UN security council caves in

news.bbc.co.uk...

"Those opposed to the war have decided, quite simply, that enough is enough.

France and Russia, in particular, want to begin restoring relations with the US and rebuilding their power in the Security Council. "

Well, I'm sad to see that financial interests are back in control of the major powers. Looks like the US will be allowed to run the world any way it sees fit as long as the profits are distributed to other Western countries along the way.

Hopefully one day the EU will be strong enough to simply say no to the US and keep at it. Or perhaps the only way to a responsibly run world is for the US to collapse, which is looking more probable as US budget deficits fly off the scale and the US image becomes increasingly tarnished.

Oh well, overall I was just wondering what everyone thought about this new resolution?

"perhaps the only way to a responsibly run world is for the US to collapse"

Or for us to simply take over, no?

Kidding....

Originally posted by dom

Hopefully one day the EU will be strong enough to simply say no to the US and keep at it.

The EU will never be strong enough to overtake the US if it continues to follow it's present social and financial path.
Federalism is basically socialism with a few tweaks. And unfortunately socialism doesn't work. Don't get me wrong - I see socialism as the perfect system. But we as a species are unable to put it into practice.
Unfortunately with socialism you have to get everything right. It has to be completely adhered to. Socialism cannot survive standing next to capatalism. You can't have a 99% socialist society as that remaining 1% will just screw everything up.
Capatalism, on the other hand, can live with socialism. It just ignores it - 1% of socialism will not screw a 99% capatalist society.

Europe has the right idea. But it can't put it into practice.

I think you're confusing communism and socialism Leveller, two very different branches of thought. The UK is fundamentally a socialist society, we look after the weakest members of society, we try to treat all of our citizens equally (NHS, etc.). These are all socialist principles, and I prefer to live in a country where if I get a brain heamorrage, I don't have to get into ridiculous amounts of debt to pay for the best treatment.

I don't understand how you can say that federalism is socialist however. It's just infrastructure. Federalism is exactly what the US have, so I doubt that a federal model is going to fatally cripple Europe. I think the UK might fatally cripple Europe, but that's different.

Maybe I should be moving to the U.K. then. For one thing, those accents, on a woman anyway, turn me on considerably.

Plus, I won't have to pay 200 a month for health insurance.

Then again, I did stay in france for a short time.

Ahh.. but you pay more taxes.

Then again, you get to live in one of the most beautiful countries in the world, with no poisonous animals, and castles all over the place. Wickid.

Originally posted by dom
I think you're confusing communism and socialism Leveller, two very different branches of thought. The UK is fundamentally a socialist society, we look after the weakest members of society, we try to treat all of our citizens equally (NHS, etc.). These are all socialist principles, and I prefer to live in a country where if I get a brain heamorrage, I don't have to get into ridiculous amounts of debt to pay for the best treatment.

I don't understand how you can say that federalism is socialist however. It's just infrastructure. Federalism is exactly what the US have, so I doubt that a federal model is going to fatally cripple Europe. I think the UK might fatally cripple Europe, but that's different.

Once again Dom, I utterly disagree with you.
I didn't say federalism IS socialism. I suggested that the European system is going to merge into it. One will lead to the other. And it WILL fail.

The UK is in no way a socailist state. You use probably the worst example of socialism I can think of - The National Health System. A system that is down on it's a$$. It never has and never will, be a success. It drains money from the people and gives very little in proportion to what it has received.
Then to top it all we have as many families living in poverty as we ever have before. Why? Look to the attempt at socialism here. We supply people with the means to survive and they give nothing back in return. A vicous circle of poverty ensues. We have just as many tramps on our streets as under the Conservative government (Yanks read that as Republican).
And us? Bring Europe down? Financially we can eat those countries for breakfast. Only Germany has the money to stand up to the UK. But they won't for much longer. Their economy is in tatters and like every other country in Europe their system is corrupt.
Europe is just a way for the French and Germans to try to retain their lost sense of dominance. They are on the road to a sad lesson in misery. I pray that the UK brings Europe down - if only for the sake of the people in Europe.






But let's return to the subject of lifting sanctions. Has it ever occured to you that the UN wants to lift the sanctions?
Don't you think that they might have kept sanctions in place because there is a wider plan in practice in Iraq?

