Did everyone heard about Cuba???

[Seiyuuki]

They just got re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission after killing 78 "dissidents" in the past few weeks and refusing a request from the Human Rights Commission itself to go into Cuba and do a little look around.

[FallenAngel]

eh....Lybia is the chair of that Commission I think.

....not that anyone actually listens to the UN nowadays anyways. :D

[He219]

Seiyuuki:

Yeah, Shows you the ineptness of UN BUROCRACY at work. LYBIA chairing the UN Human Rights Commission with Cuba as member. Maybe Idi Amin will come out of retirement in France to be Honorary Spokesperson.. rofl

-He219

[yellowking]

They just got re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission after killing 78 "dissidents" in the past few weeks and refusing a request from the Human Rights Commission itself to go into Cuba and do a little look around.
Sheesh. Please get your facts straight. They didn't kill 78 dissidents in the past few weeks, they imprisoned 78 dissidents. Naturally, if they'd killed 78, they wouldn't have been re-elected (probably). :cantbeli:

(please note: this message contains sarcasm)

[budanski]

Further proof the U.S. needs to get out of the U.N.

[GazB]

"Further proof the U.S. needs to get out of the U.N."

Why, did they think the prisoners they have caged up in Cuba should have gotten them the position instead? :P :P :P

[Ichhabe]

budanski, please, please please oh sweet Lord allmighty please stop that "get out of UN". It was the USA that was the creator of the UN. It IS stated in New York. (Just to be sure, checking the map here,......)
YEAH!!! New York is in the USA. Man!!! Sometimes,....
Get real budanski, ok?!?

[Seiyuuki]

...It was the USA that was the creator of the UN. It IS stated in New York. (Just to be sure, checking the map here,......)
YEAH!!! New York is in the USA. Man!!!...

You are technically right and wrong, the USA wasn't alone. In 1942, representatives of the Allies, the World War 2 coalition of 26 nations fighting against Germany and Japan, signed a Declaration by United Nations accepting the principles of the Atlantic Charter. The declaration included the first formal use of the term United Nations, a name coined by President Roosevelt. About a year later, the four major Allies, U.S., U.K., Soviet Union, and China, agreed to establish a general international organization and they called it the United Nation. See...joint effort, it is irrelevent that the UN is in New York, U.S. because leaving the UN doesn't necessary mean we also evict the UN.

[Ichhabe]

You don't need to teach me that. I know the UN's history, and that socalled "joint effort". I still see the UN as an American invention, no matter what.

[Seiyuuki]

You don't need to teach me that. I know the UN's history, and that socalled "joint effort". I still see the UN as an American invention, no matter what.

Yes...and I know the history of slavery and the so called "evilness" of it, but I still see it as a good thing, no matter what. I know the history of murder and the so called "evilness" of it, but I still see it as a good thing, no matter what...see the trend...YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT IN SUPPORTING YOUR ARGUMENT, PREFERRING YOUR OPINION ABOVE THE FACT!!!

[budanski]

The U.N. has become a platform for anti-americanism. The resolutions and sanctions have no teeth, the oil for food programs are a scam with no oversight, and the councils have been a joke. I see Ichabe still supporting the League of Nations.

[Smoothie104]

Im vacationing in Cuba this summer, can't wait!

[Ichhabe]

Wasn't the Leauge of Nations also an American invention? hehe

[He219]

Ichhabe (einen Kopschmerzen):

The problem is that the UN has become a BOHEMATH of a BUROCRACY, INEPT at decisive decision making. As for Anti-Americanism, the UN platform is used by opponents of America to stall direct action through filibuster. A great example. France is (was) an ally of the United States (Btw., my passport is writter in English and in French). But in disagreement with the US over Iraq policy it elected to BLOCK any action through VETO rathen that abstention - wich would be the ALLY thing to do in disagreement.

IchHabe:
How did Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations fail and what part did France have with it -wrt WWI? Please enlighten me! p-)

-He219

[Ichhabe]

Ichhabe (einen Kopschmerzen):



-He219

Making fun of my nick, wich I'm quite proud of, really make me want to go on....

[He219]

Please forgive my rude behavior, Ichabe!

I have (a headache) should not be taken as a personal attack. Literally, people are very upset at the devisions within the UN to be productive and effective. An analogy was attempted.

I understand your point of view, we must work with our fellow nations on this earth to avoid stereotying and falling into categories of us and them.

But how do you propose reforming the UN to become a more effective organization. How do you stop Allies like France from using their Veto as an vote against America's right to Pre-emtive self-defence in the wake of 9-11? How can you justify Lybia, now about to pay 2 Billion Dollars as compensation for State Sponsored Terrorism in the Lockerbie Bombing , as being ALLOWED to be in the position of being elected CHAIR of the UN Human Rights Commission with Cuba as a Re-elected member?
This is why some people are promoting a pullout.

Again, my appologies, Ichhabe! Your input is valuable in an open forum, just like democracy recognizes a persons ability to object. p-)

-He219

[papabear]

If you don't mind the source, here's Pat Buchanan's analysis of why the League of Nations failed:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_10_03/buchanan.html

[papabear]

You don't need to teach me that. I know the UN's history, and that socalled "joint effort". I still see the UN as an American invention, no matter what.

The principles behind the founding of the UN is more likely to be found in Western liberalism and the Enlightenment. America contributed its political weight and prestige and, more importantly, money, to get the UN going.

[papabear]

Further proof the U.S. needs to get out of the U.N.

Budanski's sentiment is echoed by Charles Krauthammer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1196-2003Mar20.html

[He219]

Nice Article, Papabear!


Why resurrect it after the war? When not destructive, as on Iraq, it is useless, as on North Korea. China has blocked the Security Council from even meeting to deal with North Korea's brazen nuclear breakout. On this one, the Security Council wants the United States to unilaterally engage North Korea -- this amid daily excoriations of the United States for "unilateralism."

The hypocrisy is stunning. But the deeper issue is that the principal purpose of the Security Council is not to restrain tyrants but to restrain the United States.

woot
Excellent!

-He219

[budanski]

Even better....


Tom DeLay: U.S. Should Leave U.N.
One of the most powerful Republicans in Congress said Thursday that the United Nations is now so irrelevant that the U.S. should withdraw from the world body.

Reacting to ex-President Bill Clinton's statement in Mexico yesterday that the Iraq war shouldn't become a precedent for weakening the U.N., House Majority Leader Tom Delay said, "I don't know that you can weaken the U.N. any more."

"They're weakening themselves and, in my opinion, have completely made themselves irrelevant," he told national radio host Sean Hannity.

"If that's the case should we pull out, then?" Hannity asked.

Delay responded, "Well, I'd like to. I've never been a big fan of the United Nations."

"I don't think it serves us at all," the Texas Republican continued. "We can create different kinds of multilateral organizations that bring people together. The only thing that's important that the United Nations provides is actually getting countries to sit down and talk to each other."

DeLay said that the U.N. had deteriorated into "a huge bureaucracy" that "just ties everybody in knots and no decisions can be made. It is doomed to failure. It has failed. And to me it's totally irrelevant."

DeLay was equally critical of ex-president Clinton for his comments endorsing a prominent role for the U.N. in world affairs.

"For Bill Clinton, of all people - the biggest failed administration in our lifetime as far as international affairs is concerned, the president that faced terrorism one on one and did nothing about it, that caused a lot of the situations that we find ourselves in today - he has no credibility whatsoever to be making comments about what we should or shouldn't be doing."

DeLay is the highest ranking U.S. official so far to advocate that the U.S. withdraw from the U.N.

source:NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/5/1/175359)

[GazB]

The only problem with the UN is some people perception of what it is and what it should be.

Some seem to think it should be the worlds policeman, or bring democracy and peace to the world.

I ask you how can it do that... it doesn't spend 350 billion a year on military equipment, nor does it have its own armed force that it can control and use as it will.

"The U.N. has become a platform for anti-americanism. The resolutions and sanctions have no teeth, the oil for food programs are a scam with no oversight, and the councils have been a joke."

In what way? Of course sanctions and resolutions have not teeth for the reasons explained above.

"A great example. France is (was) an ally of the United States (Btw., my passport is writter in English and in French). But in disagreement with the US over Iraq policy it elected to BLOCK any action through VETO rathen that abstention - wich would be the ALLY thing to do in disagreement."

And if your friend said... hey lets go rob a bank, or do something really stupid, you'd back your friend right up to the electric chair wouldn't you?
If you were a good friend you'd disagree if you though they were doing something wrong.

" vote against America's right to Pre-emtive self-defence in the wake of 9-11?"

