France -- Its Selfishness Knows No Bounds

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 13, 2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malus
Let's see, the first time I called you one because you complete ignored the topic thread and you pretty much ignored what everyone who wasn't a liberal said. Seems pretty stupid to me. The second time was just for kicks. Maybe I should report every post where someone bashes America since that personally offends me. However, I won't. If I'm going to make insult the same way you do, I'm going to take the punishment like a man. I'm not going to cry to the mods when someone insults me, even though I insulted them as well.

This whole thread is a load of crap. You obviously don't want to address the original post, so why bother posting? At least some of us won't have to sift through ten pages of crap to read one or two good posts. Why do you think I insulted you? Because you're wastiong time and server space. Really, you could have made an eloquent argument to refute what Javafox said, instead of resulting to America insults. Why you didn't is beyond me, I have no clue why you are wasting your time like this.

I have not insulted you.

You have insulted me.Personally...in several ways.

I HAVE NOT USED INSULTING JUDGEMENTS ABOUT YOU.YOU HAVE ABOUT ME.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM SORTING OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR OWN PERSON AND YOUR CURRENT AND PREVIOUS GOVERNMENTS POLITICS THEN I SUGGEST YOU CONSULT SOMEONE ABOUT IT...........

Bluelight

Malus · Mar 13, 2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
I have not insulted you.

You senselessly bashed America. I am offended because I am American. Is there anymore to say? Honestly, I resent the fact that I'm constantly referred to as selfish, stupid, ignorant, etc. If I can't call anyone else that, then this is just one big hypocrisy.

Malus · Mar 13, 2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Ahh give it a rest will ya... That is exactly what I did say (about 3 years ago now) that it is impossible to consider French selfishness without considering American selfishness, that ultimately they (and everyone) were each as bad as the other. It was this sanctimonious 'holier than thou' attitude expressed by some here I objected to. And I remember the initial post very well. JF was not at all careful to make any of the kinds of distinctions that you refer to. Just as much as the French could have sorted all of this out a long time ago, the American contingent could have done the same by demonstrating to the world that it was serious about the processes occurring within the UN. So far it has consistently failed to do this. Case and point is the revised UK/US plan where a number of conditions were put to Saddam Hussein. At first glance this seems reasonable (and indeed I suggested this approach some time ago) until you realise that one of the included conditions is that Saddam Hussein go on national television and grovel in front of his people and the world for forgiveness for his past crimes. In an ideal world this would be nice to see (even if he is also being asked to confess to things we have not yet found any evidence for) but in the real world it is simply never going to happen. Saddam would immediately seem weak to his people and would undoubtedly not survive long after this. What is more, Bush, Blair & Co know this only too well. So it is they who are equally guilty of scuppering any hope of a second UN resolution as is France. What exactly this has to do with disarmament I do not know.

I have said it before that France could have been dealt with by offering them a concession that included the crucial phrase 'more time', had this been done and perhaps a moth more afforded to UN inspectors, everybody could have gone ahead and been pretty sure that everything the US and UK did in Iraq would remain pretty much on the right side of the law. This is no longer at all certain.

Anyway I'm not sure it matters. The killing is going to start shortly soon no matter what. Odd though that the definition should be made that conservatives support killing while non conservatives only support peace. That is not at all how it is - and paints a grossly simplistic picture of the present situation. But oh well, if it helps you to understand the world, then so be it. I won't try to complicate matters any more for you.

Q

The problem is more that you completely ignored the discussion about the French and immediately bashed America! If you want to compare the two, that's fine. However, you just completely ignored the French and talked about America. A comparison or discussion of the two countries should actually involve the two countries, not just America.

raid517 · Mar 13, 2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

You senselessly bashed America. I am offended because I am American. Is there anymore to say? Honestly, I resent the fact that I'm constantly referred to as selfish, stupid, ignorant, etc. If I can't call anyone else that, then this is just one big hypocrisy.

Oh come on now, when did anybody directly refer to you in those terms? I think a reference was made to a certain mind set. If you judged yourself to be a part of that mindset, then that is pretty much your own problem. Why else would you take it on board in such a personal way?

Q

raid517 · Mar 13, 2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malus
The problem is more that you completely ignored the discussion about the French and immediately bashed America! If you want to compare the two, that's fine. However, you just completely ignored the French and talked about America. A comparison or discussion of the two countries should actually involve the two countries, not just America.

Dude I have spent a long time doing exactly that. Many times I have refered to the French as selfish, not just on this thread but on many others too. I just find it impossible to listen to Americans suggesting this or that country/individual/international organisation is selfish, simply because they don't agree with republican party policies, without telling them to look in the mirror first.

In the UK we have a phrse that say's that the pot shouldn't call the kettle black and really that is exactly what you are doing. When you are innocent of all sins, or in this instance of all similar sins, then maybe you can feel free to start throwing stones. Until then tend to your own shortcommings first.

Q

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 14, 2003, 07:37 AM

Well the silence ius total about wheter if is ok to call peole morons....so i take it that

i can continually call anyone i like a moron in the future.

Thanks for clarifying this.

Bluelight

JavaFox · Mar 14, 2003, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
i can continually call anyone i like a moron in the future.

Thanks for clarifying this.

No, actually, you can't

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 14, 2003, 08:49 AM

But it is ok for Malus?!

Bluelight

JavaFox · Mar 14, 2003, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
But it is ok for Malus?!

No, it isn't. If you recall correctly, you'll see that my colleague, Toshiro, already addressed Malus.

Quote:

Well, guess what Malus? You aren't going to be resorting to name calling again, ok?

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 14, 2003, 11:30 AM

Ok.

Bluelight

JavaFox · Mar 14, 2003, 05:18 PM

Much appreciated.

If you have any other questions, the rules can be found here.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 16, 2003, 09:10 AM

raid517 · Mar 16, 2003, 10:07 AM

Boy you really like your cartoons Neon don't you? Its interesting isn't it that often the govenment can have a segment of the population so well trained, that when they aren't doing a good enough job of the propaganda themselves, they will often be able to depend on a certain idiot factor to go out and create their own...

Useful perhaps to some, but on the bigger scale of things, pretty much meaningless...

Q

raid517 · Mar 16, 2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Halliburton, one of the companies in the running for the deals, was headed by the US vice-president Dick Cheney between 1995 and 2000. Halliburton has already been awarded a lucrative contract, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to resurrect the Iraqi oilfields if there is a war. Haliburton was also a major contributer to president Bush's presidential campaign.

Source: New York Times.

There something like 10 other companies connected with President Bush's presidential campaign. So far at least 4 of these stand to gain to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars if the war in Iraq is sucessful. (In this case sucess means fast and cheap). Let's just see when this is all over how many others join the fold. (As we speak Merck is vying for contracts to proved health services and medicines to the Iraqi people - and they are doing so in the absence of any competing contracters whatsover). All other contracts will in any case be awarded to exclusively American companies. If that's not selfishness, then what is?

All very cosey if you ask me.

Q

Shadowmaster · Mar 18, 2003, 08:27 PM

Look at the following web page, but be aware the pictures are very strong.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/thisiswar/

Are these pictures honourful for a modern civilization ? I think not. And the politics of the americans are a fallback in the time of despotism. Th american foreign politics is only for the americans regardless of the international community.

