ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:04 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 49):
You said that when there is a peacekeeping force in place there will no longer be a place for Hezbollah.

NO, I did NOT

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 49):
Has there ever been a time before during a conflict between Lebanon and Israel where an outside peacekeeping force intervened?

NO, because there never was a conflict between Lebanon and Israel
-
A) to ensure that there no longer will be a place for the Hezbollah militia requires real peacekeeping troops and not just some observers
B) there has never been a real peacekeeping force. Upto now, the only real peacekeeping force had nothing to do with Israel but with terminating the civil war and that was the Syrian army.
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:28 pm

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 50):
B) there has never been a real peacekeeping force. Upto now, the only real peacekeeping force had nothing to do with Israel but with terminating the civil war and that was the Syrian army.

Then what were the US Marines doing in Beirut in 1983 when they were blown up?
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:49 pm

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 51):
Then what were the US Marines doing in Beirut in 1983 when they were blown up?

it was a self-nominated non-approved force to bring the civil war under control, which however was widely perceived as just being an invasion force.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:23 pm

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 50):
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 49):
You said that when there is a peacekeeping force in place there will no longer be a place for Hezbollah.

NO, I did NOT

You didn't?

So... this isn't you?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 39):
when the peacekeeping force is there, there is no place for Hezbollah militia forces any longer

Odd... looks like you...

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 50):
NO, because there never was a conflict between Lebanon and Israel

Israel didn't invade Lebanon in 1982 spurring an international peace keeping force to intervene?

Funny... all the historians seem to think it happened.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 52):
it was a self-nominated non-approved force to bring the civil war under control, which however was widely perceived as just being an invasion force.

Widely percieved as what? And by whom?

You do know that it was in fact a multinational force composed of the United States, France, Italy and the UK?
You do know that the force was deployed as a direct reaction to Israels invasion of Lebanon in 1982, not the civil war which began in 1975?
You do know that one of the key operating orders of the MNF was to prevent Israeli attack on Lebanese?

You do know these things.... right?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:27 pm

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 51):
it was a self-nominated non-approved force to bring the civil war under control, which however was widely perceived as just being an invasion force.

Bombed by Hezbollah, which is in fact the de-facto Lebanese Army.

Your entire earlier post about the "discussions" to disarm Hezbollah merely point out that absolutely nothing had been accomplished in this area.

You have very ably disproven your assertion that:

quote=ME AVN FAN,reply=45]These negotiations could only be started AFTER the Syrian withdrawal, and apparently WERE working.[/quote]

Because:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 46):
Pro-Syrian groups led by Hezbollah have rejected domestic and foreign proposals to disarm the militant group or integrate its guerrillas into the regular army.



Talking does no good with terrorists that are well armed and financed from the outside.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 50):
A) to ensure that there no longer will be a place for the Hezbollah militia requires real peacekeeping troops and not just some observers

Instead of peacekeeping troops, why not attack Hezbollah with the Lebanese Army? Hezbollah "fighters" (according to news reports) only number 5000 to 8000. Surely the Lebanses Army should be much larger than this.

If the Lebanese leaders do not have the political stomache to exercise control over their own country's armies, then they need to quit complaining when another country exercises their right to self defense.

This is all the fault of Hezbollah and the Lebanese politicians who let them field an army in Lebanese territory.

The rest is just follow-on.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:27 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
an international peace keeping force to intervene?

well, Mr Olmert, usually not my favourite, agrees with me. He has stated that he wants a REAL force and not just a group of retired people, "monitoring" what happens. And, yes, the US force in Beirut, by many was perceived as a kind of US occupation.
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:56 pm

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 55):
well, Mr Olmert, usually not my favourite, agrees with me. He has stated that he wants a REAL force and not just a group of retired people, "monitoring" what happens. And, yes, the US force in Beirut, by many was perceived as a kind of US occupation.

Looks more like he agrees with me.

Olmert knows that the Lebanses politicians will not disarm Hezbollah by force (which is the only way it will happen, not by "discussions"), so it will have to happen by Israeli and UN force.

The question now arises as to what countries are willing to send their troops in to fight with Hezbollah to disarm them?

Hezbollah will not willingly disarm.

Most countries will not send their troops into a "hot zone".