Hahahahahaha that is REALLY funny.
If it was true and Saddam was about to invade the US or fire ICBMs I doubt you would have had any problem. Just like you didn't have any problems in 1990 when obvious Iraqi agression in Kuwaite was addressed.
This time all we had to go on was the word of Bush, and his lacky Blair.
Even when you went in with the stated purpose of killing Saddam he doesn't seem to have used WMDs... even to protect himself... what does that tell you about his potential for being a threat in the future?

Right now there are US troops in Iraq. When they leave how long before the religious Shi'a take over... either demcratically through the next election or by force? Iran part two anyone? The Kurds will probably use this as an excuse to demand autonomy which will probably result in Turkey fighting a cross border war (Kurdistan consists of a part of Turkey, Northern Iraq and Iran), with US special forces possibly helping Kurds fight Iran, but not able to help them fight Turkey... a NATO member.

But no, the war is over and peace and democracy will spread through the region... the Kuwaitis had democracy for at least 30 sec before the monarchy took over again... shame they didn't spend more on defence than on their palaces... that are every bit as impressive as saddams former palaces.

"This is why some people are promoting a pullout."

While other people are thinking of pulling out because pwoerful countries are not bound by the UN... when they don't get the resolutions and mandates for use of force they want the bypass it and do what they want anyway... one of the purposes of the UN was to stop that from happening... ie protection of Sovereignty for the little countries.

If you want to talk about hipocracy, the US wants out of the UN now because it didn't rubber stamp its little escapades in the ME to ensure continued oil flow. Why are the arab states in the UN as anything that even looks sideways at the Israeli Government is vetoed by the US.

[EliteWolf]

:bash: :bash: :bash:
you guys got it all wrong, the US shouldnt leave the UN, we just need to boot out some of the 'bad blood', that includes lybia, sudan, iran, and if we got the time saudia arabia. and france btw, its not like they were any help in international affairs anyways.

[budanski]

Geriatric Teenagers (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson050203.asp)

Excerpted - click title for full article ^

Imagine a continent that collectively budgets very little on its own defense, instead finding protection in a distant and democratic superpower that pays rent for the privilege of basing troops, planes, and ships to stop hooligans - sometimes, as in the case of an embarrassingly impolite Mr. Milosevic, right on Europe's doorstop.

In return, many European elites ridicule American values, naïveté, and insularity - even as their countries have raked in billions of American dollars in trade surpluses and tourism from mostly oblivious, aw-shucks Americans.

[fng]

Thanks for the link. That was outstanding.

[GazB]

"you guys got it all wrong, the US shouldnt leave the UN, we just need to boot out some of the 'bad blood', "

Like I said, there are many who don't understand what the UN is.

Elite Wolf seems to think it is just to let the US do what it wants around the world... a gang of friends that support each other.

In reality it is an international forum for the worlds countries to have a say.

Funny that the US stands by rights like freedom of speech... except when it is freedom to disagree with the US.

If you think a good UN is a UN that does as it is told when it is told, then you don't belong...

"Imagine a continent that collectively budgets very little on its own defense, "

The fact that it has no defence threats doesn't give you any clue as to why that might be?

[budanski]

"
Funny that the US stands by rights like freedom of speech... except when it is freedom to disagree with the US.


Disagreeing is one thing. Having France sending diplomats to two African nations to undermine the U.S. is another. That to me does not seem like an act of an "ally." Not to mention that they would veto no matter what. An ally would have abstained.

[Ichhabe]

Yeah, totally agree on that budanski. It is a shame. Good allies do not do that. Good allies do not tap your phone or check your e-mail either. In fact, good allies do not spy on other allies. That would be bad, would'nt it budanski?
Like also ambassadours from friendly allied nations do NOT treathen a good allied country, eeh?

[He219]

Great article, Budanski!

Wow, I am surprised to see blatent Anti-Americanism right here in this forum.!

GazB wrote:

And if your friend said... hey lets go rob a bank, or do something really stupid, you'd back your friend right up to the electric chair wouldn't you? If you were a good friend you'd disagree if you though they were doing something wrong.

Nice attempt to explain how an Abstention is NOT a disagreement, hehehe.

Frances FLAT VETO IN ANY CASE is FAR MORE THAN A DISAGREEMENT - IT'S SUPPORT FOR SADDAM whilst the UN Security Council SHOULD have presented a UNITED FRONT to give TEETH to the previous TWELVE (12) UN RESOLUTIONS Iraq was not complying with.

As for the removal of Saddam compared to robbing a bank, you should check what side you are on, budddy. You would probably have vetoed removing HITLER because it would have upset the Balance of Power.

Ichhabe: If one is aiding or assisting an enemy, you are no longer an ally. You cross the line with more than disagreement. You will then be subject to being spyed upon or threatened as an ally of the enemy. If we find that there is more than disagreement, you are not a friend. It is clear in France's case. As for Germany, I doubt there was an exchange of goods or intelligence with Saddam. Its a shame that your Anti-Americanism would lead you to turn your back on the protector of Peace and Security since the removal of Hitler and the Soviet Threat that was leaning upon a divided Germany.

Eavesdropping is quite common in modern times. Just look at the Pollard case. Even the Russians gave detailed transcripts of Blair's meeting with Berlusconi to Saddam. Industrial espionage, etc.

Have a Nice Day (enjoying your Freedom)

p-)
-He219

[budanski]

Well, when you've got Joschka Fischer (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-pacepa021403.asp) as your foreign minister, you'd have to wonder.

[Ichhabe]

He219"]Great article, Budanski!

Wow, I am surprised to see blatent Anti-Americanism right here in this forum.!

Anti-Americanism is a word I do not like. That I have, or other for that matters have a different opinion than you, does not make us that. I know that some ppl are comming up with some rantin that so be. But Gazb, or I havent. It is just your American shades that want to see that.

Have a Nice Day (enjoying your Freedom)

He219

Enjoying your freedom!!??? As I've asked before. How long do you really mean that we shall kiss up your asses for that??? As I see, it was an allied joint operation that even my little country did some contribution (Norway)for the final score. A lot of nations together. It was not just the USA. OK??? And before you come up with a long answer. If I turn around and look at my bookshelves,.... Then I would see about 9 feet of world history. And among those 9 feet, at least 4 are about WW I and WW II.

And yes, I do God damn enjoying my freedom, cause I've contributet a great deal myself to do so. So please stop saying that, ok???

[He219]

Yeah, Ichhabe. I shouldn't call you Anti-American. Your tone just implies that. As for other ALLIES, yes - YOU ARE RIGHT. You know who our allies are right now, right?

MY USE of ANTI-AMERICANISM is not a blind 'us and them' term. I use it to make an analogy with militant anti-american policy sentiments posted here. But the real purpose is to verify that - inside you really embrace values and ideals we hold dear to democracy - and that a realization should be made that we are in this together. By taking offense it shows that you are indeed an Ally.

A true soldier prays for peace! Yet we must defend our values and not be lulled into complacency.

p-)
-He219

[He219]

Ichhabe wrote:

...even my little country did some contribution (Norway)for the final score.
Counterpoint:

"Nordland’s combat record is one of the best among the European Volunteer Divisions. They fought a cruel, unrelenting war against a cruel, unrelenting enemy; international Soviet Communism. As long as military exploits are recorded and extreme courage and devotion to duty are admired, the officers and men of the 11th SS Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier Division Nordland deserve to be remembered."

The following is a description of the End of European WWII operations with the fall of Berlin. April, 1945:


"By the 25th the final battles for the Spree and Teltow canal sectors had begun. SS-Brigadeführer Ziegler had begun to question the futility of his orders a few days prior, but when he was ordered to attack on the 25th, he refused and ordered the Division to go to radio silence. General Weidling, commander of LVI. Panzer Korps, removed Ziegler from command of Nordland. SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS Dr. Gustav Krukenberg, who had arrived with 300 French troops from 33 SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier Division Charlemagne, was named as Ziegler's successor.

The next day most of the survivors had been forced into the Government Quarter and exacted a punishing toll on the attacking Soviets when they forced their way into the ruins around the Reichstag on the 27th. Bitter fighting raged in the last few kilometers held by Berlin’s mixed bag of defenders though-out the 27th-30th of April.

At 2000 hours on the 30th the Norge and Danmark kampfgruppe commander, SS-Sturmbannführer Ternedde was called in by Krukenberg and given the news of Hitler's death. Ternedde was given orders to take the survivors and breakout of the ruined city. In the event, very few made it to safety. Others were caught up in the last few hours of the defense of the Reichstag and other government buildings.