/sarcasm on
Every empire, which has existed in the history (Spain, Greece etc.) is now a very nice country for holidays.
So there is hope for america to be peaceful sometimes somewhere.
/sarcasm off

By the way. The german law prohibits every kind of an attack war. This law has been accepted after the second world war from the americans, the british, the french man and the russians. (german basic law §26 and german penal code §80 and §80a)

Falstaff · Mar 19, 2003, 05:13 AM

They refer to their military as a self defense force too..and depend on our support if threatened by nieghbors under the "STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT", but they like the Germans have deadly weapons and extremely well trained pilots and sailors...

Falstaff · Mar 19, 2003, 05:26 AM

>
> This one is definitely NOT tongue in cheek. Sig, the author, was
a teen-aged Marine
>who marched and fought as a rifleman to and from the Chosin
reservoir in Korea in 1950. He switched to the Army, and served as a Special Forces officer in Vietnam. After Vietnam he joined the CIA, and went back to Korea. He's been there, done it, and has some specific thoughts on countries that don't "like" us. If you aren't interested in the ramblings of
>an old man, please delete now. If you're still there, pull up a
chair and listen. Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the
polls being taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they "like" us? The last time I looked, the word "like" had nothing to do with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They worked for Rome, which civilized and kept the peace in the known world a hell of a lot longer than our puny two centuries-plus.

I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning against the foreign policyof the United States. Yeah, that's what I want, to be lectured about war and being a "good neighbor" by a German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war against Iraq. Kind of nice, to see them taking a pass >on a war once in while. Perhaps we needed to have the word "World" in front of War. I think it's time to bring our boys home from Germany. Outside of the money we'd save, we'd make the Germans "like" us a lot more, after they
started paying the bills for their own defense.
Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort
of liked us back on June 6th, 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't think so, see how nicely they take care of the enormous American cemeteries up above the Normandy beaches. For those of you who've studied history, we also have a few cemeteries in places like Belleau Woods and Chateau, Thierry also. For those of you who haven't studied it, that was from World War One, the first time Europe screwed up and we bailed out the French. That's where the US Marines got the title 'Devil Dogs' or, if you still care about what the Germans think, "Teufelhunde". I hope I spelled that right; sure wouldn't want to offend anyone, least of
all a German.

Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian
problem recently, guess who had to help out there also. Last time I checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember they said they would be out in a year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun.
Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us
either. They "liked" us a lot
better, of course, in June, 1950. It took more than 50,000
Americans killed in Korea to help give them the lifestyle they currently enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time to bring the boys home from there. There are about 37,000 young Americans on the DMZ separating the South Koreans from their "brothers" up North. Maybe if we leave, they can begin to participate in the "good life" that North Korea currently enjoys. Uh huh.

Sure. I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem
world now doesn't "like" us either. Did anyone ever sit down and determine what we would have to do to get them to like us? Ask them what they would like us to do. Die? Commit ritual suicide? Bend over?
Maybe we should follow the advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife
in the drawer, Senator Patty Murray, and build more roads, hospitals, day care centers, and orphanages like Osama bin Laden does. What with all the orphans Osama has created, the least he can do is build some places to put them. Senator Murray says if we would only "emulate"Osama, the Arab world would love us. Sorry Patty; in addition to the fact that we already do all of those
things around the world and have been doing them for over sixty
years, I don't take public transportation, and I certainly wouldn't take it with a bomb strapped to the guy next to me.

>Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of going to war. Been there,
done that. Several times,
>in fact. But I think we ought to have some polls in this country
about other countries, and see if we "like"
>THEM. Problem is, if you listed the countries, not only wouldn't
the average American know if he liked them or not, he
>wouldn't be able to find them. If we're supposed to worry about
them, how about them worrying about us?
>
> We were nice to the North Koreans in 1994, as we followed the
policies of Neville Clinton. And it seemed to work; they didn't
>re-start nuclear weapons program for a whole year or so. In the
meantime, we fed them when they were starving, and put oil in their
>stoves when they were freezing.

> In a recent visit to Norway, I engaged in a really fun debate with
my cousin's son, a student at a Norwegian University. I was
>lectured to by this thankless squirt about the American "Empire",
and scolded about dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese. I
>reminded him that empires usually keep the stuff they take; we
don't, and back in 1945 most Norwegians thought dropping ANY kind of bomb
onGermany or Japan was a good idea. I also reminded him that my uncle, his
grandfather, and others in our family spent a significant time in
Sachsenhausen concentration camp, courtesy of the Germans, and they didn't
all survive. I further reminded him that if it wasn't for the "American
Empire" he would probably be speaking German or Russian.
>
> Sorry about the rambling, but I just took an unofficial poll here
at our house, and we don't seem to like anyone.
>
> "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the
night to visit violence
>on those who would harm us."

George Orwell.

This quote has made the rounds, be he is a member of our special club and I respect his opinion....think what you will, but the clock is ticking, and time is running out for Saddam....

raid517 · Mar 19, 2003, 12:45 PM

Oh but Jeff I do get tired of the propaganda. I think Europe has been pretty good on its support for US policies over the last 60 years. Nato was not an entirely useless institution - or at least every American administration throughout the duration of the cold war seemed to find it very useful. As for America not keeping hold of military acquisitions, then I would simply ask you to take a look at a map of American Military bases around the world. You will see that in every place and in every conflict America has ever been involved in, she has left military bases behind so that she can continue to exert influence over the local population. The fact that some of these bases are relatively small is of no consequence (though several are anything but small) as this is exactly the same way the Romans conducted affairs; namely by leaving small garrisons behind to remind the population of American military might and then by persuading the local leaders of the monetary and material benefits of co-operation. The only practical difference is that the Romans called it an 'Empire', while you do not.

As for the Bosnian situation, I remember that only too well. Indeed I almost needed to go for counselling after seeing some of those horrific images on TV. But remember it took 5 years of seeing these images before politicians acted to do anything - and indeed it was only public opinion and public revulsion that inspired them to act at all. Having said this it is to Tony Blair's eternal credit that in the run up to his election in 1997 he was prepared to commit virtually the entire strength of the British army to resolving this problem - and it was only after he was elected that anyone bothered to do anything. (Indeed that as partly why he was elected in the UK because he promised to act).

And again you confuse mistrust of this current Republican party's regional ambitions, with a dislike of America. Just because we have fallen out over a spat with some small time regional dictator doesn't mean we wouldn't be there if the shit ever really did hit the fan. Case and point the French said that if Saddam ever did use WMD, they would personally seek to fry his ass.

Really what people mistrust and fear is this 'blueprint for a new American century', because in here it actually states American policy makers ambitions to actively seek to keep its partners economically and militarily weak. It is hardly surprising that there are so few people in the world rushing to sign up to this plan.

Q

Falstaff · Mar 19, 2003, 01:28 PM

Actually, I feel that U.S. foriegn policy has become more surreal than it was say 50 years ago. I still recall how Alistair Cooke, and noted British writer felt about such matters as the failure of the League of Nations and the U.N. I was always dissapointed about diplomatic faliures when the U.N. if allowed to become greater than the sum of its parts, would intercede on behalf of world peace, and make wars illegal...
I still feel that way..I recieved my education overseas, and my teachers were from my Host nation, they all spoke glowingly about the United Nations, and I came to expect that it's powers was somewhat greater than perhaps it had a right to be, especially after the meeting at Yalta between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt. I honestly thought it was the role of the U.N. to step in as the "world policemen" not us....but I was wrong...
I am equally dissapointed with 4 of our presidents and their foriegn policy, I believe our arsenal of nuclear weapons empowered these men to overextend many of our privileges in diplomacy, i.e.:

DOING WHAT WE WANT..