I think we will have another 3-4 weeks of Israeli/Hezbollah fighting before a cease-fire.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S

Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:17 am

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 56):
Olmert knows that the Lebanses politicians will not disarm Hezbollah by force (which is the only way it will happen, not by "discussions"), so it will have to happen by Israeli and UN force.

it in the end has to be done by the incoming UN-force, no doubt. But the place being "prepared" by the Israelis. I said it two weeks ago, I say it again, I fully understand the Israeli advances south of the Litani River.
-
-

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 56):
The question now arises as to what countries are willing to send their troops in to fight with Hezbollah to disarm them?

Mr Blair & Mr Erdogan have already told Messrs Bush and Olmert that the U.K. and Turkey are ready to do so. It in reality is not so much "to disarm them" than to keep them away from crucial zones. If they decide to walk up and down "main street" in Tyrus and shoot into the air, the Brits and the Turks will NOT take much care of that. And the Lebanese government for a while will be busy to re-establish full operations at BEY airport and seaport and to repair the roads.

[Edited 2006-08-03 17:19:01]
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:08 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 57):
Mr Blair & Mr Erdogan have already told Messrs Bush and Olmert that the U.K. and Turkey are ready to do so. It in reality is not so much "to disarm them" than to keep them away from crucial zones. If they decide to walk up and down "main street" in Tyrus and shoot into the air, the Brits and the Turks will NOT take much care of that. And the Lebanese government for a while will be busy to re-establish full operations at BEY airport and seaport and to repair the roads.

All a waste of time and human lives. Without the disarming of Hezbollah, there will be no peace and everything repaired will be destroyed again in the future.

The UN is essentially powerless as always and might as well be disbanded, as they are only serving to prolong conflicts rather than to end them.

Very short sighted.
 
semsem
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:06 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:21 am

The UN is protecting Iran; a country that threatens genocide.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30050
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:11 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 48):
Yes, but 51% is a majority, regardless of absentees and abstainees.

51-49% win would not be fair,hence the 2/3rd Majority suggestion.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:23 am

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 58):
t in reality is not so much "to disarm them" than to keep them away from crucial zones. If they decide to walk up and down "main street" in Tyrus and shoot into the air, the Brits and the Turks will NOT take much care of that. And the Lebanese government for a while will be busy to re-establish full operations at BEY airport and seaport and to repair the roads.

All a waste of time and human lives. Without the disarming of Hezbollah, there will be no peace and everything repaired will be destroyed again in the future.

No, the point is that Hizbollah is no longer a factor along the border. And nothing will be destroyed again as the Lebanese will establish a deterrent against destroyers and aggressors !!
 
fspilot747
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 1999 2:58 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:29 am

The UN is absolutely useless and powerless with the Veto. The Veto makes it the United Nations of the United States and its bitches.
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:53 am

Quoting FSPilot747 (Reply 62):
The UN is absolutely useless and powerless with the Veto. The Veto makes it the United Nations of the United States and its bitches.

You are almost right.

The UN is absolutely useless and powerless with OR WITHOUT the veto.

Sorry, but your second sentence makes no sense.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 61):
No, the point is that Hizbollah is no longer a factor along the border. And nothing will be destroyed again as the Lebanese will establish a deterrent against destroyers and aggressors !!

You are mistaken. Hezbollah would merely regroup and re-arm further away from the border for a period as things quieted. Then they will sneak raiding parties past the "peacekeepers" or launch rockets over them. The "peacekeepers will do nothing, Israel will retaliate, the peacekeepers will pull out, and we will be right back where we started.

This is not rocket science to figure out.

When you do the same things over and over, you will get the same results.

As long as Hezbollah has weapons, they will find a way to attack Israel. This is the entire point of their existance.

As long as Israel is attacked, they will respond with retaliation toward the attackers.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:59 am

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 63):
Hezbollah would merely regroup

ok, back to square-1 for dummies. I said earlier that Hezbollah is a party in Lebanon. It holds the sympathies of at least a third of the Shi'ites in Lebanon and that means about 10 to 14 percent of the national total. What is now to be done is to stop them from making trouble along the border. Whether they shoot in the air in Tyrus or start fireworks off Larnaca/Cyprus does NOT matter. What matters is that those guys are prevented from attacking Israel. As simple as that !!!!
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:27 am

Please read my post again.