You have to look at the bigger picture. Go back to the looting. Chaos? Or planned? I say the latter. You're telling me that the most powerful army on the planet couldn't deal with a few hundred or few thousand looters? The Iraqi army would most certainly tall you differently.
Create chaos!!! Create poverty!!! But don't do it yourselves as you will get the blame!!! Let the people do it themselves. AND LET THEM LEARN FROM IT!!!!
Bring the Iraqi society to it's knees. Put everyone on the same level. Wipe out any vestige of the previous system. The smart people will float to the top - the people who know how to make things work.

And now the time has come. Lesson one has been learnt.
The smart people now know that they have to rebuild. They've been there at the bottom and they have seen how disorder can cause miserey - they witnessed it first hand. The smart people are the educators. They will build a new system because they recognise that they cannot survive without one. They have seen the depths of the last society in it's death throes and they will want no truck with it.
Just yesterday the US started paying state workers. They say that they had to pay the power workers because they had threatened to strike. STRIKE!!!! Don't you see how out of the ordinary that word is when put into context in Iraq?
Then what do the US decide to do? They double teachers and doctors wages and half the security forces pay. In with the new and out with the old. Pay the educators and weaken those who supported the previous system.

YOU HAVE TO SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE!!!!


The problem that people have, is that they view Iraq, incident by incident. They always think the worse. They don't realise that there is an awesome power at work. Not just one of military might - but one of cunning and patience. EVERYTHING WAS PLANNED DOWN TO THE LAST DETAIL!!! There was no disorder. The looting was always under US control. So was the poverty. It's unfortubate that the Iraqis had to suffer but the alternative was FAR worse.

The UN is doing what is right. The US has a system in place and now it needs the money to build it. For the UN to keep sanctions in place would only undermne any hope that the Iraqis have of a future.


That is if you even believe that the UN and US were ever at odds in the first place.

Personally, I don't.

Back in December of last year, the
Israelis presented a documentary
which established that the nation
most responsible for making Israel
a nuclear power was France.

Had the French involved themselves in the recent conflict with Iraq the response to Israel would have probably been much worst than during GW1.

This is especially probable as the documentary which was presented in Israel. Was also aired throughout all the Arab nations at the same time the Israeli population saw it.

Keep in mind the real conflict in the UN was between the French and the US, it only began after this documentary was aired.




[Edited on 26-5-2003 by Toltec]

Like it or not Leveller, in less socialist societies such as the US, some people don't even have health cover. They get run over and they have to pay the bill for the ambulance...

Remember that the NHS was founded by the Labour party in their first term of office, as a thankyou to the people of the country. Admittedly the NHS has been underfunded for some time, but the money is starting to flow again now. In 5 years you'll see a better functioning NHS. Remember, this month was the first time in many years that the total waiting lists for treatment dropped below 1 million people.

Anyway, the exact functioning of the NHS is irrelevant. The fact is that it's a socialist ideal, and it exists. Therefore UK society has some socialist ideals within it. Not as many as France or Germany, but more than the US or much of the 3rd world.

Communism != Socialism

Toltec - What are you trying to say? That the whole France-US conflict was staged? Interesting conspiracy theory, I can't see much evidence for it myself, but it's an interesting theory.

"Or perhaps the only way to a responsibly run world is for the US to collapse, which is looking more probable as US budget deficits fly off the scale and the US image becomes increasingly tarnished."

I'm sure your quality of life would be so much better if this happens but have you ever wondered who you would blame for your own problems once the US has gone? I fear you will one day get your wish, Dom I only hope you're ready for the world it would create but I'm sure you've already envisioned it numerous times. Everyone holding hands, no wars, no famine...just like before the US was founded. All that technology falling out of the sky. All dictators would open up their personal stashes to the starving and suddenly relinquish all efforts of world domination. Maybe you should write a book about it. I'd read it.

My point is really that we need a world in which international law and order is upheld. If the US currently don't uphold international law because they're the only superpower, then the only way to reintroduce law and order into international affairs, is for the US to have an effective equiavlent superpower.