By May 1, 1945 the Soviets had overcome the last defenders of the Reichstag and organized resistance in the ruined city no longer existed. As dusk settled on May 2nd the few survivors of Nordland and the rest of the exhausted Berlin garrison, some 130,000, marched into Soviet captivity. Very few would survive to see the homelands they fought so hard for. Those Nordland elements that were separated surrendered to the Americans and British. Those volunteers that survived this ordeal were handed over to their countries reconstituted "Democratic" governments where they faced long prison sentences, and in some cases, torture and death. The Germans in Nordland, who surrendered to the Allies, faced starvation disease and death in Eisenhower’s DEF (Disarmed Enemy Forces) death camps."
From http://www.geocities.com/frontkjemper/Nordlandhistory.htm

About DEF: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/EasternGermany/Gotha/ http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bacque
Counterpoint by Stephen Ambrose: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bacque-james/ambrose-001.html

So Ichhabe, the contribution goes both ways. And to say...

How long do you really mean that we shall kiss up your asses for that???
I'm not asking you to. But it would be nice to get a little support when the US is looking towards it's current interests after having defended European interests against a Soviet threat following a 'large contribution in WWII'.

Don't become complacent when freedom is threatened by waiting for another 767 to kill 3,000 innocent people. I enjoy my freedom and will fight to preserve it. Enjoy yours!

p-)
-He219

[Knave]

IchHabe:
How did Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations fail and what part did France have with it -wrt WWI? Please enlighten me! p-)


The LON failed because two of the largest countries in the world - the United States and the USSR - did not ratify the treaty and thus were not members. The League lacked any real clout..... Germany pulled out of the Treaty as well.....

Some noteable failiures of the LON came in Abyssinia, when the Italians launched a war against the largely backward and poorly-equipped army of that country. The Italians used poison gas and other such banned items, and the LON stood by and did nothing but wag a finger at the Italians.

In Manchuria, the Japanese invaded under the weakest of pretenses and set up a puppet government. They sacked cities, raped and pillaged... and again, the LON did nothing.

Finally, the Spanish Civil War broke out and the LON adopted a policy of "Non-Intervention", declaring the war an internal matter. That didn't stop Franco from soliciting help from his Fascist brethren in Italy and Germany, who sent thousands of troops, tanks, materiel, and an air force..... so much that, in effect, Franco's Nationalists would have lost the war without the support they recieved. On the other side of the Civil War, the Republicans got help from the Soviets and some manpower in the form of International Brigades, made up of Britons, Americans, Canadians.... etc; mostly adventurers and the like.

Basically, by the time Hitler had annexed Austria and squeezed Czechoslovakia out of existance, the LON had disappeared...... and then came the Second World War.

[Ichhabe]

What is wrong with you He 219??? Do you eat Rattle snake meat on a daily basis?

It work both ways?!? Man, you have a nerve!

In fact, I'm speechless, can't think of nothing to say without using some real harsh language.

Bringing in those voulenteers were way under the belt. But what could one expect from people of your kind.

And I'm still enjoying my God damn well earned freedom, no thanks to you. I've done my darn friggin bit.

P.S! And btw, I never seen the Soviet Union as a treath, EVER!!!
Only paranoid idiots have done that!

[He219]

Knave:
Nice posting about the LON!

To me the moral of the story is that the LON failed due to to lack of Unified Action to stop an escalation of events from Italy's attack on Hale Salase(Sp?), Japan's subjugative establishment of a 'Buffer' in Manchuria against Mao Dsedung(Sp?) to Hitler's unchecked expansion leading into Poland. Unified Action by it's members was necessary rather than the 'allowance' through national self-interest. Thanks for pointing out that the US and USSR were not participants in the LON.

However I do not believe that it was soley the US and USSR's lack of participation in the LON that caused it's demise. I believe it was also the inaction of the LON's members to be a Credible Unified force that spelled it's demise. I was also attempting to draw a parallel to the UN's Dis-Unified Enforcement of Iraq Policy wrt France's Blind Veto for Any military consequense or Resolution Against Iraq Whatsoever. And I withdraw the statement asking to show a parallel wrt France and the Fall of the LON. I believe I just answered that one. I am now enlightened! hehe

Ichhabe:

No, I have never tried eating snake. Pointing out Norway's contribution to another side of WWII makes me 'Wrong' or something? Touched a nerve have I? The only 'harsh' language I used is the historical account of Norwegian fighters - that you do not like to hear.

People of 'my kind', whatever you may be implying, like to use historical facts as a counterpoint. Therefore I believe it was not 'below the belt' because the facts may have been omitted in your '9 feet of world history'.

Aslo, the Soviet Union was a threat to Finnish independence, a country near you. I believe that it was not paranoya when the USSR attempted to gain West Berlin through military might (Thus the Berlin Airlift).

Should I not be using historical fact to counterpoint your statements? I believe that we must be vigilant in defending our values. Doing my part doesn't stop.

p-)
-He219

[budanski]

Continental Contempt

The ****ouncement was typically French - simmered in disdain and served with a sneer: "He is stupid to us. That's it. I mean, he doesn't know anything," Parisian radio drone Jerome Godefroy opined of the American president. "We don't trust him because we think he's not a very smart guy." This brought to you by the sophisticated lot who started a war by storming a jail and finished another by bolting the shutters and whimpering for American aid. Their contributions of the past two centuries include quiche and the guillotine.

Across the European continent, contempt is the latest fashion to catwalk the runways. No matter that Italy can't remember which constitution we're reading from today, Britain's just sent Thatcherism to a rest home, and the Netherlands are busy exterminating grandma. They are so much more cosmopolitan, more cultured, more progressive than we.

American bumpkins, preoccupied with building a prosperous and stable democracy - interrupted by intervals to rescue Europe from her wars - apparently neglected some of the finer points of civilization. Thankfully, it's not too late for remedial lessons -- courtesy of the continent that gave us communism and fascism, two world wars, and such colorful characters as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tito, Franco and Ceausescu. Extra credit for studying mature nation-building, Yugoslavian-style.

They call it "Euro-envy," that longing gaze American elites cast toward Europe's through the basement birthrates and through the stratosphere taxes. Perhaps we regret not sharing an EU-style police force with Mexico or a joint constitution with Canada. Or maybe we yearn for the sharp political acumen that motivates protests against genetically modified food while the friendly neighborhood dictator stockpiles North Korean missiles.

Truth is, Europe's elder statesman act is wearing thin. A continent of empty cradles and emptier churches knows little of cultural potency. And a confederation that relies on allies an ocean away to handle conflicts in its own backyard is no authority on global affairs.

Writing in USA Today, Richard Benedetto reasoned, "The fact that the bodies of thousands of American soldiers whose young lives were cut short saving Europe from Nazi horror lie in cemeteries in France, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands should be reason enough to receive any U.S. president with respect." Add a measure of Marshall Plan sweat and the maintenance of an ongoing 300,000-troop standing defense and you might expect a welcome mat if not a red carpet. Instead, Mr. Bush was handed a page from Count Cavour's playbook. When asked in 1859 what he planned for the newly unified Italy, the Count responded, "We will astonish the world with our ingratitude."

Indeed. Remind us once more whose manners need refining.

kinda like a poodle telling a rottwieler how to be a dog.

[Bing]

would anyone argue that the UN is deteriorating into the league of nations?

[Ichhabe]

He 219; No, you did not strike a nerve when you used the "prove" of other Norwegian contribution during WW II.
I am not ashamed as an Norwegian knowing that 5000 of my countrymen choosed the other side in WW II. And I don't have to be.

My reaction came when you, after first posting an answer, suddenly throw in "evidence" about Norwegians in German service. I see by the links that you've cruised the Internet a bit to find those proves. You did'nt bother to find what other contributions made by Norway to the Allied side? Have you by the way heard of Operation Grouse?

Just to quote Roosevelt; Look to Norway! hehe.

But to end this little debate/argument; Norway is a very small country in the world. We do our best with what we got. Sometimes we do wrong, sometimes we do right. Whatever we do, most of it will never be known in the outside world. I see no need to stand on a hill and shout and bragg of what we've done. It would'nt help anyway.

(For your information, I collect everything in written, film and pictural format about Norwegian voulenteers to the German side. Because I think it is important not to forget that dark part of my country's WW II-history.)

[cut]

pat buchanan's views are one sided (obviously seeming as the sight is called american conservative).

To cut a long story short:

the league of nations was not a total failure, but it did fail in preventing another "great war" (WWII), this was because the U.K. and France could never see eye to eye and because the US did not take part, thus removing some of the credibility of the league of nations.

If the US decides to ignore the UN it will be making the same mistake as in the 1920s leading to more war if not another global war.
Now I know that the "war junkies" on this site wouldn't mind seeing that happen, but the fact is Britain certainly is no longer protected by being an island and almost certainly the US won't be for long either.