U.N. "Peacekeepers" will not stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel. Hezbollah has only two objectives. These are very open objectives that they are very clear about.

Objective 1. The elimination of Israel.

Objective 2. The establishment of an Lebanon as an Islamic State.

The Lebanese government will do nothing to curb Hezbollah, much less eradicate or expel them for fear of a civil war from the Shia minority.

Hezbollah will always find ways to attack Israel because it is their raison d'etre. Without attacking Israel (or the USA or someone else) they have no reason to exist.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:12 pm

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 65):
Hezbollah will always find ways to attack Israel because it is their raison d'etre. Without attacking Israel (or the USA or someone else) they have no reason to exist.

YOU above have given their main objective, whenever as nr.2 . The thing about the Israel matter also applies to other such parties in Egypt and Jordan and elsewhere. Those parties exist, but have no chance to attack Israel . Parts of those movements or similar but illegal such movements indeed are a nuisance as has been shown by various terrorist incidents. To prohibit this party would be bad anyway, as they then simply would continue underground . No, they will no longer have the possibility to attack Israel from Lebanese territory, and this is what counts. And the USA ? the USA up to now have not been attacked by them, with one single exception.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:18 pm

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 66):
No, they will no longer have the possibility to attack Israel from Lebanese territory, and this is what counts.

Because you have declared it so?

So then, is this miraculously super effective (when no other UN peace keeping force has been) peace keeping force going to be a permanent fixture in Lebanon? Or will Hezbollah just kind of give up and never try it again?

Instead of baby blue UN helmets, will they be outfitted with red capes and blue tights?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:36 pm

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 19):
Russia has always said they would veto any such resolution, not because of any real or perceived business interests, but because diplomacy must be given a chance first.

How is that Chechen diplomacy going?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 41):
Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 19):
There is no better example of how the UNSC has failed the "third" world than the Rwandan genocide of 1994.


This is proof positive the UN is completely broken and useless for anyting but the UNICEF effort IMO.

Quoting FSPilot747 (Reply 62):
The Veto makes it the United Nations of the United States and its bitches.

France is our bitch? China? Russia? Wow.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:59 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 67):
Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 66):
No, they will no longer have the possibility to attack Israel from Lebanese territory, and this is what counts.
--
Because you have declared it so?

no, but because they will no longer have a chance to do so

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 67):
peace keeping force going to be a permanent fixture in Lebanon?

yes, for many years to come, just as on Cyprus, where they are since 1974
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:28 pm

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 69):
no, but because they will no longer have a chance to do so

If you are saying that the Hezbollah terrorists are going to willingly give up their weapons to a U.N force, you are living in a fantasy.

If you are saying that U.N. troops are going to disarm Hezbollah by force (which would require house to house searches and probably armed conflict) you are again living in a fantasy.

If you are saying that Hezbollah can retain their weapons but will not attack Israel anymore, you are definately out of your gourd. Hezbollah does not accept Israel's right to exists, and in fact has as one of their 2 main objectives as the elimination of Israel. The UN personnel will not be able to stop rockets from flying over their heads to Israel.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:50 pm

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 70):
If you are saying that the Hezbollah terrorists are going to willingly give up their weapons to a U.N force, you are living in a fantasy.

they, and this is what Mr Olmert recently said, are now pushed out of their bases

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 70):
If you are saying that U.N. troops are going to disarm Hezbollah by force (which would require house to house searches and probably armed conflict) you are again living in a fantasy.

that is no longer necessary as the UN-troops can take over the area directly from the Israelis

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 70):
The UN personnel will not be able to stop rockets from flying over their heads to Israel.

They will control the border area, and north of that area are the Lebanese security forces, so that there is no chance for Hezbollah to do much. The danger in fact rather is that Hezbollah may start into terrorist attacks outside Lebanon, in competition eQN Int'l . As the Israelis have to be expected to react as usual, it is imperative that the Lebanese armed forces get upgraded in an appropriate way, so to have a deterrent against Israeli adventurism
 
jamesag96
Posts: 2007
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 2:59 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:29 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 53):
Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 50):
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 49):
You said that when there is a peacekeeping force in place there will no longer be a place for Hezbollah.

NO, I did NOT

You didn't?

