Germany, Belgium, France -- Selfish Beyond Words

raid517 · Feb 15, 2003, 10:17 PM

@ J.Reb This is just nationalist racist rantings of the worst kind imaginable. You simply do not understand the nature of partnership. If you trully think one race can be superior over another, or that the nation with the biggest guns is always right, then I feel sorry for you, because in the end, as you have crudely observed, throughout history all such people have eventually been proved wrong. I do not doubt that this will be the case in this instance too.

Q

~~ByteMe~~ · Feb 15, 2003, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
That indeed all the peoples of the world have an equal right to say how they think the affairs of the world should be conducted. No more can politicians hide behind their falsehoods and propaganda, because the information and the facts (as demonstrated so many times on this forum) can too easily be found and brought to the fore.
However I think sadly people like ByteMe share a lot in common with the present administration, in that they think the rest of the world is an irrelevance and that they are free to act in isolation because their economic might will allow them to force other nations to comply too. H

Q

You are sadly wrong. Why the fokk should we give an "equal" right to effect world affairs to people that have shown mass ignorance/greed/laziness/corruption/etc. in the past?

Your opinion is EXACTLY the type what allowed Hitler to gain the power he did.

DallasStar · Feb 15, 2003, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ByteMe
You are sadly wrong. Why the fokk should we give an "equal" right to effect world affairs to people that have shown mass ignorance/greed/laziness/corruption/etc. in the past?

Your opinion is EXACTLY the type what allowed Hitler to gain the power he did.

And USA hasn't?

Falstaff · Feb 15, 2003, 11:12 PM

Declaration by United Nations

Falstaff · Feb 15, 2003, 11:15 PM

Declaration by United Nations
On 1 January 1942, representatives of 26 Allied nations fighting against the Axis Powers met in Washington, D.C. to pledge their support for the Atlantic Charter by signing the "Declaration by United Nations". This document contained the first official use of the term "United Nations", which was suggested by President Roosevelt.

Falstaff · Feb 15, 2003, 11:17 PM

this guy has cahones, like Mac Daddy, we are here to provide balance to argument against squashing Hussien, and Clintons muddling of tthe U.N. repayment.

Mac Daddy · Feb 15, 2003, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Brilliant point dude, why didn't I think of that?

Q

Because your both a couple of simplistic, opinionated MORONS.
Do either of you know how to READ ???

J.Reb · Feb 16, 2003, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
@ J.Reb This is just nationalist racist rantings of the worst kind imaginable. You simply do not understand the nature of partnership. If you trully think one race can be superior over another, or that the nation with the biggest guns is always right, then I feel sorry for you, because in the end, as you have crudely observed, throughout history all such people have eventually been proved wrong. I do not doubt that this will be the case in this instance too.

Q

You are a liar. Nowhere did I suggest one race is superior to another.

If you have the mental capability, tell me how any country can rest sanguine when they leave their defense to another, any other. Yet that is what euro countries routinely do. Then they turn and nip the only country that will come to their aid.

Some are "neutral", which only means that they accept NO responsibility for their own defense. How can they live with themselves - how can they answer to their children?

You are also a fool, to suggest that it is a "partnership" when only the US is disproportionately burdened.

In addition, your idealistic drivel answers no points I made. Beginning with your lie.

Falstaff · Feb 16, 2003, 12:30 AM

I think that RAID517 needs a history lesson, I would suggest perhaps a few hours at the library every night, or even some of the monthly magazines readily available, but sadly, actors and actresses would be a poor choice, ha ha..

J.Reb · Feb 16, 2003, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DallasStar
And USA hasn't?

Doesn't matter. These others leave themselves wide open when they refuse to provide for their own defense. They allow anyone to fill their vacuum....Hitler...Stalin...

Evidentally they don't care. Except, maybe, when the US wants to prevent a madman from getting WMD, which can only benefit them. Then these mental giants attack.

Falstaff · Feb 16, 2003, 12:52 AM

You are too kind, I try to make salient points and debate with thread writers that evidently never finished their history final in high school, ha ha...I have twenty years of experience in the military and made history onboard our nations ships during the gulf war...tsk tsk...whatcha gonna do. I agree....someone will fill the vacumn alright, a peace maker of terrible proportions, perhaps even the anti christ....scary man scary...

raid517 · Feb 16, 2003, 06:12 AM

Lol what drivel you guys speak. If all you wish to do is argue about who used the term United Nations first, then I think neither of us is going to have such an easy time of this. The point is that the UN emerged through a consensus. How about you finish reading the rest of the chapter of your history book too?