What I've said here may not be total clear or foolproof but I'm sure I can argue this, especially since I've got an exam in International Relations and International History next week..

[GazB]

Disagreeing is one thing. Having France sending diplomats to two African nations to undermine the U.S. is another. That to me does not seem like an act of an "ally."

Oh how precious you are. Here I was thinking the US was this strong powerful country that tries to help others, but here you are egg shell fragile and wanting to lash out like a child.

Do you really think French diplomats could convince any country that didn't want to help the US to not help them. Had it ever crossed your mind that rather than changing the minds of those African Nations all they did was say... whatever the US threatens to do to you financially we can help you out.

"An ally would have abstained."

Germany didn't have a vote, yet they were vocal in their support of France as was Russia. Why are you singling out France?

They have more responsiblity than to just do as the US wants. They have a responsiblity to the French People and as UNSC member to the world.

The US had not justified its request to invade a soverign country, and still hasn't. Friendship works both ways... if France was opposed to such action why didn't the US explore properly other options... what was the rush to invade?

"Frances FLAT VETO IN ANY CASE is FAR MORE THAN A DISAGREEMENT - IT'S SUPPORT FOR SADDAM whilst the UN Security Council SHOULD have presented a UNITED FRONT to give TEETH to the previous TWELVE (12) UN RESOLUTIONS Iraq was not complying with. "

If the US wanted a united front in the UN perhaps it should have waited till it had at least half of the UNSC support before trying to act tough and like the world was behind it. The truth is the world was not behind them. The vague possibility that some time in the future Saddam might be a threat is hardly a reason to go to war.

The amount the US bleets on about the 3,000 it lost on 11/9 suggests it might have some understanding of what war means, but no, it is the other side that feels that side of things... perhaps that nut lecturer might have been right and another vietnam might have been healthy for the US.

"As for the removal of Saddam compared to robbing a bank, you should check what side you are on, budddy. You would probably have vetoed removing HITLER because it would have upset the Balance of Power. "

How can you compare Hitler to Saddam. Saddam was an amatuer by comparison. Also what time scale are you using. Most Americans thought Hitler was a rather good leader in the late thirties.. he had certainly dragged Germany out of a terrible depression. He also didn't like the Commies. There were many ties between the US and Germany... like IBM... early computers were mainly used by governments for gathering census data at the time... how else do you think the Jews were rounded up so easily?

"If one is aiding or assisting an enemy, you are no longer an ally. "

Hardly aiding and assisting. They were just going to veto US and UK attemtps to invade.

"You will then be subject to being spyed upon or threatened as an ally of the enemy."

Hahahaha... yes Echelon was just put in place this year... it hasn't been spying upon America's allies all these years...


Enjoying your freedom!!??? As I've asked before. How long do you really mean that we shall kiss up your asses for that??? As I see, it was an allied joint operation that even my little country did some contribution (Norway)for the final score. A lot of nations together. It was not just the USA. OK??? And before you come up with a long answer. If I turn around and look at my bookshelves,.... Then I would see about 9 feet of world history. And among those 9 feet, at least 4 are about WW I and WW II.

And yes, I do God damn enjoying my freedom, cause I've contributet a great deal myself to do so. So please stop saying that, ok???

Quite right Ichabe. The fact that the US decided to join a war only after they were attacked suggests who they were really fighting for. Yes they should get some credit for fighting, but they did not fight alone. I lost many family members in WWII and they weren't killed on the sidelines... they fought too.


I'm not asking you to. But it would be nice to get a little support when the US is looking towards it's current interests after having defended European interests against a Soviet threat following a 'large contribution in WWII'.


So the US defending itself during WWII and helping fight Germany and Japan means we should support the US, no matter who they want to invade... sorry such blind loyalty leads to Hitlers and Stalins getting into power.
If you want us to give up thinking for ourselves or our own interests... sure we'll do it... as soon as Saddam attacks New Zealand territory.


I believe that it was not paranoya when the USSR attempted to gain West Berlin through military might (Thus the Berlin Airlift).


West Berlin could have been Soviet at any time. They didn't have to give up Austria either. The plain facts are that the West was militarising their parts of Berlin and West Germany violating wartime agreements. (in reaction to the berlin wall etc which were essentially police actions to prevent defections).

[budanski]

Oh how precious you are. Here I was thinking the US was this strong powerful country that tries to help others, but here you are egg shell fragile and wanting to lash out like a child.

Do you really think French diplomats could convince any country that didn't want to help the US to not help them. Had it ever crossed your mind that rather than changing the minds of those African Nations all they did was say... whatever the US threatens to do to you financially we can help you out.

A powerful country still has to protect itself, but once supposed "ally" intentionally going out of their way to sideline its objective, it is then seen as a threat. The Soviets were our ally in WW2, yet they turned out to be on the opposite side of the Cold War with us. Its not just me that thinks that way, our State Dept. even thinks so. Colin Powell stated that there will be serious consquences taken against France. Its funny how you critics critizise how we should run our country when its us that is looking from above, down.


Germany didn't have a vote, yet they were vocal in their support of France as was Russia. Why are you singling out France?

They have more responsiblity than to just do as the US wants. They have a responsiblity to the French People and as UNSC member to the world.

The US had not justified its request to invade a soverign country, and still hasn't. Friendship works both ways... if France was opposed to such action why didn't the US explore properly other options... what was the rush to invade?

France gaullist policy was to alway try to restraint the U.S. They've publically stated that they wanted the EU to be a counterbalance to the US.

counterbalance
n 1: an equivalent counterbalancing weight [syn: counterweight, counterpoise, balance, equalizer, equaliser] 2: equality of distribution [syn: balance, equilibrium, equipoise] 3: a compensating equivalent [syn: offset] v 1: make up for, make good [syn: compensate, even out, even off, even up] 2: place in opposition: can also be used in an abstract sense; "Oppose thy steadfast gazing eyes to mine"- Shakespeare [syn: oppose] 3: oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary actions; "This will counteract the foolish actions of my colleagues" [syn: counteract, countervail, neutralize]

(gee, that doesnt look like an ally)
Before, the U.S. has always brushed aside this. This time, like stated above, they went out of their way into trying to sideline the U.S.'s objective in disarming Saddam.

You think the French are so innocent as to protecting the UNSC responsibilities? oh pulease. Lets see, its obvious OIL contracts was a big reason for France to oppose, aiding Saddam's regime with illegal weapons, and no to mention France has never once asked UN permission to send troops out to Africa, ie: Ivory Coast, Algeria, etc. Have you forgotten? Some 250 conflicts have occured worldwide since the UN's inception, of that only 2 were given an ok by the SC. Korea and Gulf War 1. You tell me who gave the oks to the rest.

"Rush to invade" You sound like a marxist blowpipe. The numerous santions passed were ignored. This was what, 12 years? I hardly call that a rush. At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceasefire agreement, they werent met, Gulf War 2 is a continuation of that.

[He219]

GazB wrote:
Do you really think French diplomats could convince any country that didn't want to help the US to not help them
:) The French convincing somebody in something they believe..hehe

And about meeting with African Governments to Bolck a Vote..
GazB wrote:
all they did was say... whatever the US threatens to do to you financially we can help you out
Name the source that makes you that sure on that one!

GazB wrote:
Germany didn't have a vote, yet they were vocal in their support of France as was Russia. Why are you singling out France?
France, not Germany has a vote in the security council - as you mentioned yourself. It was France that threatened A VETO IN ANY CASE. Russia threatened a veto IF a new relosution sanctioned military force.

GazB wrote:
They have more responsiblity than to just do as the US wants. They have a responsiblity to the French People and as UNSC member to the world. Sounds to me like you pointed out some of France's Self Interests. Is the US entitled to pursue it's self-interests too? How do you protect each other's self-interests - while FRANCE threatens a BLIND VETO enforcing 12 years and SEVENTEEN un-enforced resolutions? What you write is that France is entitled to IT'S self-interest with a BLIND VETO within the WORLD BODY while the US is wrong to pursue it's self-interest outside of the WORLD BODY. Hypocracy!

GazB wrote:
If the US wanted a united front in the UN perhaps it should have waited till it had at least half of the UNSC support before trying to act tough and like the world was behind it. The truth is the world was not behind them. The vague possibility that some time in the future Saddam might be a threat is hardly a reason to go to war.

Look at all the ammunition you have given me!! 'Waited another 12 years or until New Jersy is attacked? France, Russia, Germany and the Islamic Nations were not behind enforcing UN Resolutions Militarily. That's not the world and what you say is not the truth. Saddam and Islamic Extremism IS A THREAT to all freedom loving persons. Disprove it!

