraq, I say NO.
Not because of the insulting way they treat us on foreign policy alone.
Because U.S.(Bush) is the lead force that is working against France. and trying to bring us down. Bush does not like Chirac and I don’t believe he likes France.
He wants the U.S. to be the world power that everyone turns to for answers to their problems. I say let him do it. Let the U.S. take on the responsibility. Bush thinks he is so smart and has all the answers.
They are off to a good start in Iraq.
Let the U.S. try their hand at it and see how things turn out.
Just don’t call on France for help when it gets screwed up.

People in our great country think we need to be more like ‘U.S.’. Forget it. We need to be more like the France we used to be. Proud.

———
Chirac isn’t helping out in France first and foremost because his citizens universally oppose it. Why do they oppose it? Because they feel just like bugcrazy.

In addition, the Ivory Coast has been a longstanding problem with France, and before that Algiers, and before that Vietnam. The 2nd biggest reason that France opposed a military solution to the Iraq issue is that they’ve had first hand experience meddling in countries with poor democratic infrastracture. They’ve failed every time. Why should they repeat the experiment again when it’s gotten them nothing but dead French soldiers?

Just something to think about, before you bash France.

Julia

For Sale:

10,000 French Army rifles. Never used in combat.

Dropped once.

I wasn’t ‘bashing’ France. I was speaking of Chirac. ( Didn’t he tell Muslims they could not wear their head scarfs? or did he back down on that? I’m not sure.)
France can be France and everyone can adjust to the fact that the U.S. will be the U.S. not France Junior.

It is the same everywhere. People think that their way is the ‘right’ way. No compromising. No taking more than one idea and putting it with another to come up with a solution both sides can accept.

Chirac is afraid of being booted out of office because he will be charged with crimes. I don’t understand any law that protects someone from being charged because they hold a political office.
Just like I think these political amnesty deals are one of the worst things that was ever proposed and accepted.

bugcrazy:

Indeed. When I think of the soon-to-be-indicted Tom DeLay keeping his Post because the Republicans are changing the Rules just for him…

The Headscarves Issue was decided by the French Parliament. It is always an ignorant mistake to equate a Democratic Country to One Man.

Err. Just exactly when did George W. Bush ever compromise?

freddieflintstone:

I don’t think this Forum is for you. This place is for Intelligent Debate not petty name-calling. The fact that France is in combat in the Ivory Coast proves that their rifles were used. If I quoted the sheer number of “Warmongering Bush/Americans” quotes I found in the Internet without helping the Debate, I will be just like you. Childish and a Fool.

Julia:

Well Said.

I would like to comment on some points:

- The United Nations Organization was born at the Nuremberg Trial. It was created by the USA, UK, France, Russia and Germany so that never again a single nation could decide alone of the becoming of another nation. The Charter of the UN. established the United Nations Organization “to maintain peace and security…promoting respect for human rights.”

- As Aldous already wrote, saying the United Nations “haven’t accomplished anything” is for at least unfair. The UN has achieve a lot of great things in term of Human Rights and health care in the world (and could even have done a lot more if one or two nations have not so often opposed to UN resolutions.)

- Like with NATO, the United States used the United Nations as an intrument to further leverage the world to its own will. (that is, up until the megalomaniac ambition of the neo-cons to get control on everything in the world got a boost recently. “American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” - From a letter to then President Clinton in 1998 regarding Iraq from the Project for the New American Century. The letter was signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.)
See: The United States vs the World at the United Nations and 30 years of USA veto on U.N. Resolutions.

Note: During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein’s
use of chemcal weapons. 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.

- Saddam Hussein is a dictator, that’s a fact. Being a dictator mean to have recurse to the force if needed to silence any opposition. There is no point for a dictator to just “kill his own people” or destroy the nation he is leading on. Alongside the crimes Saddam comitted, he also did a lot FOR his country (did you know that he was once rewarded by the UNESCO for his alphabetization program ?). This is to say that YES, Saddam Hussein is a criminal, but we don’t have to overbid when we try to justify our own wrong doing.

- I also believe that the position of France on the war on Iraq is not just based on legal and humanitarian reasons. It’s a fact that France was one of the big business partner of Saddam Hussein
(he used to be USA’s friend too). It’s also a historical fact that France has for long claimed a place at the table of the Highest. Not as a subaltern of a superpower, but as a superpower itself. Thus the arrogance, sometimes, of its leader (Remember how Chirac pursue his nuclear testing despite the protests of the world ?). But the arguments that France used to oppose the war ARE morally and legally RIGHT.
Again, we don’t have to find what has been done bad or worst elsewhere to hide or deny what WE are doing bad.

- If we want to play honest and be more credible, we have to accept to stop protecting our confort and our pseudo clear conscience by all means, and admit that like anyone else, we have to assume our faults.

Traveler, those are some good ideas, and you’re halfway to the reality of the UN,

I think the UN itself is conflicted on whether it’s a world government or not. It makes resolutions it expects countries to obey, but it has no way of enforcing them.

Your missing piece is the fact that none of those resolutions get passed unless the President of the United States wants them passed. We have a veto.

Re: the oil for food scandal, don’t forget that there were also several US corporations and private individuals with ties to President Bush involved. It will be interesting to find out when and what Negroponte knew about it. There’s speculation that the Security Council members knew what was going on, but didn’t do anything about it.

In General: The UN was created as a forum to resolve disputes between nations. Its primary function is to resolve conflicts between states and preserve the status quo.

In that context, there is no clear procedure for handling failed states and internal conflict. There is nothing currently in the UN charter that would justify an invasion of a sovereign nation (like Iraq) for humanitarian reasons short of genocide - gassing a few thousand Kurds doesn’t count as genocide.

What really needs to happen at the UN is an agreement on how to handle failed states and rogue states like Saddam’s Iraq and North Korea. The UN as an organization needs to reconcile its charter to protect the sovereignty of its member states with the reality that some of regimes running those states don’t deserve to exist.

AP,

“The UN as an organization needs to reconcile its charter to protect the sovereignty of its member states with the reality that some of regimes running those states don’t deserve to exist.”

I think that’s why we made the distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan that we were fighting only the governments, not the people. It’s not that the states don’t deserve to exist; it’s the governments that run them.
Iraq and Afghanistan are still sovereign nations with their own governments.

I don’t like the idea of a nation having a veto either, as long as the resolutions are not considered “international law.” That smacks too much of world government.
That’s also why I think the resolutions should be made by the nations or factions in question, with the others just there for input. Something similar actually happened earlier today in the Sudan. It’ll be interesting to see how that turns out…

AP,
You did say it’s “the regimes running those states” that don’t deserve to exist, not the states themselves. Sory I mis-read.

Is it not amazing that in the late ‘fifties,the John Birch Society was castigated by the liberal press for one of their major goals and famous bumper sticker……..

” U.N. get U.S. out ! “