Quote:

In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

Arguing about who invented the name is like arguing over why water is wet, the truth is the UN could not have been formed without this very real and very genuine consensus. All I did was recount my own earliest known reference to it. (Recall that only government representatives were present at the initial 1942 meeting). Might I suggest that you try to tell the USSR at that time that she was subjugate to the US' will. I think you will find for 50 years or so that she violently disagreed. Even now, after suffering economic collapse due to her struggle against US economic and cultural interference in her affairs, Russia can hardly be described as acquiescent to international US interests. To say that the US could have somehow forced all of these other nations to join too without consensus is also plainly ridiculous. You overestimate the power and influence of the US in world affairs at that time (as indeed you do today). (No doubt someone will say how the US defeated the USSR during the cold war, but I feel you write Russia off prematurely in this regard). Further you appear to be confusing the difference between the EU and the UN. They are in fact completely different bodies. The US is not a member of the EU, it is however very much (or at least is supposed to be) a participating member of the UN. The UN is made up of a great many members, very few of whom are there I think, purely because they feel they must represent the interests of the USA. To imagine that the other nations of the world exist for your benefit and your benefit alone is a gross arrogance that is simply beyond belief.

So there is nothing wrong with my view of history, it is this wholly warped and wholly Americanised, 'we invented the world', 'we saved the whole world's asses' view of the world to which I object.

I'm tired too of the blackmailing approach of the US towards its former friends. Just because your ancestors were principled and did some noble things, doesn't mean the whole world should back you when you are plainly wrong. Its like some mafia guy saying, hey I saved your butt in the past, now you must help me kill a former friend who has become problematical. Whether you like it or not such inconsistency breeds incredulity, which I think is evidenced by what you saw (or chose not to see) on your TV screens yesterday, with mass protests of millions of people all simply saying that we just don't believe you any more. I support the America that existed during the war and who stood for 50 years alongside her European partners against the tyranny of communism. That does not mean however that I must also support the pale shadow of that America that exists today that seems prepared to use military strength against anyone now who does not agree with her perspective. There is a difference between nobility and thuggery, so do not expect me, or the millions of others who object to America's new expansionist stance in the world, to agree to your current bout of thuggery - or to the next after this, or the next again - since there seems to be no end in sight to when the US is prepared to stop.

As for matters of defence the EU for the last 15 years has attempted to build its own defence force, but any really substantial moves have been blocked in the EU parliament in Brussels by the British on behalf of the US because the US has traditionally feared the development of a new European power block that might grow to challenge the US' own international interests and its influence within NATO. However, substantial progress in this area has already been made - and will continue to be made. Remember it is still early days for the EU - and we are in much the same condition in which the US was after it was first conceived. In another 50 or a 100 years time I have no doubt that the balance of power will have shifted yet again and will incorporate a very different European reality. (Though if it is Europe, Russia or the far East who will dominate has yet to be seen).

In any case I think I am probably wasting my time, as I seem to be talking to a few far right extremists who do not understand in the process of consensus, or understand how consensus is vital to both the survival of the UN and the survival of the world as a whole. Again it is this base and ugly belief that those with the biggest guns are always invariably right, a belief that has all too often spelled nothing but catastrophe for the world that many people find disturbing. As I pointed out before, history has consistently proved this perspective to be completely wrong - and it is those that have not sought to exercise their power wisely or to seek consensus that have traditionally been destroyed. You can be quite certain that this will sooner or later be proved to be the case again.

Q

raid517 · Feb 16, 2003, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
this guy has cahones, like Mac Daddy, we are here to provide balance to argument against squashing Hussien, and Clintons muddling of tthe U.N. repayment.

Lol, I think you have got that a little wrong too. Clinton promised a lot of support to the UN, it was the Republican Senate try this out for size:

http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?p...ams/oped12.asp

Note some intersting nubers here too; the USA contributes some 20% to UN costs (when it takes a notion to actually pay it) while the EU contributes some 36% to the total running costs, with a small country such as Japan (no longer the great economic power it once was) paying the same equivalent anount as the USA. Even then the US contests the amount it has to pay - and continues to demand that all past debts be written off.