GazB wrote:
..... perhaps that nut lecturer might have been right and another vietnam might have been healthy for the US
What Nut Lecturer? 'Perhaps'.. healthy? You sound Anti-American in any case and any means to suit your purpose. Are You?

GazB wrote:
Hahahaha... yes Echelon was just put in place this year... it hasn't been spying upon America's allies all these years... What are you saying. Elaborate. Prove that the US was responsible for placing 'bugs'.

Did the USSR squach Hungarian independence with TANKS and GUNS. I think so.

GazB, your opinions are blind, without reference and Anti-American. Disprove that.

p-)
-He219

[cut]

Sounds to me like you pointed out some of France's Self Interests. Is the US entitled to pursue it's self-interests too? How do you protect each other's self-interests - while FRANCE threatens a BLIND VETO enforcing 12 years and SEVENTEEN un-enforced resolutions? What you write is that France is entitled to IT'S self-interest with a BLIND VETO within the WORLD BODY while the US is wrong to pursue it's self-interest outside of the WORLD BODY. Hypocracy!

wasn't this BLIND veto a response to the US' BLIND threat of war no matter what iraq did?

Iraq was destroying missiles that couldn't make it to israel for f***'s sake.

They were no more of a threat then Iran

What about Pakistan?, it has nuclear weapons, is rapidly becomming a fundamentalist islamic state and is run by drug barons and a corrupt army. And you say Saddam is more of a threat?

[budanski]

Sounds to me like you pointed out some of France's Self Interests. Is the US entitled to pursue it's self-interests too? How do you protect each other's self-interests - while FRANCE threatens a BLIND VETO enforcing 12 years and SEVENTEEN un-enforced resolutions? What you write is that France is entitled to IT'S self-interest with a BLIND VETO within the WORLD BODY while the US is wrong to pursue it's self-interest outside of the WORLD BODY. Hypocracy!

wasn't this BLIND veto a response to the US' BLIND threat of war no matter what iraq did?

Iraq was destroying missiles that couldn't make it to israel for f***'s sake.

They were no more of a threat then Iran

What about Pakistan?, it has nuclear weapons, is rapidly becomming a fundamentalist islamic state and is run by drug barons and a corrupt army. And you say Saddam is more of a threat?

US' blind threat to make Iraq abide to resolutions passed by the Security Council? Where is the U.S. wrong again?

Yes, they were destroying missles, THEY WERENT SUPPOSE TO HAVE, need more evidence into going in?

Pakistan? Pakistan wasnt implemented in Resolution 1441. nor has any resolution by passed against Pakistan to abide by. Last I checked, Pakistan wasnt a signatory on the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire. My bad, is this a case of the U.S. rewriting history again?

[a. enders]

I bet I can boild this argument down.Let's give it a shot.

Americans:Euro's (French,German,Russian,whatever/whoever opposed the US war on IRaq) BAD!They want to destroy our freedoms and our country!They want to be the leaders of our nation!I will listen to everything that's told me and never give a Euro argument the time of day!


Euros:Americans BAD!They are imperialists who want to psread Americanized democracy across the globe!They want to take over all the oil-supplying countries in the world!I will listen to everything that's told me and never give an American argument the time of day!


Sounds about right.Yep. rofl

[cut]

British: You're both wrong :D

[cut]

wasn't this BLIND veto a response to the US' BLIND threat of war no matter what iraq did?

Iraq was destroying missiles that couldn't make it to israel for f***'s sake.

They were no more of a threat then Iran

What about Pakistan?, it has nuclear weapons, is rapidly becomming a fundamentalist islamic state and is run by drug barons and a corrupt army. And you say Saddam is more of a threat?

US' blind threat to make Iraq abide to resolutions passed by the Security Council? Where is the U.S. wrong again?[/quote]
Iraq did everything to avoid the war no matter what they did the US and Britain said it wasn't enough. Everyone apart from you guys it seems knew Bush was going to attack iraq even if Saddam got rid of his entire army



Yes, they were destroying missles, THEY WERENT SUPPOSE TO HAVE, need more evidence into going in?
they were legal until the UN (being biased towards the US and Britain) changed the distance.
And the al-sammouds only violated it if they were carrying warheads


Pakistan? Pakistan wasnt implemented in Resolution 1441. nor has any resolution by passed against Pakistan to abide by. Last I checked, Pakistan wasnt a signatory on the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire. My bad, is this a case of the U.S. rewriting history again?

of course it wasn't because they helped Bush out for afghanistan and there's no oil in Pakistan :P

[budanski]

Iraq did everything to avoid the war no matter what they did the US and Britain said it wasn't enough. Everyone apart from you guys it seems knew Bush was going to attack iraq even if Saddam got rid of his entire army

Under the umbrella of the U.S. War on Terrorism, the first step was to get the house in order. Lets see, whos not abiding by the rules set upon them that is a threat to U.S. national security. Iraq fits the bill for now. If Iraq had nothing to hide, there was no excuse for them to eject the inspectors in the first place. The U.S. sees that the decade old cat and mouse game will have to be dealt with and this was the case for it. He's not playing by the rules, lets take him out so that we can move on to the next theater on this war on terrorism. Where is the U.S. wrong again? What country has not taken steps to nuetralise a threat to their national security.


they were legal until the UN (being biased towards the US and Britain) changed the distance.
And the al-sammouds only violated it if they were carrying warheads
Wrong. Resolutions were already in place prior to the missles being built. I don't remember the U.S. changin the rules in the middle of the game. If that were the case, why didnt the U.S. just pass a resolution on anything that when "bang."


of course it wasn't because they helped Bush out for afghanistan and there's no oil in Pakistan
ya, and we went into afghanistan for their vast oil fields. :roll:
going back to oil conspiracy theory again? how simple minded. NO BLOOD FOR OIL, better suited towards France and Russia.

[cut]

Under the umbrella of the U.S. War on Terrorism, the first step was to get the house in order. Lets see, whos not abiding by the rules set upon them that is a threat to U.S. national security. Iraq fits the bill for now. If Iraq had nothing to hide, there was no excuse for them to eject the inspectors in the first place. The U.S. sees that the decade old cat and mouse game will have to be dealt with and this was the case for it. He's not playing by the rules, lets take him out so that we can move on to the next theater on this war on terrorism
we kinda agree then? (there's nothing against what I said)



Where is the U.S. wrong again? it's not wrong so it's gotta be right?


What country has not taken steps to nuetralise a threat to their national security most havn't gone to war for it




ya, and we went into afghanistan for their vast oil fields. :roll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm :D



going back to oil conspiracy theory again? how simple minded. NO BLOOD FOR OIL, better suited towards France and Russia.

no the russians and the french make out that it's the whole deal, not that they really belive that, like the US and WMD.

what I'm saying is that oil is not the cause (what the french and arabs say), I'm saying it's not that simple. But OIL is definately a factor.

the only reason the western world give two ****s about the middle east is because of the oil, and it's the only reason the middle eastern countries aren't having the same problem as their african counterparts.

[He219]

Thanks a. enders for that bit of levity. It is appreciated! Cut, your postings are witty and substantive. You make an enjoyable chat person. You use examples to back up your rhetoric, unlike others.

Oil and Gas interests are DEFINATELY a factor, on both sides. Yes, it's a shame that Africa is left to deal in Diamonds only. The genocide in Rawanda was totally overlooked by everyone's self-interest. Especially the world body.

As for "most havn't gone to war for it" - It's because 'they' leave it to the US military to do it for 'them', that is, until we stop doing it for 'them'. Let them spend the ZILLIONS of dollars or euros to buy their own defence. We could use it in or own economy than 'them' saving money for 'their's.

And Pakistan is not under Fundamentalist rule, only a quasi-dictatorship that caters to our BIG STICK self-interests! I see that system of alliances thing all over again. Join us and steer free of the dark side! hehehe

Really Cut, at least you have a sense of humor!

p-)
-He219

[cut]

You say that pakistan isn't now but I can promise you it would be if it weren't for the military.. The fundamentalist parties have already won local elections especially in regions close to afghanistan. and the "rough" areas in the east controlled by drug barons and alike are also leaning towards islamic fundamentalism.

Last year Indians were pissed with the US because although the US said it was fighting global terrorism it ignored Pakistan, which supported a terrorist attack on the Indian parliament just weeks after 9/11. But on the other hand if the US had intervened it would definately be seen as hunting down islamic countries.


As for "most havn't gone to war for it" - It's because 'they' leave it to the US military to do it for 'them', that is, until we stop doing it for 'them'. Let them spend the ZILLIONS of dollars or euros to buy their own defence. We could use it in or own economy than 'them' saving money for 'their's

I agree, but to be honest Europe is still playing catch up to the states.If the EU gets closer instead of going opposite ways the wholetime, then maybe they could do their own policing.