Right now, I can't see the EU becoming the counterpoint to US policy, so the only way for a two-power system to come about is for something to go seriously wrong with the US. (this is meant somewhat tongue in cheek too)

The alternative is an ethical US foreign policy. But there hasn't been a US president who's attempted that in the past 20 years so I'm not holding my breath.

Originally posted by dom
Right now, I can't see the EU becoming the counterpoint to US policy, so the only way for a two-power system to come about is for something to go seriously wrong with the US. (this is meant somewhat tongue in cheek too)

I know, I was just ribbing you a little.

Well, they are right about Europes socialism, it is going to kill the EU just like debt is killing us. Europe is suffering the same problem: more manufacturing is going to asia, thus, its starting its trend towards trade defecits and such, and all the social spending leaves little for military. When the US collapses, Europe is gonna need to have its own military machine.

Another UN resolution, the Un cannot be trusted anyway. Dont surprise me, they will eventually say Israel is perfectly justified in killing palestinan villages anyway. The UN needs to go, pretty much, I dont see it lasting much longer, and its a stupid idea anyway.

Asia will be next in line as I have said, once the EU and US collapse from thier over-benevolence or over reaching.

Originally posted by dom
news.bbc.co.uk...

"Those opposed to the war have decided, quite simply, that enough is enough.

France and Russia, in particular, want to begin restoring relations with the US and rebuilding their power in the Security Council. "

Well, I'm sad to see that financial interests are back in control of the major powers. Looks like the US will be allowed to run the world any way it sees fit as long as the profits are distributed to other Western countries along the way.

When are you going to come to grips with the fact that those nations that opposed us did so on the basis of financial loss if Saddam was removed. Those same nations were making a mockery of the food-for-oil program and were conducting other underhanded deals with Saddam.

When you prove to me that that is the case, or when I become so xenophobic that I start to believe it too.

Prove to me what you declare, then. I mean bring it to my home for personal inspection. That is what you are demanding. Had you been awake the last few months then you know what I say is true, you prefer to deny. Your choice.

There is no reason for xenophobia in this. Are you saying you'd have to build an irrational fear in order to accept the truth. I'd say that is unnecessary and unhealthy as well!

Facinating dom as I did post the attached link in this prior thread and was a response made prior to yours
in the same thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2001/12/23/wnuke23.xml

Note the dates, with respect to when France actually
stated they were not interested is supporting the US.

Yeah. All this is relevant if you assume the UN was split

USA, UK, France, Russia, Germany on one side. Muslim nation on the other.

Hello?
Can anyone here say "Holy War"?

TC - The idea that France did what it did for financial reasons is another of those little conspiracies that the US government have used to justify the fact that the US can ignore the UN security council. In my opinion, France's opposition to the US can be down to a few things:

a) They didn't want to upset their own population who were massively anti-war
b) They didn't actually believe the US claims of WMD's inside Iraq.
c) They wanted to show that the US can't just do what it likes.

I'd like to think that France did it for reasons a) and b), I'm willing to admit that reason c) probably comes into it aswell. However, I find it unlikely that France ever thought opposing the US over this would be in their best economic interest, which is what you seem to imply.

For proof, I would accept a statement from Dominique De Villespan saying "We opposed the US on Iraq because we wanted to secure our oil deals with Saddam." Just saying "It's obvious to me, it should be obvious to you too" isn't enough.

Do I think it's down to xenophobia on your part? Yes I do.

Well, Dom, like any Gov, France and Russia arent going to say, bugger off, US, were in the money first. Of course, they are going to do it for "noble " reasons.

Of course they were trying to cut a deal. And were doing business. Hell, why not? germany was caught during the first gulf war.

I do not believe that any govornment exists that is truly righteous and good, or that truly does things out of the kindness of its heart.

Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew this before we went in. Hell, most of the # was destroyed during the first Gulf War.

France didnt want the US pissing in its pot. France is looking out for French and European interests first, like any nation or entity does. They are no better than the US.

When people realize that all govornments are pretty much ruthless self serving entities that will do whatever ebenfits them, then maybe, something will change. Until then, as long as people think that govornments care about them, or can be worked with or changed, well forever go round and round in the same vicious cirlce.

And yes, France would oppose the US. They were banking that widespread UN support and blockage against US action would deter us, or such. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

Now we have Gulf War/ Vietnam 2