So... this isn't you?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 39):
when the peacekeeping force is there, there is no place for Hezbollah militia forces any longer

Odd... looks like you...

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 50):
NO, because there never was a conflict between Lebanon and Israel

Israel didn't invade Lebanon in 1982 spurring an international peace keeping force to intervene?

Funny... all the historians seem to think it happened.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 52):
it was a self-nominated non-approved force to bring the civil war under control, which however was widely perceived as just being an invasion force.

Widely percieved as what? And by whom?

You do know that it was in fact a multinational force composed of the United States, France, Italy and the UK?
You do know that the force was deployed as a direct reaction to Israels invasion of Lebanon in 1982, not the civil war which began in 1975?
You do know that one of the key operating orders of the MNF was to prevent Israeli attack on Lebanese?

You do know these things.... right?

ME AVN FAN...did you address this? I read your comments on 1982 and was appalled at the ignorance displayed, thank goodness you were called on it.

As to the OP, Ahmenijad is a nut back who KNOWS that without the US and the UK the UN is a absolute nothing organisation, even more so than it is today.

If it were up to me, I'd yank the US it's funds and all of its support from the UN and let them on there merry way. That way we could continue to provide aid to countries in need directly rather than through the corrupt system that is the UN.
Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:34 am

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 10):
There are MANY more resolutions assisting what you call 3rd world countries.

But many resolutions also that were vetoed, stats coming!

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 19):
Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 11):
Case in point-China and Russia typically veto US, UK and Japanese motions but no one on here is complaining.

Actually, no they don't, so your case in point is WRONG.

China has very rarely used their power of veto on the UNSC. I can think of only 3 examples. Russia uses the veto very sparingly also - Iran is a perfect example - the US and UK have always wanted to rush a resolution through in regards to Iran's nuclear energy program, however,

The stats for vetoes are as follows:

Subject to errors and omissions I make the count as follows from 1980 to 2006 inclusive, vetoes in the Security Council. Note, the UK and France never used the veto in a vote where the US was not also using it.

Number of vetoes.
USA - 58
UK - 14
France - 7
USSR - 7
China - 2
The data came from here (please let me know if I got the totals wrong)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm

So cleaned of those joint votes you could count it
US 51, UK and France zero, USSR 7 and China 2

Even on the raw data if the veto is supposed to be justified by the veto the US should be paying 58/88 or 66% of the subs. Or cleaned of joint votes 51/61 or 83% of the subs.

Some other countries have failed to pay due to being hard up, but the US is the main one (?the only one) where NOT paying has been made an article of policy.

The UN ONLY has the power that its nation states members care to give it. There is no such thing as an INTERNATIONAL organization outside that. Go and try and register an International group, and it has to be registered in a Nation state.

Why, because states do not wish there to be anything that really IS International for example:
http://www.copernicus.org/COPERNICUS/copernicus_group.html
 
Derico
Posts: 4313
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:08 am

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 10):
Basically, the US pays an ENORMOUS share of the UN Budget - according to this US Govt site - "U.S. Largest Financial Contributor to United Nations
U.S. contributions to the U.N. in 2003 exceeded $3 billion"

That is fine. My point had nothing to do with the United States, I just don't understand why secondary countries should pay millions to the UN when it does nothing for them, maybe because some countries don't even need the UN for anything: they don't have geo-political ambitions, they don't need 'food' aid, they don't need UN troops in their country, they don't need humanitarian assistance. So why pay for it?

Quoting Pbottenb (Reply 10):
Finally, I would ask that you would consider what happened when the US pulled out of the League of Nations - 2 world wars......

Actually the US never even became a member of the League of Nations. It was Germany, Japan and Italy that withdrew from it.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:40 am

Thanks for everyone's comments.

It's been a position of mine that the United Nations is at least somewhat responsive to the control of the United States because of its veto power at the Security Council. The moment that the United States becomes subject to the UN Security Council without being able to override its binding resolutions, however, is the moment that the U.S. should begin the process of withdrawal. The reason is that the United States, along with other Western democracies, does in many ways stand for values that certain other countries do not share. We cannot be subject to the values of, say, Venezuela or Iran or North Korea or Tanzania, whatever the merits or demerits of those countries, merely because we wish to be a member of the UN. Subjection to values overall means subjection to laws and other rules and regulations limiting the freedom of action and even of thought of American citizens, in that case. It is better to act outside the UN in that case and thus to withdraw. We must be masters of our own destiny.