SAYING WHAT WE WANT..

INVADING WHOMEVER WE WANT..

AND TAKING WHAT WE WANT..

AND SELECTIVELY DETERMINING WHICH COUNTRY IS A THREAT TO WORLD PEACE..

Now I know this sounds sophmoric and unrealistic from the american point of view, but it has always been based on my perceptions I gained when I was a teenager..

As far as keeping our neighbors weak, well this is true, we have managed to hold all the cards carefully to our chests the world over..

I am aware about the analogy to "PAX ROMANA" I used PAX AMERICANA in some of my first threads, ha ha...

I would like go further and use our current military and political situation to a illustrate a point that you made regarding small bases in former communist satelites, by mentioning the futility of HADRIANS WALL.

I recall my history, and I believe that it became a futile effort to extend the boundries of ROME and reinforce the foriegn policy of the times, which was "trade and swords", but I might be mistaken...

Hadrians wall was eventually absorbed into the culture of England, it's legions eventually absorbed into the local populace and eventually forgotten by ROME, as it's borders were attacked in the EAST...

What do you think??

Dem2k · Mar 19, 2003, 02:28 PM

Well most British people have gripes with the french during the Falklands war. While the British forces were trying to regain control of the country, we were having to deal with the Argentinean Forces. Who's missiles sunk lots of our navel force. Now these missiles were supplied by the french

. Who was supposedly a EU nation while at the time was meant to be on our side.

But since that is all done and dusted. Our relationship with France is very good I understand

.

Also on a side note. The president of France is the only one in the UN to actually of met Saddam face to face. This may explain France's rash notions

. Or so thats what Sky-News broadcasts.

Though the UK has had a tremendously large amount of arguments converted into wars, in our history. The most historic thing IMHO is when Hitler asked our government to join forces with the Axis .

Of course our government rejected this

, but it indeed shows that our nation stuck a big thorn in the dictators plans. My gripe is that we didn't act fast enough to save millions of inocents in the Poland.

Now back to topic.

IMO we cannot leave Iraq as it is. It needs change. It would of been great day if every nation in the UN made the same goal but that wasn't to be. The UN won't die though. But it has been damaged. I have no views on why France would vito any proposal of war, as I have no clue. Maybe a French forum member can shed some insight on this?

raid517 · Mar 19, 2003, 02:31 PM

Well I don't know about Hadrian’s Wall Jeff. All I know is that it was a representation of the furthest reaches of Roman power. Try as they might the Romans could never quite defeat the Northern races of this Island. (I'm not sure if it’s fair to call them Scots, as Picts is probably more accurate). But as is the case in all such matters, enmity never really hindered trade. So yes I expect it’s true that even then swords were sold to the enemy. Who knows? All I do know is it’s about time people started learning the lessons of history. Some people however only seem to have a memory that extends as far back as the last presidential speech.

As for being disappointed about the UN, what is there to be disappointed about? The UN is made up of individual members, it has no standing army of its own (nor would many conservatives in the US want it to), and all it is able to do is express the will of its members. If the will to act isn't there then the UN is powerless to do anything - other than take the blame for the inaction of its members. What you could say is that you are disappointed at our individual governments level of commitment to the UN, but this is very much a two way sword, because a high proportion of those wars you speak of either were inspired by, or supported by the US. Clearly on such occasions when inaction suited US interests the veto was used in order to prevent the UN from being able to do anything to prevent these conflicts.

This is just a crude exercise in deflection. Whenever politicians screw up they always and invariably look for someone else to blame. If they can create a demon, be it the French, or the UN or whatever and whip up enough public distain, this usually serves their purposes very nicely indeed. It is a very old trick, and it seems people are only too willing to still fall for it.

Well... like I said... Those who ignore the lessons of history place everyone in deadly peril. I trust our current leaders are more aware of history than they seem...

Q

Falstaff · Mar 19, 2003, 02:56 PM

I agree, but I thought it was ten minutes ago, rather than the last speech, ha ha...As for the U.N. well....I remember what Alistair Cooke said about the U.N. you should look at his "Letters from America" the last one (can't remember the thread) gave some good points and brought me up to speed, ha ha....As for the term deflection, I think it is appropriate, albiet your being diplomatic, ha ha...We use the term "deflection" to discribe what happens when excrement hits the fan, ha ha, especially when we throw it.....

Falstaff · Mar 19, 2003, 03:01 PM

Monday, 17 March, 2003, 10:51 GMT
Avoiding the scourge of war

Even after 57 years of what I like to think of as gently explanatory talks about America - its people, its ways, its life and government - I still hear from perfectly intelligent people asking questions I thought I answered when I was a stripling, way back in 1946.
As an old English lawyer friend of mine asked me earnestly: "How do they handle this in America?"

The simple, rude answer was, quite possibly in 50 different ways.

But I bridled my rude instincts and said: "Well, it depends where the case is coming up."

As you know every state has its own constitution, banking laws, educational system, criminal code. So the procedure might be quite different in Massachusetts, Ohio, California.

In the case you're talking about, a young man steals a bag of golf clubs. In one state he might get a lecture and a fine - but since it was his third petty theft, in California he could get 20 years or a life sentence in conformity with their recent law - three strikes and they throw the book at you.

"Indeed," was my friend's eloquent comment.

So recently I had a very engaging, honest letter asking: "What is Washington like? This city that breeds, according to taste, such noble or loathsome policies - and exactly what is DC, as in 'Washington DC'?

A good question and one I suspect many listeners have hesitated to ask because they're not quite sure what it means.

Well it means District of Columbia. Yes, but what does that mean?

Well, it's a nice story, nice in the literal sense of being a delicate subtle game of politics.

When the revolutionary war - the War of Independence - was over, New York city was the first capital of the new republic but pretty soon the men from the farming states resented the strong influence of the businessmen and commercial interests in making new laws.

Philadelphia, where the Constitution had been debated and written and produced, seemed a happy suggestion but some Southern states objected, on the correct complaint that Philadelphia - indeed the whole of the state of Pennsylvania - was full of Quakers and they were already full of the urge to abolish slavery.

After much long and bitter dissension a compromise was reached. It was agreed that the suspect Philadelphia should nonetheless be the government capital for 10 years and no more.

In the meantime to create a home for it Congress decided it should not settle in any state because there'd always be powerful objections one way or another. So Maryland, what was to be known as a border state between north and south, Maryland and its southern neighbour Virginia, agreed to cede together 10 square miles of land lying along both sides of the Potomac River.

In 1800, at the end of Philadelphia's 10-year reign, the government moved to the created district, which Congress defined as the District of Columbia.

Here it planted a new capital city in what Thomas Jefferson disgustedly called "the Indian swamp in the wilderness."

The city was at first a primitive collection of huts and buildings half finished. But it was the nation's capital and proudly named itself after the founding father - Washington DC.

Barely above the river level it had a vile climate - rheumy, dank winters and infernal summers - and was for many decades subject to malaria and yellow fever.

So Congressmen, treating it as more of a convention city than anything, did brisk business through winter and spring and rushed home as often as possible.

But in the beginning George Washington had hired a French architect and engineer who'd been captured during the War of Independence, and he'd drawn up a master plan recalling Versailles - a majestic city, very wide avenues punctuated by grand circles, which were not only graceful but useful for the placement of cannon against an invader.

Laughable as that plan might have looked on paper during the first half century it became a reality during the great age of iron, coke, steel after the Civil War and the original was transformed into the beautiful city it is today.