So the Idea that the US funds the UN is quite plainly nonsensical too. Thankfully I do not believe its all about money (but if it was and I was American, I sure would be careful not to shoot my mouth off), as I have said on many occasions now the UN is a consensus body meant to give legitamacy to the international rule of law and to provide a platform that can form the basis for a mutual understanding between nations.

I think it is because you have found that you cannot push the UN around that you find recent events to be quite so frustrating.

Q

raid517 · Feb 16, 2003, 06:46 AM

Quote:

this guy has cahones, like Mac Daddy, we are here to provide balance to argument against squashing Hussein, and Clinton's muddling of the U.N. repayment.

Lol, I think you have got that a little wrong too. Clinton promised a lot of support to the UN, it was the Republican Senate who blocked payment try this out for size:

http://www.unausa.org/newindex.asp?...rams/oped12.asp

Note some interesting numbers here too; the USA contributes some 20% ~ to UN costs (when it takes a notion to actually pay it) while the EU contributes some 36% ~ to the total running costs, with a small country such as Japan (no longer the great economic power it once was) paying the same equivalent amount as the USA. Even then the US contests the amount it has to pay - and continues to demand that all past debts be written off.

So the Idea that the US funds the UN is quite plainly nonsensical too. Thankfully I do not believe its all about money (but if it was and I was American, I sure would be careful not to shoot my mouth off), as I have said on many occasions now, the UN is a consensus body meant to give legitimacy to the international rule of law and to provide a platform that can form the basis for a mutual understanding between nations.

I think it is because you have found that you cannot push the UN around that you find recent events to be quite so frustrating.

Q

raid517 · Feb 16, 2003, 06:48 AM

Ooops sorry double post... Erm what gives, why can't I edit my posts? Mods???

Q

Falstaff · Feb 16, 2003, 10:24 AM

As an american, and deeply interested in the failures and success of our foriegn policy,and though I am not surprised that "gunboat" diplomacy has spawned more conlicts than it has settled, it seems that without it, we never would have stumbled into the Spanish American War, WW1, and WW2, America has always defended it's political interests on other shores and and other seas. That is what makes us uniquely american. I lived in Japan for 6 years, one of the first jokes I learned from a Nihongene was: "an american gets off the plane in Narita, he stops at the top of the stairs and looks around, everyone behind him wonders why he won't leave, the stewardess politely asks him why, he tells her he didn't know there would be so many foriegners", everyone he saw was Japanese...well it loses a lot in translation. All I am saying is that no matter where we go americans tend to take their idea that the USA goes with them. I can still remember the expression "winning hearts and minds" in Vietnam. And I can recall how nervous the Saudi and Bahraini people were when we infidels had to hang around waiting for the Gulf War to begin, I know for a fact that their loyals subjects really objected to us being there, even after we won. We aren't fighting communism on a grand scale anymore, but we still muster enough courage to go after the terrorists. I think the U.N. could prove to be useful in these matters, but I don't think nor feel that have any real power anymore. Because of americans long history of projecting power all over the world, and our desire to protect american interests, we will use whatever means are at our disposal to secure or reinforce our policies. What really concerns me is that our Central Intelligence Agency has really made it more difficult for some nations in a position to give us any support, reluctant. I saw the interview on Abu Dhabi television with Kofe Annan, he mentioned that resolutions would not be enough to bring Saddam to justice or disarm his country. The Turks think war is premature too, but now the dissenting countries are willing to give turkey support in the event that reprisals from Iraq will come. C. Rice published a report that initially supported a "go it alone" way of handling Saddam Hussien. I fear this will be the final outcome. I do not think that the U.N. is effective, or vital. American used to be able to wield tremendous power from inception, but now, the U.N. seems terribly reluctant to do anything. And as for the numbers regarding financial responsibility, I got some numbers for anyone interested: http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/chart17.htm. Look at them anyway you want..And yes, we americans shoot our mouths off all the time. But we historically have had the courage, the power and the desire to make the world a better place. It has always been America in the forefront of change, when the British were in over their heads, when the french were in over their heads, etc etc..I am uncomfortable with idea that we have become the worlds policemen, but I know we can't keep our heads in the sand either. Yes, we project our power and our values all over the world, and we insist on the final world on every conflict that costs us prestige, money and lives, but we can do that, we have the power and the money and the people to make things happen. I guess my only real problem is our lack of discretion in the past. I think it would be a sad thing if we "Americanise" the middle east...