Also it has to be said that the US is new to dealing with terrorists compared to Britain, Spain and even France. So there is a lot less panic here, and conflicts like the iraq seems less like a straight forward action to take because of that, hence protests etc.

I remember as far back as 15 years ago arriving at heathrow airport near london and seeing policemen with mp5s everytime there was a flight from tel aviv. on monday there was a bomb alert at victoria while I was there, it's more routine here.

[GazB]

"A powerful country still has to protect itself,"

Do you really think if there was any real threat to the US from Iraq that France would not support you?
Please!
After Desert Storm and 12 years of Sanctions Iraq was in no condition to threaten is neighbours let alone the US or UK.

This had nothing to do with defence of any kind and you know it.

""ally" intentionally going out of their way to sideline its objective, it is then seen as a threat. "

A threat of what? Not becoming an Imperialistic state that feels the need to impose its will and "civilised culture" on the little poor countries? I think France and the UK should know a little more about that than the US, and I can understand the French attitude, but am disappointed in the British.

"The Soviets were our ally in WW2, yet they turned out to be on the opposite side of the Cold War with us."

They weren't an ally in the real sense of the word, you had very little in common. You just happened to be fighting against the same opponents.
You could have been allies afterwards, but that would have taken too much work. Hate is easier.

"Its not just me that thinks that way, our State Dept. even thinks so."

That is what bothers me, I can understand Joe on the street not understanding world politics, but the State department should know better.
(Don't mean anything personal by that)

"Its funny how you critics critizise how we should run our country when its us that is looking from above, down."

Since when does trying to steam roller the UNSC into rubber stamping an invasion of Iraq have anything to do with running your country?


"France gaullist policy was to alway try to restraint the U.S. They've publically stated that they wanted the EU to be a counterbalance to the US.

<snip>

(gee, that doesnt look like an ally)
Before, the U.S. has always brushed aside this. This time, like stated above, they went out of their way into trying to sideline the U.S.'s objective in disarming Saddam. "

And current US policy is that they are the last superpower and that the might of their military and economic and political power will be used to maintain that position at all cost... gee what a great ally you are!!! ...not to mention how evil the French are for wanting to raise Europe to where you are... the ba$tards...

I am sure if they had the stated goal of just giving up all responsibility and letting the US remain powerful and do everything you'd accuse them of not spending enough on defence... or have you already done that? Can't have it both ways buddy.


"You think the French are so innocent as to protecting the UNSC responsibilities?"

Even a brief look at their history shows they are many things, but innocent is not one of them. Their role on the UNSC is no longer to vote against whatever the commies try to do and vote for whatever the US wants... now they can think about it... are you criticising them for that?

...lets start burning books then... and lock up anyone who thinks.


"and no to mention France has never once asked UN permission to send troops out to Africa, ie: Ivory Coast, Algeria, etc. Have you forgotten? "

They were protecting their own citizens in most cases, which they have the right to do... the only countries they send troops to are former colonies of France... and they generally protect their own people, not invade and change governments.

"You tell me who gave the oks to the rest. "

The role of the UN is not to legitimise war. However if you claim the main purpose to invade a country is to uphold UN resolutions you should at least get permission from the UN to do it.

""Rush to invade" You sound like a marxist blowpipe."

What is a marxist blowpipe?

"At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceasefire agreement, they werent met, Gulf War 2 is a continuation of that."

The objective of Desert Storm was not to remove Saddam from power, it was to liberate Kuwaite. The Ceasefire agreement was a joke... why should Iraq be the only country in the region without WMDs?

"Name the source that makes you that sure on that one! "

Tell me what else they could have said? ...vote with us or we'll bomb you?


"France, not Germany has a vote in the security council - as you mentioned yourself. It was France that threatened A VETO IN ANY CASE. Russia threatened a veto IF a new relosution sanctioned military force. "

Ahhh, so in the case of France and Germany you can disagree but don't try to stop us. Russias threat to veto if a resolution sanctioned military force, means they would veto... the whole point of the second resolution was to get premission to use force in the form of an invasion, so in effect the Russians were always going to veto, and so were the French... but the French are considered allies, so I guess that means the Russians must still be evil commies that can't be trusted?

"What you write is that France is entitled to IT'S self-interest with a BLIND VETO within the WORLD BODY while the US is wrong to pursue it's self-interest outside of the WORLD BODY. Hypocracy! "

The whole push to get a second resolution was to justify this US policy to get saddam... ie self interest. The fact that it was clear that the French were going to stop the US using the UN as a tool of its own self interest, because that may or may not have conflicted with France's self interests is Poetic Irony. Neither interests were served though the use of the UN... the US didn't get its rubber stamp and therefore surrogate world support (which in reality it never had, but would have claimed to have had if the UN had done as it was told), but it did invade Iraq anyway, to the cost of France's self interests.

But now the big powerful US has to punnish France.. what a joke.

"Look at all the ammunition you have given me!! 'Waited another 12 years or until New Jersy is attacked? France, Russia, Germany and the Islamic Nations were not behind enforcing UN Resolutions Militarily. That's not the world and what you say is not the truth. Saddam and Islamic Extremism IS A THREAT to all freedom loving persons. Disprove it! "

What are you smoking? Add China and India who also opposed the attack and you have a very large percentage of the worlds pop against this attack.
Saddam has nothing to do with Islamic extremism. It was only in the last 5 years that he has even appeared on TV praying. OBL has about as much love for Saddam as he has for George Bush. When the US said they were defintiely going to invade, remember the little video message Osama released? Sure the Western media were more interested in finding out if it was authentic or not... but if you listened to it he said the Iraqi people should rise up against the Americans AND Saddam!

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had more ties to OBL than Sadddam... Geez, America did more to help OBL... they trained the pilots and provided the planes they used!

"You sound Anti-American in any case and any means to suit your purpose. Are You?"

No, America has done some great things, it has also done some very bad things but more often than not for the right reasons.

It is funny, anyone who criticises the US is considered anti american, yet it is the Americans calling countries "evil empires" and removing governments that don't do what they are told when they are told.

"What are you saying. Elaborate. Prove that the US was responsible for placing 'bugs'."

Do a web search on Echelon. It is a global "listening network". It is run by the NSA. The European component at Flyingdales listens to European elecronic traffic, here in NZ we have a similar instalation near Blenheim.
The bulk raw data is sent to the US for processing and the host country get snippits that the US thinks they should see.
It has been proven in the past to have been used to allow Boeing to beat Airbus in contract negotiations in the ME and South America.

"Did the USSR squach Hungarian independence with TANKS and GUNS. I think so. "

Absolutely, they also killed at least 1.5 million Afghans, what is your point?

"GazB, your opinions are blind, without reference and Anti-American. Disprove that."

That is your opinion, how can I disprove your opinion?

"Lets see, whos not abiding by the rules set upon them that is a threat to U.S. national security. Iraq fits the bill for now. "

Hahahahhahaha... yes, just as well the US attacked when it did... it was only days before Iraqi T-72s were to be rolling through the main street of Washington... Iraq wasn't even a threat to Kuwaite... their weakest neighbour, what threat to the US were they?

"If Iraq had nothing to hide, there was no excuse for them to eject the inspectors in the first place."

Except that the reason they ejected the inspectors in the first place was because they were spying... ie listening to Saddam's cell phone calls and trying to bomb the buildings he was going to... several of his mistrisses lost their lives and their abodes.

"He's not playing by the rules, lets take him out so that we can move on to the next theater on this war on terrorism. Where is the U.S. wrong again?"

Israel isn't playing by the rules, nor is Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan... the latter two are a direct threat to the US... they made up the majority of the Hijackers that destroyed the WTC and damaged the Pentagon!!!!
Meanwhile North Korea makes nuclear weapons and Saddam is attacked... be funny if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.

"What country has not taken steps to nuetralise a threat to their national security. "

What threat to US security?

"If that were the case, why didnt the U.S. just pass a resolution on anything that when "bang." "

Because everyone has the right to self defence, and Bil Clinton was apparantly quite fond of Bang!

"ya, and we went into afghanistan for their vast oil fields."

No, you went into Afghanistan because of your ignorance.
How many years has the US been pretending to be a good friend of Afghanistan? Saving them from those evil commies?
Yet you didn't understand the status of "guest" in Afghan culture...

But no, all you saw was that OBL made something go bang in the US... THE US!!!!!!! and he had to pay. So you invaded a country and removed a government you put in power and replaced it with the government you helped the Taliban remove.

Yeah... I'm impressed.