Also, while Washington's climate is technically temperate to semi-tropical, the result is an incomparable wealth and range of trees. I shouldn't be surprised if it grew at one end the noble Douglas Fir and at the other something as exotic as the California tree with a bark like the skin of a peach - the manzanita and madrone.

A hundred years ago the British ambassador - a learned Scot, James Bryce - wrote: "I know of no great city in Europe that has in its very environs such beautiful scenery as in Rock Creek Park with the broad river in the centre and its rich wooded slopes descending boldly to it."

One of the most attractive and leafy parts of Washington is called Georgetown and is the site of an elegant Georgian mansion called Dumbarton House.

It was here that Dolly Madison, the president's wife, fled for safety and stayed while the British were burning the White House in the war of 1812. Remember?

But this elegant mansion called Dumbarton House is not the birthplace of the United Nations but the place where it was conceived.

I mentioned a week or more ago that my latest bed book was one I read when it first came out in 1972, only four years after its author died. it's called The Diaries of Sir Alexander Cadogan.

And in view of, as I speak, the breakdown of any unity in the United Nations on the critical matter of Iraq I wanted to go back and find the record of one day in the life of Cadogan which I recall wincing at when I first read about it and which, as things turned out, went to the very heart of the proposed international organisation that President Roosevelt had dubbed "The United Nations".

Not until the late summer of 1944, when the Allies - the British, Americans, Canadians and Poles - had invaded Normandy and were plainly on their way to a victory in Europe - Allied advance units were only 12 miles from Paris - was a meeting called in Washington to design the framework of the United Nations.

It met during the last steamy days of August and went well into September and the main participants were the American secretary of state, the Soviet ambassador to the US and for Great Britain and her dominions the Permanent Under Secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Alexander Cadogan - a pro if ever there was one in foreign policy and the one man who'd been in on the life and death of the League of Nations.

The preliminary agenda assembled as many issues - from the Philippines to Iceland, from China to Trieste - as a Christmas bargain basement.

But two issues outweighed everything else.

First, the big resounding theme was the voting procedure in the Security Council - the ruling body of this institution, the one set up to prevent or put down acts of aggression anywhere.

While the British and the Americans agreed on most ideas the Russian ambassador was simply an onlooker for he was terrified of moving a hair's breadth away from his boss - Stalin in Moscow.

Time and again the very fragile foundations of this UN started to crumble.

Stalin didn't want France or China brought in as great powers - permanent members of the council. He gave in.

He also wanted the big five, as it became, to be able to veto even the discussion of any topic brought up before it.

Finally he agreed - dictated would be better - that no action, military action, could ever be taken by the United Nations unless all five permanent members voted together.

He publicly agreed with Roosevelt that the United States and the Soviet Union would live happily and vote happily together in all vital matters.

Cadogan saw that this pretence was hopeless but essential to any world organisation at that time. He wrote in his diary: "It is a will-o'-the-wisp."

The second issue was hardly discussed. it became Article 43 of the charter at San Francisco, which says all members of the UN shall make available to the Security Council on call armed forces, assistance and facilities and specify what sorts and how many arms, weapons, supplies from each nation, and this information shall be "negotiated" as soon as possible.

When this idea was brought up at Dumbarton Oaks the America secretary of state reminded Cadogan that only the Congress could declare war and the president had no power to offer anything.

The Canadians said "Yes but you'd have to consult the provincial governments."

Stalin said - later discovered to be a huge joke - "I tell you what, let's have an international air force."

Cadogan found on questioning other nations that they all were getting cold feet about yielding a quota of armed forces.

It was a hot potato and it was dropped, picked up at San Francisco and slipped into the charter as something of an embarrassment.

In actual fact nobody ever came through with a list, a quota, the offer of a tank, a machine gun, a revolver.

Like the previous League, the United Nations had, has had, no international force which could overwhelm any combination of aggressors.

It could simply go on chanting the opening sentence of the Charter: "To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

That, for 57 years, has been the theory, the grand wish, but in fact in life since then there have been 250 wars not put down.

This early history and the huge and continuing ineffectiveness of the UN as an enforcing power it was conceived to be is at the root of America's attitude to Saddam Hussein.

It's the bitter knowledge that the UN, considered as an effective world force in putting down tyrants, aggressors, threats to peace - well, Cadogan came to believe that the United Nations was not stifled in its cradle at San Francisco, it was aborted in Dumbarton House.

this is interesting, guess I have been listening to him for years...this seemed relevent..

BWX · Mar 19, 2003, 03:47 PM

SEVERE EARTHQUAKE IN FRANCE

March 19, 2003.
Today it was reported that severe earthquakes have occurred in
10 different locations in France.
The severity was measured in excess of 8 on the Richter Scale.
The cause was the 56,681 dead American soldiers buried in French soil rolling over
in their graves.
According to the American Battle Monuments Commission there are 26,255 Yankee dead from
World War I buried in 4 cemeteries in France.
There are 30,426 American dead from World War II
buried in 6 cemeteries in France.
These 56,681 brave American heroes died in their youth to liberate
a country which is guilty of shameful unspeakable behavior in the 21st century.
May the United States of America never forget their sacrifice as we find ways to
forcefully deal with the Godforsaken unappreciative, forgetful country of France!

Kind of speaks for itself.

This is how MOST Americans feel. 70% to 90% in polls.

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 19, 2003, 07:04 PM

Who ...has been acting shamefully...is something youy will have to wait 10 15 years to have a clue about.....The outcome of this war.....is something neither you or i know anything about....

This war is among other things the outcome of last war just as Sept 11 probably also was since Bin Ladens hatered against Usa was fueelled by American presence in Saudi which led eventually to that he was himself thrown out of Saudi Arabia by his own family.

War in itself....does not build anything.This war will not build democracy in Iraq...It does not work that way.Afghanistan is still ruled by Warlords although on paper it is a democracy.....well a democracy in Afganistan....well in fifty years ...maybe...

There is an actual possibility that this war will create an even bigger chaos that what we have today.....so when history is written in 15 years.....the heroes....are not sure to be Usa.

And...there is no way for you to tell....other than wait ...and see....

You can agree with what is done right now...but....If it is good or bad....well...time will tell.

Bluelight

Falstaff · Mar 19, 2003, 07:17 PM

by those that conquer not those that were conquered...

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 19, 2003, 07:31 PM

One might think so but still...last gulf war...was pictured as a major success apart from that Saddam was still in office when it was over...All efforts were justified...

Still the outcome...is this war...and most likely Sept 11...so i guess it is a question of which history books one reads...Im talking history in reality not the written one.

Our written history has never acclaimed the Palestinians it never acclaimed the SouthAfricans....until they released themselves..etc etc...

No matter if Saddam is dead and gone in three weeks the final result of all this might still be worse then were we started off.

WE might end up with two wars in one if Turkey messes upo in the north....We might end up with a war that includes Iran...it might not be in two weeks but it is a possibility...in what will be happening in a year..3 years.etc etc...

War does not construct.It crushes....construction...is something else.So saying this war will insate democracy....naaahhh....i will not...That is something Iraq..must do themselves...