~~bluelight~~ · Feb 16, 2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J.Reb
My points for your collective consideration...

1. Why is it that you "equal" countries have had the US shoulder most of the cost of the UN through the years?
2. Which of you "equal" countries has any military power to defend itself worth spit?
3. Without the US in WWII, which of you "equals" would not be speaking German (or Russian) because it was imposed on you?
4. Germany has a bad track record, having been the main contributor to two world conflagrations in one century. Why are they to be considered "equal" - because they breathe?
5. France took all of six weeks to roll over in WWII. Who has a record "equal" to that? And why should they be respected as "equal"?
6. None of you euros would have survived the USSR without the US.
7. The US was the main contributor of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan on 9-10. There must be a lesson in there somewhere.
8. If the US is strong enough to maintain it's own policies re the world, why would you expect it to abandon it's strength and become equal to lessers?
9. The US must defend itself, none of you will. After bin ladin was traced to Afghanistan, which among you attacked his forces there?
10. Which of you would have in the next ten years? The answer is NONE.
11. If the US pulls out of NATO, as they should, and the euros attempt a defense organization, I predict that it will be controlled by Germany in the future...as the EU was. Which of you is comfortable with that prognosis?
12. The UN was an ill-conceived attempt to elevate the small penises to large status, but what it really did was degrade the US to incompetence. Does anybody really think France deserves a veto??
13. Which of you euros has a military budget which is other than a joke? Don't say you are only a small country...that is your problem. If you are small and insignificant, then you cannot control your own destiny. Don't expect to.
14. The US has not to my knowledge kept one foot of a conquered country. NONE of the rest of you (who have conquered anybody) can say that.
15. The US has a questionable policy of rebuilding its defeated enemies....e.g. Germany and Japan. What distinguished E. Germany from W. Germany? Only the difference in value systems between the US and the USSR.
16. When you say the US wants to dictate, then I say that when you become something other than a joke the US will not have you as a burden to defend. THEN you may have a point. "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay under the porch".
17. The hell of it is, if we leave then as soon as someone invades you and rapes and pillages THEN we will hear you squeal for help and we will have to respond. That is your history, and that is ours.

There`s a lot of ....."Which of you equals" in your post ....they made made me stop reading it at all.....

Your post is the regular "USA is superior to everyone else garbage that is posted everywhere by Americans today.

Well you are not.

The attitude you demonstrate is the same attitude your government has shoen to the rest of the world the last 12 months.

It hasnt taken you anywhere and at the moment tjhis attitude has failed to give you support for an attack against Iraq.

You vant threat peole to obey and do as YOU please.You got to show at least a measure of respect even if you happen to be THE most powerful country in the world.

Usa is a rich country.ALL...of its wealth does not come out of sweat from americans working hard.A big portion of it comes from all over the globe.

BlueLight

Falstaff · Feb 16, 2003, 02:04 PM

Arguments could be made that our entire participation in the Iraq crisis is economically based, but it is flawed, we want to get rid of Hussien, of three rogue nations, he is defintely an attainable goal, next I suppose it will be N. Korea. If the U.N. can stomach Security Council Resolution 1441, then they will live up to their responsibilities and step up to the plate and swing on our team. If we really did as we pleased, then the world might be considerably different. But right now, our partners are learning how to be world players when the stakes are really really high. The time for courage is now, and the time for real peace making is now as well...

J.Reb · Feb 16, 2003, 02:55 PM

bluelight, stop whining and address the 17 points.

If "....they made made me stop reading it at all.....", then don't post at all.

My tax money goes to support defense of these euros, and I have a right to an explaination of why that should be. Either that, or refund my money. Your trite repetitive rhetoric of why I am such a monster begins to annoy me.

J.Reb · Feb 16, 2003, 02:58 PM

raid, what is your location?

bluelight, what is your location?

It must be the pits to live in a country you are ashamed to identify.

I like to know who I'm talking to.