This is my humble opinion, but it seems to me that even though the U.S. is hardly perfect, it often represents Western values that are dear to our civilization -- meaning that arising from the Greco-Roman-European style of thought -- which must not be diminished as it would otherwise.

[Edited 2006-08-06 01:44:20]
What's fair is fair.
 
Derico
Posts: 4313
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:42 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 77):

It's been a position of mine that the United Nations is at least somewhat responsive to the control of the United States because of its veto power at the Security Council.

Seeing that the United States pays for so much of it, I never had a problem with US dominance in the UN. It's only fair, I have never made it a point in any topic here.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:51 am

Quoting Derico (Reply 78):
Seeing that the United States pays for so much of it, I never had a problem with US dominance in the UN. It's only fair, I have never made it a point in any topic here.

I see that we agree on the need for American independence, here.

A tangential comment, if I may: If, as often said, China becomes a dominant country, there may be an overriding need to evaluate the rules of international conduct, or for smaller countries to require China to hew to internationally recognized rules. This is one reason that international law and order is often touted by European countries today -- that is, because they recognize that they, individually, are not comparable in sheer influence to the United States. By the same token, no country would welcome the prospect of a China (or India) that is subject to absolutely no rule but that of Hobbesian reality. I hate to put it so bluntly, but in this limited sense, rules serve to limit the powerful and to favor the weak. If one recognizes that, if at some time in the future, even the United States itself may be eclipsed, then there is a bit of a balancing test that should be performed. Rules and adherence to them, in the international sense, can serve various purposes, and it behooves all to negotiate them with the proper perspective.

[Edited 2006-08-06 01:53:10]
What's fair is fair.
 
soyuzavia
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S

Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:14 am

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 68):
How is that Chechen diplomacy going?

Diplomacy was going quite well between 96 and 99, but then, you know, those pesky fucking Chechen terrorists decided to start their terrorism campaign again outside of Chechen terrorist held territory, and into Dagestan and Russia.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 68):
This is proof positive the UN is completely broken and useless for anyting but the UNICEF effort IMO.

Proof positive that the UNSC permanent members need to be rid of their veto. No resolution on Rwanda was ever put forward at the UN because it was well known at the time that France, US, Russia and China would have vetoed it. The feeling was what is the point on getting a resolution going only to know it would be vetoed. The UNSC in this regard is what is broken and useless.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 77):
The moment that the United States becomes subject to the UN Security Council without being able to override its binding resolutions, however, is the moment that the U.S. should begin the process of withdrawal.

Why the hell should the US (or any UNSC permanent member) be exempt from the same criticism and resolutions that other members of the UN are bound by? Why the hell should the word of the US (or any UNSC permanent member) override the wishes of the 200 other nations in the UN?

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 79):
If, as often said, China becomes a dominant country, there may be an overriding need to evaluate the rules of international conduct, or for smaller countries to require China to hew to internationally recognized rules.

Why should China be held to internationally recognised rules when your own fricking country doesn't hold itself to those rules? It's a bit rich for one to propose what you are suggesting.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 79):
If one recognizes that, if at some time in the future, even the United States itself may be eclipsed, then there is a bit of a balancing test that should be performed.

Great! Rewrite the rules to try and cling on to power? The type of thing one would expect from certain elements within Washington. Fact is, America is already eclipsed. It's global influence is on the decline and is rapidly being overtaken by Europe and China.
 
Derico
Posts: 4313
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:27 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 79):
I see that we agree on the need for American independence, here.

Yes I do. Pbottemb believed I was making some comment on US - UN interrelations, when I was not. When it comes to the UN I tend to agree with the opinions of most US citizens, specially considering that Pbottemb was right that the US is a big fundraiser of the UN.

For the same reason I believe countries like Poland, Argentina, should withdraw from the UN. There is no point to waste millions in dues to an organization that you don't need. The world's bigger countries can use the UN for their international purposes and do, and the many small very poor nations need the UN for assistance and relief and development.