Bluelight

raid517 · Mar 19, 2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
SEVERE EARTHQUAKE IN FRANCE

March 19, 2003.
Today it was reported that severe earthquakes have occurred in
10 different locations in France.
The severity was measured in excess of 8 on the Richter Scale.
The cause was the 56,681 dead American soldiers buried in French soil rolling over
in their graves.
According to the American Battle Monuments Commission there are 26,255 Yankee dead from
World War I buried in 4 cemeteries in France.
There are 30,426 American dead from World War II
buried in 6 cemeteries in France.
These 56,681 brave American heroes died in their youth to liberate
a country which is guilty of shameful unspeakable behavior in the 21st century.
May the United States of America never forget their sacrifice as we find ways to
forcefully deal with the Godforsaken unappreciative, forgetful country of France!

Kind of speaks for itself.

This is how MOST Americans feel. 70% to 90% in polls.

Boy you really have got a cob on about the French haven't you? I mean all they refused to do was sign up to the blue print for a new American centaury. Why should anyone else in this world express support for Republican part territorial ambitions and agree to a war that was going to happen no matter what their view of the matter was? There French like the majority of the rest of the world do not consider an unprovoked Iraq a serious matter, just some back water no mark dictator in some irrelevant 3rd world country. Only Americans seem to think them a significant threat. But as has been demonstrated if it were shown that the French government would offer its full unequivocal support if Iraq ever did use chemical and/or biological weapons. This demonstrates two things. First that the French do not think Iraq poses a serious threat and that faced with this degree of overwhelming force, given the primitive state of their army - and that if things ever did get bad, France would be there with her allies to take on Saddam too.

I think all of the above is just emotional twaddle. It is clear if America ever really was threatened that all of the US' long term partners would stand firmly along side her. But when it comes to some small scale regional spat with a dictator that many view America as being guilty of creating and maintaining, well maybe they think you should be left to clean up your own mess. Half the Iraqi Army has pretty much already surrendered, so maybe this will turn out to be more or less one big non event anyway...

Q

raid517 · Mar 19, 2003, 08:13 PM

Mmm well I don't know what all that was supposed to be about the UN Jeff, other than what I pretty much said before about it being able to do anything more than express the will of its members. If that will isn't there, which it often hasn't been, it simply can't act. As you noted, it never quite achieved a standing army of its own...

One useful function it can perform is to pass judgment on the actions of its members and decide if they are legal or not. It has done this a great many times. It did it when the Russians invaded Afghanistan and it has done so again as America and the UK invade Iraq.

Beyond this, I think expecting any more of it in terms of security matters is simply impractical. There will never be a UN standing army, not least because some whacko Americans believe in something they call a 'one world government', as if a bunch of diplomats had the authority to act in this way. At the best of times they find it hard to ever really agree on that much.

But oh well... I guess like you I am disappointed with the UN... I am disappointed that our governments didn't take it more seriously, or commit to it more, or give it the resources it needs to do its job. That is what I find most disappointing of all.

However at present its all we have in enabling the people of the world to talk to each other and to reach some kind of understanding - and until someone thinks of something better then I think it would be a genuine mistake to dismiss it. The only other alternative is a world without any co-operation or understanding whatsoever (beyond falling out over the odd issue or so) and that cannot be good for anyone.

So I would rather stick with the UN - at least until human beings mature and decide that war is pointless. Sadly though, I think we will wait a very long time for that to happen.

On another note I was encouraged by Mr Blair's assertion that he had managed to convince president Bush to abandon his idea of imposing an American military general as dictator of Iraq after the war was over and has instead persuaded him to go for a civilian administration as quickly as possible - and also it was nice to hear that Blair had persuaded him to put the money from the Iraqi oil fields into a trust fund administered by the UN, rather than by a group of powerful American bankers. This sounds at least a tad more like an end vision of Iraq that I could sign up to, as this would stop some of the accusations of piracy and profiteering, although no doubt the new Iraqi government will still be instructed to turn the oil taps on full to drive down world oil prices. And also the fact that Bush has awarded several of the contracts to rebuild Iraq to a number of the companies that helped him get elected doesn't look good, as this means a lot of Bush's friends will still get very rich from this war. Nor is awarding only American companies contracts to rebuild Iraq likely to convince anyone that this was all about the international community acting against terrorism.

But oh well... It’s too late to worry about all that now I guess. Now we must get the war out of the way. The recriminations will come later...

Q

Mar 16, 2003, 09:10 AM	#162
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	__________________

Mar 16, 2003, 10:07 AM	#163
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Boy you really like your cartoons Neon don't you? Its interesting isn't it that often the govenment can have a segment of the population so well trained, that when they aren't doing a good enough job of the propaganda themselves, they will often be able to depend on a certain idiot factor to go out and create their own... Useful perhaps to some, but on the bigger scale of things, pretty much meaningless... Q Last edited by raid517; Mar 16, 2003 at 10:53 AM.

Mar 19, 2003, 05:13 AM	#166
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	yeh the japanese as well They refer to their military as a self defense force too..and depend on our support if threatened by nieghbors under the "STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT", but they like the Germans have deadly weapons and extremely well trained pilots and sailors... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 19, 2003, 05:26 AM	#167
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	Orwelian wit > > This one is definitely NOT tongue in cheek. Sig, the author, was a teen-aged Marine >who marched and fought as a rifleman to and from the Chosin reservoir in Korea in 1950. He switched to the Army, and served as a Special Forces officer in Vietnam. After Vietnam he joined the CIA, and went back to Korea. He's been there, done it, and has some specific thoughts on countries that don't "like" us. If you aren't interested in the ramblings of >an old man, please delete now. If you're still there, pull up a chair and listen. Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the polls being taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they "like" us? The last time I looked, the word "like" had nothing to do with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They worked for Rome, which civilized and kept the peace in the known world a hell of a lot longer than our puny two centuries-plus. I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning against the foreign policyof the United States. Yeah, that's what I want, to be lectured about war and being a "good neighbor" by a German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war against Iraq. Kind of nice, to see them taking a pass >on a war once in while. Perhaps we needed to have the word "World" in front of War. I think it's time to bring our boys home from Germany. Outside of the money we'd save, we'd make the Germans "like" us a lot more, after they started paying the bills for their own defense. Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of liked us back on June 6th, 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't think so, see how nicely they take care of the enormous American cemeteries up above the Normandy beaches. For those of you who've studied history, we also have a few cemeteries in places like Belleau Woods and Chateau, Thierry also. For those of you who haven't studied it, that was from World War One, the first time Europe screwed up and we bailed out the French. That's where the US Marines got the title 'Devil Dogs' or, if you still care about what the Germans think, "Teufelhunde". I hope I spelled that right; sure wouldn't want to offend anyone, least of all a German. Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian problem recently, guess who had to help out there also. Last time I checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember they said they would be out in a year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun. Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either. They "liked" us a lot better, of course, in June, 1950. It took more than 50,000 Americans killed in Korea to help give them the lifestyle they currently enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time to bring the boys home from there. There are about 37,000 young Americans on the DMZ separating the South Koreans from their "brothers" up North. Maybe if we leave, they can begin to participate in the "good life" that North Korea currently enjoys. Uh huh. Sure. I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now doesn't "like" us either. Did anyone ever sit down and determine what we would have to do to get them to like us? Ask them what they would like us to do. Die? Commit ritual suicide? Bend over? Maybe we should follow the advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the drawer, Senator Patty Murray, and build more roads, hospitals, day care centers, and orphanages like Osama bin Laden does. What with all the orphans Osama has created, the least he can do is build some places to put them. Senator Murray says if we would only "emulate"Osama, the Arab world would love us. Sorry Patty; in addition to the fact that we already do all of those things around the world and have been doing them for over sixty years, I don't take public transportation, and I certainly wouldn't take it with a bomb strapped to the guy next to me. >Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of going to war. Been there, done that. Several times, >in fact. But I think we ought to have some polls in this country about other countries, and see if we "like" >THEM. Problem is, if you listed the countries, not only wouldn't the average American know if he liked them or not, he >wouldn't be able to find them. If we're supposed to worry about them, how about them worrying about us? > > We were nice to the North Koreans in 1994, as we followed the policies of Neville Clinton. And it seemed to work; they didn't >re-start nuclear weapons program for a whole year or so. In the meantime, we fed them when they were starving, and put oil in their >stoves when they were freezing. > In a recent visit to Norway, I engaged in a really fun debate with my cousin's son, a student at a Norwegian University. I was >lectured to by this thankless squirt about the American "Empire", and scolded about dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese. I >reminded him that empires usually keep the stuff they take; we don't, and back in 1945 most Norwegians thought dropping ANY kind of bomb onGermany or Japan was a good idea. I also reminded him that my uncle, his grandfather, and others in our family spent a significant time in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, courtesy of the Germans, and they didn't all survive. I further reminded him that if it wasn't for the "American Empire" he would probably be speaking German or Russian. > > Sorry about the rambling, but I just took an unofficial poll here at our house, and we don't seem to like anyone. > > "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence >on those who would harm us." George Orwell. This quote has made the rounds, be he is a member of our special club and I respect his opinion....think what you will, but the clock is ticking, and time is running out for Saddam....