[shaky]

Here's my 2 cents

People have different opinions, especially people born and raised in different areas, let alone continents. It's not a bad thing. Just remember that you have your opinion because of things/events that have taken place over the years in your part of the world. The other guy's opinion has formed from different things/events that have taken place in his part of the world. That's all. Be glad we don't all think alike or want the same things. That would suck.



"What are you saying. Elaborate. Prove that the US was responsible for placing 'bugs'."

Do a web search on Echelon. It is a global "listening network". It is run by the NSA. The European component at Flyingdales listens to European elecronic traffic, here in NZ we have a similar instalation near Blenheim.
The bulk raw data is sent to the US for processing and the host country get snippits that the US thinks they should see.
It has been proven in the past to have been used to allow Boeing to beat Airbus in contract negotiations in the ME and South America.

I just wanted to add a little to this, since most people don't know much about the NSA.

During WWII a group was formed with the cover name TICOM - Target Intelligence Committee (the NSA wasn't an official organization until October 1952), to crack encrypted signals. A TICOM report stated that by the day the war was ended, "cryptanalytic attack had been directed against the cryptographic systems of every government that uses them except our only two allies, the British and the Soviet Union." Now readable, either fully or partially, were the encryption systems of Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Columbia, the Domincan Republic, Egypt, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Transjordan, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezeula, and Yugoslavia.

Now just remember that this was nearly 60 years ago, before satellites and the technology we know today, and you will come to the conclusion that there is no way that our government does NOT listen to other countries.

This is a snippet from fas.org about the NSA's operations:

"All requirements levied on NSA must be for foreign intelligence. Yet, the precise definition of foreign intelligence is unclear. NSA limits its collection of intelligence to foreign communications and confines its activities to communications links having at least one foreign terminal. Nevertheless, this is based upon an internal regulation and is not supported by law or executive branch directive."

I think the 2 lines in bold sum it up fairly well.

[Dave.mil]

Hey this thread is great 3 pages and us Brits have not taken any flak yet!!!!!!!! :D

[Sabre]

The fact is that the americans as a nation only have their limited history to identify themselves. Most of that is made up or altered to present some sort of individualist ideology based on liberties that are threatened by the very institutions set out to protect them.
That was fine when most people lived on farms or worked in small companies at a time when there was limited information about the world around them. People lived their lives making someone else rich and the whole country was geared to that.
Then came world war one and it took the US three years of getting rich off all sides by selling munitions and loaning money before the germans accidentally sank a US ship. Then they joined in. All too eager to demand the money lent to Britain and France back (still being paid), give loans to germany (to be repaid with interest, and still being paid) and to send troops to aid the White russian forces (after the war to end all wars).
Then they retired to their isolationist position and counted their money while hitler/mussolini/franco/hirohito/stalin came to power, hang on, lets sell them things too!
Then came WW2, the US didn't join in till they were attacked again. They then repeated their sell-sell technique and when the war ended, gave loans to germany, japan, italy etc (the ENEMY) to stop communist influence. At the same time they demanded money back from France and the UK, making them more economically damaged.
Result? The US is only the superpower it is because it profited out of its 'allies' appauling situations and sold weapons to their enemies.

'...and justice for all...'...yeah.

[cut]

wow, great points sabre, but where do they fit in?

[Sabre]

The point is that America (perhaps 'americans' is too harsh as it is their government that is responsible) does what it wants to, when it suits it.
In the 80's, they saw fit to supply the mujahadeen (including a Mr. Bin Ladin) with arms and money in support of brutally repressive islamic groups; simply because they happend to be killing russian conscripts at the time. For all the failings of the Stalinist legacy, at least the Afghan republic allowed everyone a decent education, for both men and women. The people the US supported forbade women from doing anything of worth outside of the home and imposed a type of cast system where the poor stayed poor, farmers stayed farmers etc and there was no opportunity for advancement.
Again, they supported Saddam when he was at war with Iran (an Islamic theorocracy). The odd thing being that, at the same time, they were supporting and opposing the same people.
Unfortunately, Americans don't experience much of other cultures. In the UK, there is a much greater range of ethnicities who actually keep their identities (not conforming to western lifestyles). There are more doctors/teachers/professionals from other cultures (including Afghanistan) and their is a long history of association with many of these countries. (Unfortunately because of colonial oppression, a long time ago) But there is an appreciation of their culture, an understanding and at the very least aome knowledge. This is lacking in the US.
As a result, the US can get away with calling mujahadeen 'Freedom fighters' one minute, and 'terrorists' the next because the population don't know too much about them and have nothing else to go on other than what the government says.
The main crux of my point, however, is that there is an arrogance in american leadership surrounding an overwhelming belief that whatever the US does (however vile and despicable; reference A-bombs and agent orange) is the right thing to do to defend everyone's 'freedom' and that they know what's best for the world.
The truth is they don't make the effort to understand the many, very complicated, troubles in which they involve themselves.
Take Northern Ireland as an alternative example. It's history (of the present troubles) dates back 400 years. America didn't even exist then. In order to understand the situation, british officers and men have to know who William of Orange was and other figureheads as well as many incidents that occured countless generations ago. They could have taken the 'IRA are bad, let's kill them' approach and there would have been no more IRA. (they saw enough of the ringleaders everyday to get them on a shoot on sight basis) However, this would have isolated Catholics, who are still british citizens and need protecting and also would have ignored loyalist indiscretions. That would have caused serious problems. As it happened, over time the IRA and other groups became more like gangs and lost the support of many people to the extent that they are resented and the desire for peace is quite strong. Just an example of a situation where the big stick wouldn't work. Instead, a low level 30-year operation was used to better (not ideal) effect.

[He219]

Sabre: You are absoulutely right in your overall analysis of US policy effects toward Afghanistan and with respect to the rest of the World. There definately is a flip-side and I recognize that. However, I am concerned that our intentions are mispercieved as naive or oblivious. Other nations also practice self-interest and recuse the US of being the Overbearing Oppressor. The same criticism must be applied to those who bash the US. We are more informed than you choose to believe.

As for..
Unfortunately, Americans don't experience much of other cultures. In the UK, there is a much greater range of ethnicities who actually keep their identities (not conforming to western lifestyles). There are more doctors/teachers/professionals from other cultures (including Afghanistan) and their is a long history of association with many of these countries
...well, Sabre, our whole country is comprised of immigrants from around the world. Imagine that we actually have more of a foreign populus than the UK. We look at the whole, not the part.

The truth is definately more complicated. We do like to package foreign interests in terms of good and bad. We root for the underdog and come to the aid of others. When threatened, our wrath will ruffle feathers.

p-)
-He219

[cut]

your asylum seekers come from mostly mexico and south america, we get loads of afghanis and iraqis seeking asylum, as do aussies

[budanski]

The United States gives out US$13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually. The United States is the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars to primarily third-world dictators.This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget.

In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations' programmes and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than all of the other 177-member nations combined.

What most Americans do not realise is that the vast majority of the recipients of the US Foreign Aid routinely vote against the wishes of the United States in the United Nations at an average rate of 74%. In other words, of the $13.3 billion tax dollars invested in direct Foreign Aid only about 26% or $3.5 billion went to support people who endorsed American initiatives or causes.

A staggering $9.8 billion tax dollars went to causes and people who were and are in open and direct opposition to the United States' interests and objectives.

Listed below are the actual voting records of various States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations' records:
_ Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.
_ Qatar votes against the United States 67 % of the time.
_ Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time.
_ United Arab Emirates votes against the US 70% of the time.
_ Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
_ Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
_ Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
_ Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
_ Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
_ Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
_ Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
_ Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
_ Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
_ Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
_ Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
_ India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
_ Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
_ Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid. Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $193 million annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $144 million
annually in US Foreign Aid.

Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.


Oh someone please stop this oppressive regime. It has raped and pillaged from others long enough... :roll:

[cut]

India votes 81% against the United States receives $144 million
annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes against everyone, it has no allies

just an observation:

oh and the EU dishes out more in aid PER HEAD than the US.. and considering has a larger population than the US....

[budanski]

Of course when all else fails, blame the U.S. (http://www.etaiwannews.com/Editorial/2003/05/09/1052442384.htm) to cover up your own inabilities.

[GazB]

Other nations also practice self-interest and recuse the US of being the Overbearing Oppressor.

Every country acts in its own self interest.

It is repeatedly mentioned that the US... which claims to have won WWII did not actually join the war till well after it actually started. What hasn't been mentioned was that every country drew a line in the sand and said "cross this and we are at war..."
There was no noble country that just started fighting Germany or Japan because they decided they were bad.
The Soviets even agreed to German proposals to take half of Poland, .. not because the Soviets and Germans were allies, but because the only other option was to get the support of another powerful country nearby... Britain could do nothing from where it was, and France thought it was safe behind its wall. Stalin agreed to take half of Poland in absence of a better offer... by agreeing he kept German forces half the width of Poland further from Moscow than they would have been if he did nothing and let Germany take all of Poland itself... he knew the SU was not ready to fight.

So why does everyone mention the delays of the US entry to world wars when they are not doing anything any other country would or has done?

Because they claim to have won the war by themselves.
Now they certainly made a huge contribution to the victory, but to claim they won it goes too far. The way the SS treated the Soviets there was no option but to fight. I don't think the British would have folded very easily either... once the treatment of prisoners by the germans became well known.
To suggest a few trucks and some tinned spam won the war makes some quite angry.
I remember on the 50th anniversary of WWII an american news channel had a little nostalgic piece and the reporter (I think it was Dan Rather) said something like... "They feel it worst in the South... Some places there wasn't a town that didn't lose someone."

I'm sitting there thinking of the problems the Soviets had in determining their dead simply because thousands of entire villages simply disappeared... with everyone dead and the buildings burned to the ground... and then the news report goes to some parade and they talk about how they saved Europe...

[Sabre]

Of course everyone acts in their own self interest. Everyone makes mistakes too. When people criticise the US, they aren't doing it to cover up their own problems, or to downplay their mistakes (admittidly that article shows the chinese doing that, but we can see how they covered up figures by the dramatic daily rise of 'new' cases, and we could never really take them seriously to begin with). Most nations admitt their shortcomings after they realise they can't get away with it.
The major beef people have is that the US rarely says it was wrong. If something goes T.U., then there is limited accountability on behalf of those involved (RE: US pilots bombing the PPCLI and the doctors who prescribe amphetamines to keep them going), and those who put them there, the policy makers. Instead, they glorify the situation and claim the moral high ground.
All that is necessary (and not just from the US) is for someone to say "Oops, our bad, we'll not do that again." Instead of citing the times they 'done good'. That's how you gain respect and remain remotely human in the eyes of the world.

[cut]

Of course when all else fails, blame the U.S. (http://www.etaiwannews.com/Editorial/2003/05/09/1052442384.htm) to cover up your own inabilities.

it's a communist party newspaper, what do expect?

[budanski]

When did Taiwan become communist?

[budanski]

Sabre:
Do you not agree that the world is more critical of the U.S. than most? Wasnt the world critical of how the U.S. treated its POW, yet the Iraqis blatently executed their own people and paraded our POWs on TV? The outcry from the world on how the "precious" museum wasnt protected when prior to the war no one gave a sh*t about the Iraqi people itself. Now, a ******* report of an oucry of Palestinians being forced out of Iraq by Iraqi landlords and of course blamed on who else? Its seems the world is very selective in their criticism.

Yes, the U.S. makes mistakes, what country doesnt. I don't see how the U.S. is NOT admitting that it did any wrongdoing by just brushing these incidents aside. The pilots were put on trial. An apology was made to the victims family just as apologies and finiancial payments were given to families of the Ehime Maru.

[cut]

When did Taiwan become communist?

the site is from taiwan reporting an article in a Chinese newspaper quoting what the chinese government said

[He219]

Blaming shadow enemies for one's ills will never succeed in curing political, let alone medical, ills at their roots.

its behind-the-scenes masters are attempting to capitalize on the unfortunate reality that most people are extremely gullible

Wow!! Does that mean that not just Americans are gullible to the point of view fed upon them by their respective governments? ;)

p-)
-He219

[cut]

who pays what in the UN (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?mainID=news&navID=ATTACK&id=/news/wld/intl/tables/UNDonors_031903.htm&0cb=-n1-138845)

note:
germany contribution is 11% as apposed to the US's of 24.5% but that is a larger percentage of their GDP


out of intrest

'protest jump' to do with china and tibet (http://www.sky.com/skynews/videoconn/0,,p2_20030509fn-31200,00.html)

I've never seen a base jump that low.

[He219]

Nice film off Lord Nelson! Impressive, cut.

As for UN contributions, where the heck is China? Nice to see Japan's whopping donations. France and Russia combined are 30 million less than Germany. Figures.

Should the permanent members of the SC be the top five contributors? China and Russia's involvement is no longer a Cold War issue. Boot 'em...

p-)
-He219

[Ichhabe]

I've always seen the right to veto by any country in the UN as something that is stalling whay could have been something great. How many times hasn't the veto ruined good solutions...!?!

[cut]

Nice film off Lord Nelson! Impressive, cut.

As for UN contributions, where the heck is China? Nice to see Japan's whopping donations. France and Russia combined are 30 million less than Germany. Figures.

Should the permanent members of the SC be the top five contributors? China and Russia's involvement is no longer a Cold War issue. Boot 'em...

p-)
-He219

china are still most likely to become the next super power though

[Sabre]

The world is very critical of the US. The reason for that is because the US puts itself in such a position. The US claims the right to do what it sees as best for the world. It claims to have the best of everything and to be the best at using it.
The point about the Air National Guard pilots is that there is no change in the policies to prevent such an occurance. If the USAF is so big and so good, then why is there a need to call up civvy pilots to go to war. Also, why did they fly straight from one AO (Iraqi no-fly zone) to another, entirely different one? In Iraq, they were used to being able to bomb any threat with minimal clearance because it would obviously be Iraqi. In Afghanistan, there were troops on the ground and in fact the area was a secure training base (hence the live exercise). The criticism is that the pilots were not trained well enough to recognise ricochet tracers as ineffective fire, not AAA. There may have been a lack of briefing as to the change in SOPs and there was definately a high level of fatigue (reported by the pilots and their MO).
The accountability is at all levels and can't be ignored by scape-goating the pilots.

[He219]

Cut, China's population alone will Not make it a superpower. I would have to argue that India would also be a superpower. As for economic output, Japan and Germany would surely be superpowers. Hey, even California with the worlds 5th largest economy would be a superpower. Do you define Superpower as a military might?

Sabre, being in a position of power will always draw criticism, rightly so. Here in the US we criticize our own big government and policies that impose on the interests and liberties of individual states.

The US has a quota system controlling the influx of immigrants from geographical and ethnic regions. Socio-economic plights of various peoples is taken into account during modifications of quotas. In the previous century, the vast influx of immigrants were from Western Europe. Late last century the vast numbers came from Asia. In Southern California there is a huge Vietnamese and Southeast Asian representation. The fact that California was once a protecorate of Spain gives evidence to it's strong latino heritage. Illigal immigration from Central America, Haiti and to a lesser part China is currently dominating the political specturm but is certainly not an accurate assesment ouf our population demographics. http://www.sackskolken.com/AILA/history.html

As for reservist pilots, I think it is a unique opportunity for individuals to exercise their patriotism as citizen-soldiers. Finincial cutbacks since the end of the Cold War have made this minute-man philosopy a reality. You can criticise the level of training and professional execution of these part-time soldiers, but friendly fire incidents will happen. What of the professionalism of Civilian Air Traffic Controllers responsible for non-combat fatalities in tragedies like the Swiss ATCs and that DHL plane collision over Germany for example. Stuff happens. Probabilites increase with stress vs. the number of sorties executed. Command and control is critical in any case.

p-)
-He219

[Sabre]

People want to see that something is done to reduce the incidence of blue-on-blue. I agree they will happen as long as humans are involved in the equation, but it's when people (including service personnel) see the 'cut-off point' at which risk assessment deams a practice to be acceptable that they wonder 'why not go that little bit further?'.
In the case of FIBUA/urban infantry battles, where dust, smoke and chaos reigns it is virtually impossible to stop friendly fire. But I think that air sorties lasting a number of hours can be controlled sufficiently to reduce the risk of such incidents. Especially in routine CAPs over friendly ground. It is more understandable in the case(s) of A10 attacks on UK recce patrols. They were ahead of the front line and in the A10s AO, although recognition aids and basic vehicle recognition lessons should prevent misidentfication.
It is also less acceptable to British and less so to Canadian units due to they smaller size of the armies and the greater experience of low intensity operations to suffer such a loss.

As far as 'citizen-soldiers' go, reservists are an essential part of UK operations. Mainly because the regular army is so stretched in its commitments. My bewilderment is that with an armed force that can deploy half a million troops into theatre in a matter of months, why can't the professionals do the most difficult jobs? That is what they get paid for. Afghanistan was a very dodgy place and required the most experienced troops/pilots. That's why the Royal Marines and Para's were deployed straight from other areas such as Sierre Leonne, to be replaced by less specialised regiments and reservists. Why couldn't Air National Guard squadrons be deployed to the many bases around the world to free-up regulars better suited to operational theatres. They would still be serving they're country.