There are a few in between countries that have no use for the UN. They don't need it for geo-political purposes (they are not large enough to wield that power), but they are rich enough not to need the UN for any relief or assistance. Thus, they are just totally wasting their money being members of a fitness club they never use. Like I said, that money would be better spent building and repairing schools and highways back home.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
 
cumulonimbus
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:13 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:34 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 20):
Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 17):
Egypt a "major" country? They're marginal, both population-wise as well as economically.


Egypt is a country with 70 mio. people and a respectable industry. It however most of all is the most influential Arab country with a film industry of its own, and whose influence in political affairs of the Arab World is considerable. The fact that the head-office of the Arab League and the al-Azhar University are in Cairo gives the country a tremendous influence.

I for one Agree with ME AVN FAN about giving Egypt a seat on the UN security council. I think that The Middle East needs a represenitive also for another point of view and insight. Not sure if Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN but I think they would be another ME country as a possibility though they may also support the US Intrests a little two much.

Mike
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:31 pm

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 80):
Why the hell should the US (or any UNSC permanent member) be exempt from the same criticism and resolutions that other members of the UN are bound by? Why the hell should the word of the US (or any UNSC permanent member) override the wishes of the 200 other nations in the UN?

But I've already answered this question, viz.:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 77):
The reason is that the United States, along with other Western democracies, does in many ways stand for values that certain other countries do not share. We cannot be subject to the values of, say, Venezuela or Iran or North Korea or Tanzania, whatever the merits or demerits of those countries, merely because we wish to be a member of the UN. Subjection to values overall means subjection to laws and other rules and regulations limiting the freedom of action and even of thought of American citizens, in that case. It is better to act outside the UN in that case and thus to withdraw. We must be masters of our own destiny.


__________________________________________


Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 80):
Great! Rewrite the rules to try and cling on to power?

I said in one of the messages, to which you responded, that we must perform a balancing test, so the answer to your question is, "No".

Quoting Derico (Reply 81):
There are a few in between countries that have no use for the UN. They don't need it for geo-political purposes (they are not large enough to wield that power), but they are rich enough not to need the UN for any relief or assistance. Thus, they are just totally wasting their money being members of a fitness club they never use. Like I said, that money would be better spent building and repairing schools and highways back home.

A cogent analysis, and well worth considering. It is indeed true that membership in the UN by certain countries seems simply a matter of prestige.

[Edited 2006-08-06 07:32:44]
What's fair is fair.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:51 pm

Quoting Derico (Reply 78):
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 77):

It's been a position of mine that the United Nations is at least somewhat responsive to the control of the United States because of its veto power at the Security Council.

Seeing that the United States pays for so much of it, I never had a problem with US dominance in the UN. It's only fair, I have never made it a point in any topic here.

And presumably, when the US refuses to pay its dues:

http://www.un.int/usa/99bud927.htm

"The United Nations calculates the U.S. debt at over $1,000 million. The United States over the years has refused to pay the costs of some programs which are counter to U.S. policy and Congress has instructed the U.S. to unilaterally reduce its portion of the UN budget from 25 percent to 20 percent, an assessment level which so far has been rejected by the General Assembly."

it should have its voting rights restricted. Surely the vetoes over the period when the UN was in debt should be rescinded - that seems only fair?

That would be consistent with Article 19.

http://rac.org/advocacy/issues/issuefp/

"In November 1999, Congress authorized payment of $926 million of the roughly $1.5 billion that the U.S. owes in back dues for the UN regular budget, peacekeeping, and other UN agencies. The authorization came as part of the FY2000-2001 State Department Authorization bill (Public Law 106-113). This bill included the "Helms-Biden" provisions to pay a portion of the arrears (Title IX, the "United Nations Reform Act of 1999").

The Helms-Biden provisions set conditions for paying the arrears. These conditions require the UN to meet a series of "benchmarks" over three years. The UN cleared the first and easiest benchmarks at the end of last year, and the first $100 million arrears payment was made. This saved the U.S. the embarrassment of losing its vote in the UN General Assembly."
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:10 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 84):
it should have its voting rights restricted. Surely the vetoes over the period when the UN was in debt should be rescinded - that seems only fair?