Mar 19, 2003, 01:28 PM	#169
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	PAX AMERICANA Actually, I feel that U.S. foriegn policy has become more surreal than it was say 50 years ago. I still recall how Alistair Cooke, and noted British writer felt about such matters as the failure of the League of Nations and the U.N. I was always dissapointed about diplomatic faliures when the U.N. if allowed to become greater than the sum of its parts, would intercede on behalf of world peace, and make wars illegal... I still feel that way..I recieved my education overseas, and my teachers were from my Host nation, they all spoke glowingly about the United Nations, and I came to expect that it's powers was somewhat greater than perhaps it had a right to be, especially after the meeting at Yalta between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt. I honestly thought it was the role of the U.N. to step in as the "world policemen" not us....but I was wrong... I am equally dissapointed with 4 of our presidents and their foriegn policy, I believe our arsenal of nuclear weapons empowered these men to overextend many of our privileges in diplomacy, i.e.: DOING WHAT WE WANT.. SAYING WHAT WE WANT.. INVADING WHOMEVER WE WANT.. AND TAKING WHAT WE WANT.. AND SELECTIVELY DETERMINING WHICH COUNTRY IS A THREAT TO WORLD PEACE.. Now I know this sounds sophmoric and unrealistic from the american point of view, but it has always been based on my perceptions I gained when I was a teenager.. As far as keeping our neighbors weak, well this is true, we have managed to hold all the cards carefully to our chests the world over.. I am aware about the analogy to "PAX ROMANA" I used PAX AMERICANA in some of my first threads, ha ha... I would like go further and use our current military and political situation to a illustrate a point that you made regarding small bases in former communist satelites, by mentioning the futility of HADRIANS WALL. I recall my history, and I believe that it became a futile effort to extend the boundries of ROME and reinforce the foriegn policy of the times, which was "trade and swords", but I might be mistaken... Hadrians wall was eventually absorbed into the culture of England, it's legions eventually absorbed into the local populace and eventually forgotten by ROME, as it's borders were attacked in the EAST... What do you think??

Mar 14, 2003, 07:37 AM	#156
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Well the silence ius total about wheter if is ok to call peole morons....so i take it that i can continually call anyone i like a moron in the future. Thanks for clarifying this. Bluelight

Mar 14, 2003, 08:49 AM	#158
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	But it is ok for Malus?! Bluelight

Mar 14, 2003, 11:30 AM	#160
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Ok. Bluelight

Mar 14, 2003, 05:18 PM	Thread Starter #161
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Much appreciated. If you have any other questions, the rules can be found here.

Mar 18, 2003, 08:27 PM	#165
Shadowmaster DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 4 Rep Power: 0	Look at the following web page, but be aware the pictures are very strong. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/thisiswar/ Are these pictures honourful for a modern civilization ? I think not. And the politics of the americans are a fallback in the time of despotism. Th american foreign politics is only for the americans regardless of the international community. /sarcasm on Every empire, which has existed in the history (Spain, Greece etc.) is now a very nice country for holidays. So there is hope for america to be peaceful sometimes somewhere. /sarcasm off By the way. The german law prohibits every kind of an attack war. This law has been accepted after the second world war from the americans, the british, the french man and the russians. (german basic law §26 and german penal code §80 and §80a)

Mar 19, 2003, 12:45 PM	#168
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Oh but Jeff I do get tired of the propaganda. I think Europe has been pretty good on its support for US policies over the last 60 years. Nato was not an entirely useless institution - or at least every American administration throughout the duration of the cold war seemed to find it very useful. As for America not keeping hold of military acquisitions, then I would simply ask you to take a look at a map of American Military bases around the world. You will see that in every place and in every conflict America has ever been involved in, she has left military bases behind so that she can continue to exert influence over the local population. The fact that some of these bases are relatively small is of no consequence (though several are anything but small) as this is exactly the same way the Romans conducted affairs; namely by leaving small garrisons behind to remind the population of American military might and then by persuading the local leaders of the monetary and material benefits of co-operation. The only practical difference is that the Romans called it an 'Empire', while you do not. As for the Bosnian situation, I remember that only too well. Indeed I almost needed to go for counselling after seeing some of those horrific images on TV. But remember it took 5 years of seeing these images before politicians acted to do anything - and indeed it was only public opinion and public revulsion that inspired them to act at all. Having said this it is to Tony Blair's eternal credit that in the run up to his election in 1997 he was prepared to commit virtually the entire strength of the British army to resolving this problem - and it was only after he was elected that anyone bothered to do anything. (Indeed that as partly why he was elected in the UK because he promised to act). And again you confuse mistrust of this current Republican party's regional ambitions, with a dislike of America. Just because we have fallen out over a spat with some small time regional dictator doesn't mean we wouldn't be there if the shit ever really did hit the fan. Case and point the French said that if Saddam ever did use WMD, they would personally seek to fry his ass. Really what people mistrust and fear is this 'blueprint for a new American century', because in here it actually states American policy makers ambitions to actively seek to keep its partners economically and militarily weak. It is hardly surprising that there are so few people in the world rushing to sign up to this plan. Q

Mar 19, 2003, 02:28 PM	#170
Dem2k DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 27 Rep Power: 0	Well most British people have gripes with the french during the Falklands war. While the British forces were trying to regain control of the country, we were having to deal with the Argentinean Forces. Who's missiles sunk lots of our navel force. Now these missiles were supplied by the french . Who was supposedly a EU nation while at the time was meant to be on our side. But since that is all done and dusted. Our relationship with France is very good I understand . Also on a side note. The president of France is the only one in the UN to actually of met Saddam face to face. This may explain France's rash notions . Or so thats what Sky-News broadcasts. Though the UK has had a tremendously large amount of arguments converted into wars, in our history. The most historic thing IMHO is when Hitler asked our government to join forces with the Axis . Of course our government rejected this , but it indeed shows that our nation stuck a big thorn in the dictators plans. My gripe is that we didn't act fast enough to save millions of inocents in the Poland. Now back to topic. IMO we cannot leave Iraq as it is. It needs change. It would of been great day if every nation in the UN made the same goal but that wasn't to be. The UN won't die though. But it has been damaged. I have no views on why France would vito any proposal of war, as I have no clue. Maybe a French forum member can shed some insight on this?

Mar 19, 2003, 02:31 PM	#171
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Well I don't know about Hadrian’s Wall Jeff. All I know is that it was a representation of the furthest reaches of Roman power. Try as they might the Romans could never quite defeat the Northern races of this Island. (I'm not sure if it’s fair to call them Scots, as Picts is probably more accurate). But as is the case in all such matters, enmity never really hindered trade. So yes I expect it’s true that even then swords were sold to the enemy. Who knows? All I do know is it’s about time people started learning the lessons of history. Some people however only seem to have a memory that extends as far back as the last presidential speech. As for being disappointed about the UN, what is there to be disappointed about? The UN is made up of individual members, it has no standing army of its own (nor would many conservatives in the US want it to), and all it is able to do is express the will of its members. If the will to act isn't there then the UN is powerless to do anything - other than take the blame for the inaction of its members. What you could say is that you are disappointed at our individual governments level of commitment to the UN, but this is very much a two way sword, because a high proportion of those wars you speak of either were inspired by, or supported by the US. Clearly on such occasions when inaction suited US interests the veto was used in order to prevent the UN from being able to do anything to prevent these conflicts. This is just a crude exercise in deflection. Whenever politicians screw up they always and invariably look for someone else to blame. If they can create a demon, be it the French, or the UN or whatever and whip up enough public distain, this usually serves their purposes very nicely indeed. It is a very old trick, and it seems people are only too willing to still fall for it. Well... like I said... Those who ignore the lessons of history place everyone in deadly peril. I trust our current leaders are more aware of history than they seem... Q Last edited by raid517; Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45 PM.

Mar 19, 2003, 02:56 PM	#172
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	the accuity of hindsight I agree, but I thought it was ten minutes ago, rather than the last speech, ha ha...As for the U.N. well....I remember what Alistair Cooke said about the U.N. you should look at his "Letters from America" the last one (can't remember the thread) gave some good points and brought me up to speed, ha ha....As for the term deflection, I think it is appropriate, albiet your being diplomatic, ha ha...We use the term "deflection" to discribe what happens when excrement hits the fan, ha ha, especially when we throw it..... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 19, 2003, 03:01 PM	#173
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	found it, it's the BBC website... Monday, 17 March, 2003, 10:51 GMT Avoiding the scourge of war Even after 57 years of what I like to think of as gently explanatory talks about America - its people, its ways, its life and government - I still hear from perfectly intelligent people asking questions I thought I answered when I was a stripling, way back in 1946. As an old English lawyer friend of mine asked me earnestly: "How do they handle this in America?" The simple, rude answer was, quite possibly in 50 different ways. But I bridled my rude instincts and said: "Well, it depends where the case is coming up." As you know every state has its own constitution, banking laws, educational system, criminal code. So the procedure might be quite different in Massachusetts, Ohio, California. In the case you're talking about, a young man steals a bag of golf clubs. In one state he might get a lecture and a fine - but since it was his third petty theft, in California he could get 20 years or a life sentence in conformity with their recent law - three strikes and they throw the book at you. "Indeed," was my friend's eloquent comment. So recently I had a very engaging, honest letter asking: "What is Washington like? This city that breeds, according to taste, such noble or loathsome policies - and exactly what is DC, as in 'Washington DC'? A good question and one I suspect many listeners have hesitated to ask because they're not quite sure what it means. Well it means District of Columbia. Yes, but what does that mean? Well, it's a nice story, nice in the literal sense of being a delicate subtle game of politics. When the revolutionary war - the War of Independence - was over, New York city was the first capital of the new republic but pretty soon the men from the farming states resented the strong influence of the businessmen and commercial interests in making new laws. Philadelphia, where the Constitution had been debated and written and produced, seemed a happy suggestion but some Southern states objected, on the correct complaint that Philadelphia - indeed the whole of the state of Pennsylvania - was full of Quakers and they were already full of the urge to abolish slavery. After much long and bitter dissension a compromise was reached. It was agreed that the suspect Philadelphia should nonetheless be the government capital for 10 years and no more. In the meantime to create a home for it Congress decided it should not settle in any state because there'd always be powerful objections one way or another. So Maryland, what was to be known as a border state between north and south, Maryland and its southern neighbour Virginia, agreed to cede together 10 square miles of land lying along both sides of the Potomac River. In 1800, at the end of Philadelphia's 10-year reign, the government moved to the created district, which Congress defined as the District of Columbia. Here it planted a new capital city in what Thomas Jefferson disgustedly called "the Indian swamp in the wilderness." The city was at first a primitive collection of huts and buildings half finished. But it was the nation's capital and proudly named itself after the founding father - Washington DC. Barely above the river level it had a vile climate - rheumy, dank winters and infernal summers - and was for many decades subject to malaria and yellow fever. So Congressmen, treating it as more of a convention city than anything, did brisk business through winter and spring and rushed home as often as possible. But in the beginning George Washington had hired a French architect and engineer who'd been captured during the War of Independence, and he'd drawn up a master plan recalling Versailles - a majestic city, very wide avenues punctuated by grand circles, which were not only graceful but useful for the placement of cannon against an invader. Laughable as that plan might have looked on paper during the first half century it became a reality during the great age of iron, coke, steel after the Civil War and the original was transformed into the beautiful city it is today. Also, while Washington's climate is technically temperate to semi-tropical, the result is an incomparable wealth and range of trees. I shouldn't be surprised if it grew at one end the noble Douglas Fir and at the other something as exotic as the California tree with a bark like the skin of a peach - the manzanita and madrone. A hundred years ago the British ambassador - a learned Scot, James Bryce - wrote: "I know of no great city in Europe that has in its very environs such beautiful scenery as in Rock Creek Park with the broad river in the centre and its rich wooded slopes descending boldly to it." One of the most attractive and leafy parts of Washington is called Georgetown and is the site of an elegant Georgian mansion called Dumbarton House. It was here that Dolly Madison, the president's wife, fled for safety and stayed while the British were burning the White House in the war of 1812. Remember? But this elegant mansion called Dumbarton House is not the birthplace of the United Nations but the place where it was conceived. I mentioned a week or more ago that my latest bed book was one I read when it first came out in 1972, only four years after its author died. it's called The Diaries of Sir Alexander Cadogan. And in view of, as I speak, the breakdown of any unity in the United Nations on the critical matter of Iraq I wanted to go back and find the record of one day in the life of Cadogan which I recall wincing at when I first read about it and which, as things turned out, went to the very heart of the proposed international organisation that President Roosevelt had dubbed "The United Nations". Not until the late summer of 1944, when the Allies - the British, Americans, Canadians and Poles - had invaded Normandy and were plainly on their way to a victory in Europe - Allied advance units were only 12 miles from Paris - was a meeting called in Washington to design the framework of the United Nations. It met during the last steamy days of August and went well into September and the main participants were the American secretary of state, the Soviet ambassador to the US and for Great Britain and her dominions the Permanent Under Secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Alexander Cadogan - a pro if ever there was one in foreign policy and the one man who'd been in on the life and death of the League of Nations. The preliminary agenda assembled as many issues - from the Philippines to Iceland, from China to Trieste - as a Christmas bargain basement. But two issues outweighed everything else. First, the big resounding theme was the voting procedure in the Security Council - the ruling body of this institution, the one set up to prevent or put down acts of aggression anywhere. While the British and the Americans agreed on most ideas the Russian ambassador was simply an onlooker for he was terrified of moving a hair's breadth away from his boss - Stalin in Moscow. Time and again the very fragile foundations of this UN started to crumble. Stalin didn't want France or China brought in as great powers - permanent members of the council. He gave in. He also wanted the big five, as it became, to be able to veto even the discussion of any topic brought up before it. Finally he agreed - dictated would be better - that no action, military action, could ever be taken by the United Nations unless all five permanent members voted together. He publicly agreed with Roosevelt that the United States and the Soviet Union would live happily and vote happily together in all vital matters. Cadogan saw that this pretence was hopeless but essential to any world organisation at that time. He wrote in his diary: "It is a will-o'-the-wisp." The second issue was hardly discussed. it became Article 43 of the charter at San Francisco, which says all members of the UN shall make available to the Security Council on call armed forces, assistance and facilities and specify what sorts and how many arms, weapons, supplies from each nation, and this information shall be "negotiated" as soon as possible. When this idea was brought up at Dumbarton Oaks the America secretary of state reminded Cadogan that only the Congress could declare war and the president had no power to offer anything. The Canadians said "Yes but you'd have to consult the provincial governments." Stalin said - later discovered to be a huge joke - "I tell you what, let's have an international air force." Cadogan found on questioning other nations that they all were getting cold feet about yielding a quota of armed forces. It was a hot potato and it was dropped, picked up at San Francisco and slipped into the charter as something of an embarrassment. In actual fact nobody ever came through with a list, a quota, the offer of a tank, a machine gun, a revolver. Like the previous League, the United Nations had, has had, no international force which could overwhelm any combination of aggressors. It could simply go on chanting the opening sentence of the Charter: "To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." That, for 57 years, has been the theory, the grand wish, but in fact in life since then there have been 250 wars not put down. This early history and the huge and continuing ineffectiveness of the UN as an enforcing power it was conceived to be is at the root of America's attitude to Saddam Hussein. It's the bitter knowledge that the UN, considered as an effective world force in putting down tyrants, aggressors, threats to peace - well, Cadogan came to believe that the United Nations was not stifled in its cradle at San Francisco, it was aborted in Dumbarton House. this is interesting, guess I have been listening to him for years...this seemed relevent..

Mar 19, 2003, 03:47 PM	#174
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,669 Rep Power: 110 System Specs	HUGE EARTHQUAKE IN FRANCE!! SEVERE EARTHQUAKE IN FRANCE March 19, 2003. Today it was reported that severe earthquakes have occurred in 10 different locations in France. The severity was measured in excess of 8 on the Richter Scale. The cause was the 56,681 dead American soldiers buried in French soil rolling over in their graves. According to the American Battle Monuments Commission there are 26,255 Yankee dead from World War I buried in 4 cemeteries in France. There are 30,426 American dead from World War II buried in 6 cemeteries in France. These 56,681 brave American heroes died in their youth to liberate a country which is guilty of shameful unspeakable behavior in the 21st century. May the United States of America never forget their sacrifice as we find ways to forcefully deal with the Godforsaken unappreciative, forgetful country of France! Kind of speaks for itself. This is how MOST Americans feel. 70% to 90% in polls.

Mar 19, 2003, 07:04 PM	#175
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Who ...has been acting shamefully...is something youy will have to wait 10 15 years to have a clue about.....The outcome of this war.....is something neither you or i know anything about.... This war is among other things the outcome of last war just as Sept 11 probably also was since Bin Ladens hatered against Usa was fueelled by American presence in Saudi which led eventually to that he was himself thrown out of Saudi Arabia by his own family. War in itself....does not build anything.This war will not build democracy in Iraq...It does not work that way.Afghanistan is still ruled by Warlords although on paper it is a democracy.....well a democracy in Afganistan....well in fifty years ...maybe... There is an actual possibility that this war will create an even bigger chaos that what we have today.....so when history is written in 15 years.....the heroes....are not sure to be Usa. And...there is no way for you to tell....other than wait ...and see.... You can agree with what is done right now...but....If it is good or bad....well...time will tell. Bluelight

Mar 19, 2003, 07:17 PM	#176
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	history is written by those that conquer not those that were conquered... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 19, 2003, 07:31 PM	#177
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	One might think so but still...last gulf war...was pictured as a major success apart from that Saddam was still in office when it was over...All efforts were justified... Still the outcome...is this war...and most likely Sept 11...so i guess it is a question of which history books one reads...Im talking history in reality not the written one. Our written history has never acclaimed the Palestinians it never acclaimed the SouthAfricans....until they released themselves..etc etc... No matter if Saddam is dead and gone in three weeks the final result of all this might still be worse then were we started off. WE might end up with two wars in one if Turkey messes upo in the north....We might end up with a war that includes Iran...it might not be in two weeks but it is a possibility...in what will be happening in a year..3 years.etc etc... War does not construct.It crushes....construction...is something else.So saying this war will insate democracy....naaahhh....i will not...That is something Iraq..must do themselves... Bluelight

Mar 19, 2003, 08:13 PM	#179
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Mmm well I don't know what all that was supposed to be about the UN Jeff, other than what I pretty much said before about it being able to do anything more than express the will of its members. If that will isn't there, which it often hasn't been, it simply can't act. As you noted, it never quite achieved a standing army of its own... One useful function it can perform is to pass judgment on the actions of its members and decide if they are legal or not. It has done this a great many times. It did it when the Russians invaded Afghanistan and it has done so again as America and the UK invade Iraq. Beyond this, I think expecting any more of it in terms of security matters is simply impractical. There will never be a UN standing army, not least because some whacko Americans believe in something they call a 'one world government', as if a bunch of diplomats had the authority to act in this way. At the best of times they find it hard to ever really agree on that much. But oh well... I guess like you I am disappointed with the UN... I am disappointed that our governments didn't take it more seriously, or commit to it more, or give it the resources it needs to do its job. That is what I find most disappointing of all. However at present its all we have in enabling the people of the world to talk to each other and to reach some kind of understanding - and until someone thinks of something better then I think it would be a genuine mistake to dismiss it. The only other alternative is a world without any co-operation or understanding whatsoever (beyond falling out over the odd issue or so) and that cannot be good for anyone. So I would rather stick with the UN - at least until human beings mature and decide that war is pointless. Sadly though, I think we will wait a very long time for that to happen. On another note I was encouraged by Mr Blair's assertion that he had managed to convince president Bush to abandon his idea of imposing an American military general as dictator of Iraq after the war was over and has instead persuaded him to go for a civilian administration as quickly as possible - and also it was nice to hear that Blair had persuaded him to put the money from the Iraqi oil fields into a trust fund administered by the UN, rather than by a group of powerful American bankers. This sounds at least a tad more like an end vision of Iraq that I could sign up to, as this would stop some of the accusations of piracy and profiteering, although no doubt the new Iraqi government will still be instructed to turn the oil taps on full to drive down world oil prices. And also the fact that Bush has awarded several of the contracts to rebuild Iraq to a number of the companies that helped him get elected doesn't look good, as this means a lot of Bush's friends will still get very rich from this war. Nor is awarding only American companies contracts to rebuild Iraq likely to convince anyone that this was all about the international community acting against terrorism. But oh well... It’s too late to worry about all that now I guess. Now we must get the war out of the way. The recriminations will come later... Q