If this position is taken, perhaps any obligation the United States would also be deemed rescinded, since if it is held possible for a nation to stand in debt to an organization without other consequence, then there is nothing to suggest that the same sovereignty implicitly recognized thereby can authorize the same nation to stop recognizing any other obligation previously held to exist.
What's fair is fair.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30050
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:14 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 73):
Number of vetoes.
USA - 58
UK - 14
France - 7
USSR - 7
China - 2

What were China's vetos.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:16 pm

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 86):
What were China's vetos.
regds
MEL

Hi Mel - well you might ask! Really fascinating.

Chinas vetoes:
1999 Feb 25 "on the extension of UNPREDEP in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/s99201.htm
If you can work out why China vetoed this, please let me know. The best I can offer is that FYROM was very contentious in relation to wanting to use the name Macedonia, which Greece considered should be restricted to a part of Greece, hence the compromise name of FYROM.

1997 Jan 10 "Authorization for 155 observers for the purposes of verification of the agreement on the definite ceasefire in Guatemala"

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/s199718.htm

Again the reason is less than clear.

Interestingly, the resolutions vetoed immediately after and before that were both Palestine questions and both vetoed by the US.
1999 March 7 "Calling upon Israel to refrain from East Jerusalem settlement activites"

1995 May 17 on the Occupied Arab Territories (East Jerusalem)

I think it would be fair to suggest China has a different agenda, and as it only vetoed twice, so far a much smaller agenda than the US.

Russias last veto:
Russia's last veto in 2004, April 21 strikes me as equally baffling:
"on the termination of the mandate of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)'s mandate and replacing it with the UN Settlement Implementation Mission in Cyprus (UNSIMIC)."

As I said, any illumination on why these issues excited those two countries while myriads of other issues did not, will be gratefully received!

If we go back to 1994 there is a Russian veto that sort of makes sense:
"on Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Transport of goods between the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia)"
With their support of Serbia the zone of interest is clear.
 
soyuzavia
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:14 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 87):
If you can work out why China vetoed this, please let me know.

Because Macedonia recognised Chinese Taipei instead of the PRC. After China vetoed this resolution, Macedonia switched diplomatic recognition to Beijing, and the UN peacekeeping force went ahead.

The same thing goes for Guatemala, except Guatemala still recognises Chinese Taipei over the PRC.
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:56 am

Canada should be on the Security Council...
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 87):
Canada should be on the Security Council...

Sorry VR, being sensible guys and having a logical foreign policy is definitely not a qualification.

However your question raises interesting points well beyond Canada. In 1944 the critical decisions were made and at that time countries such as Australia and presumably Canada "agreed" to have the UK represent them. Relations between the UK and the Commonwealth countries had not always been all that cordial but it seemed the best they could do.

Even though the UK cannot make its mind up to join Europe in a whole hearted fashion as it should do, it clearly no longer represents the interest of any of Canada, NZ or Australia. Still less does it represent India. That must be close to the largest anomaly - and getting larger!
 
ba747yyz
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:55 pm

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:46 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Anglo-Saxon domination

If it was I am sure they could make it much more one sided.
Besides they do have to listen to all the Sh*t Whole countries in the general assembly many of whom were part of the UK when the UN was founded.

Quoting CO7e7 (Reply 2):
agree... No veto at all would be even better.

Russia has used the most vetoes
Russia 122
US 81
UK 32
France 18
China 5

And Interestingly the members do not actually have a veto, since they can not veto anything, it is defeated if they vote against. If it was a veto they would be separate so limiting amounts of vetoes would mean that they could only vote against a motion X times a year, and then the motions you would get after X might be some pretty scary Sh*t and no one could vote against them. Get Real!

Besides can you really take anything the President of Iran says seriously anyway, the guy is an insane hobo.
 
soyuzavia
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Ahmadinejad: U.S., U.K. Do Not Belong On U.N.S.C.

Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:05 am

Quoting BA747YYZ (Reply 89):

Russia has used the most vetoes

Russia has actually used only one more veto than China. The USSR (which is NOT Russia) has used the most vetoes, and the overwhelming majority of these were used to deny entry to new members to the UN, at the time when the USSR was wanting a UN seat for all 15 republics - interestingly enough, the Russian SFSR never had its own UN seat, whereas Ukraine and Belaris did. Other than these vetoes, even the USSR wasn't an active player in general terms on vetoes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FGITD, MSN [Bot] and 39 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos