Is France starting to get it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Times have changed, as do alliances.. What if members of the security council decided to back NK and say there is no imminent threat. Yet, a few days later the NKeans launch 5 nuclear war heard towards the US, South Korea and Japan?

Then What.. It's too late to start a legal war considering the hundreds of thousand if not millions of deaths. But what you are suggesting is that, if NO UN resolution is reached, a nation must then cop a blow before they can pro-actively defend themselves. Didn't we learn anything from WWII?? was 50 million deaths not enough..

Hardly. Since when is the threat posed by "Rogue States" like North Korea in ANY WAY similar to the threat posed by WW2? Nazi Germany was a superpower after all...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'll sum it up for you since reading the actually document seems to be too much of a challenge:

There are generally two ways in which the US (or any other member country) could be legally going to war with NK (or any other country). Absent of an actual attack by NK (or any other country) or the imminent threat thereof, the key to get a mandate to attack and/or invade NK (or any other country) is to have the UN Security Council find and resolve that this is the appropriate action to restore and/or maintain the world peace. Such resolution would usually be the last step in a long string of diplomatic and other efforts unless an actual act of aggression has occured.

Iraq/Kuwait back in 1990/91 would be a prime example of how it's properly and legally done. Don't I wish daddy Bush would have tought his son a thing or two.

Times have changed, as do alliances.. What if members of the security council decided to back NK and say there is no imminent threat. Yet, a few days later the NKeans launch 5 nuclear war heard towards the US, South Korea and Japan?

Then What.. It's too late to start a legal war considering the hundreds of thousand if not millions of deaths. But what you are suggesting is that, if NO UN resolution is reached, a nation must then cop a blow before they can pro-actively defend themselves. Didn't we learn anything from WWII?? was 50 million deaths not enough..

We invaded Iraq to proactively defend this country? That's ridiculous. Not even the Bush administration wants to claim anymore that Iraq was an imminent threat to this country even though they clearly didn't miss a chance to suggest that prior to going in. Oficially, we invaded Iraq because Saddam dissed a few UN resolutions. Those, however, do not seem mean a thing anyways since times seem to have changed. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Besides, if times have changed, then what are we waisting time in the UN with Iran and North Korea today? Following your logic, we should just invade those two places as well. And Sudan, of course, seeing the hundreds of thousands that are slaughtered under the regime in Khartoum while we're in the business of ridding the world of such regimes.

Lastly, we've learned from WWII - the UN was built on the experiences of WWII.

I finally get it! Iran launches a nuke, kills untold amount of people we then go to U.N to get permission to retaliate?better hope a nuke does'nt hit your neighborhood! we would have to spend six months getting france and germany to okay it!

You only read what you want to read don't you?

Absent of an actual attack by NK (or any other country) or the imminent threat thereof, the key to get a mandate to attack and/or invade NK (or any other country) is to have the UN Security Council find and resolve that this is the appropriate action to restore and/or maintain the world peace. Such resolution would usually be the last step in a long string of diplomatic and other efforts unless an actual act of aggression has occured.

He does.

The thing that doesn't go through the Bush-bot's heads is that our invading Iraq was just as illegal and illegitimate as Saddam's invading Kuwait back in the 90's. They talk about the Kuwaiti's that died during Saddams act of aggression but don't mention once the tens of thousands of Iraqi's that have died because of the illegal act of aggression committed by the Bush administration.

Edited October 30, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Unfortunately, no--just "more of the same".

France hasn't learned to deal with situations since losing Seven Years War in far-flung areas (North America, Sub-continent) to UK.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Through all the talk of Iran,syria,North Korea you have never once CONDEMNED them, only sympathize with all of them!

That's not true. Please point to one post where I sympathize with either North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq or any other dictatorship out there. Just one. You can't because I haven't.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I finally get it! Iran launches a nuke, kills untold amount of people we then go to U.N to get permission to retaliate?better hope a nuke does'nt hit your neighborhood! we would have to spend six months getting france and germany to okay it!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The UN is a failed concept in todays day and age.. Sure it might have worked back when it was setup but is simply failing the world today. The reality is that the world is divided and key players have their own agenda.

Unfortunately, inaccurate. The UN was actually setup on the post-WW2 wreckage of the LN--with no actions to fix what had caused the LN to fail in the first place. So it was (even conceptually) a failure from the get-go!

For example Russia and China will never ever enforce any sanctions against their oil buddies Iran. Therefore nothing will ever get done..

Nothing constructive was ever achieved by the UN or its predecessor LN anyway!

[Carol&Marc 0]

The thing that doesn't go through the Bush-bot's heads is that our invading Iraq was just as illegal and illegitimate as Saddam's invading Kuwait back in the 90's. They talk about the Kuwaiti's that died during Saddams act of aggression but don't mention once the tens of thousands of Iraqi's that have died because of the illegal act of aggression committed by the Bush administration.

This U.N. thing is a total joke and you know it, OIL FOR FOOD? Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of Iraq (quite nice if you ask me) How do you figure Bush would get U.N. charter when they are in the back pocket of Sadam himself! Why did'nt Saddam leave? you guessed it, he knew France, Germany and Russia would vote"NO" this fact proves the U.N. is corrupt, Its funny I actually start to laugh when I type the letters UN! Can you say this?????

UNITED NATIONS "PROTECTOR" OF THE WORLD

A Paris investigative judge has charged the incoming chief executive of Total, the French oil and gas group, with corruption during the scandal-plagued United Nations' oil-for-food programme in Iraq.

Christophe de Margerie, Total's head of exploration and production, was imprisoned for 48 hours, questioned by judicial police and a judge, before being charged with aiding and abetting corruption of foreign officials and misuse of company property.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15348662/ hope this news agency passes your muster?

http://www.state.gov/p/io/fs/2001/3538.htm

The big FOUR loved it when it was a racket!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/26/1048653750482.html

UN big four baulk at renewing oil for food

By Howard Witt

March 27 2003

France, Russia, China and Germany have opened new opposition with the United States over Iraq at the United Nations, baulking at a resolution to authorise emergency shipments of food and medicine to beleaguered Iraqi civilians.

The White House this week is asking the Security Council to approve modifications to the now-suspended UN oil-for-food program that would speed delivery of humanitarian supplies to Iraq and transfer administrative authority to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan until a new Iraqi government is in place.

Mr Annan has endorsed the plan. But France, Russia, China and Germany - nations that successfully blocked the Security Council from authorising the US-led war in Iraq - are opposed.

Diplomats say the four nations, joined by SYRIA, are wary of taking any action that might be seen as offering even implicit UN support for a conflict.

YOU GIVE THE U.N. CREEDENCE?

[Heracles 417]

I think some people just don't get it.

Why would Russia or China ever back or agree with their rival the US, in the UN???

What is sad is that within our own countries we now have people with that same attitude against their own governments. That is, people wanting to discredit, disagree and see it fail at any cost.. As the Arabic saying goes you can have 1,000 enemies on the outside and still be safe yet only 1 enemy on the inside can destroy you..

Being an immigration forum, how would one feel if your partner and kids belittled you on an hourly basis, actually wanted to see you fail and you could not simply leave them or tell them to get out.. This is what I feel is happening in our own countries and it started from the 60's..

Edited October 30, 2006 by Infidel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, if the Un is such a failed concept, then why does the US even continue to be a member to this failure and why does the US have an abassador at that organization? Why is the US turning to the UN to deal with North Korea and Iran? It's futile if one was to believe what you guys say. Is the Bush administration engaged and engaging in futile endeavors?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

So, if the Un is such a failed concept, then why does the US even continue to be a member to this failure and why does the US have an abassador at that organization? Why is the US turning to the UN to deal with North Korea and Iran? It's futile if one was to believe what you guys say. Is the Bush administration engaged and engaging in futile endeavors?

Not only Bush Jr., but every admin so far since Truman.

[Carol&Marc 0]

So, if the Un is such a failed concept, then why does the US even continue to be a member to this failure and why does the US have an abassador at that organization? Why is the US turning to the UN to deal with North Korea and Iran? It's futile if one was to believe what you guys say. Is the Bush administration engaged and engaging in futile endeavors?

Thanks for asking? The U.S. is proving the impotence of the U.N. this very moment! Examples: North Korea and Iran, everyday that the U.N. twidells their thumbs, is a day closer to them having nukes or launching them!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, if the Un is such a failed concept, then why does the US even continue to be a member to this failure and why does the US have an abassador at that organization? Why is the US turning to the UN to deal with North Korea and Iran? It's futile if one was to believe what you guys say. Is the Bush administration engaged and engaging in futile endeavors?

Thanks for asking? The U.S. is proving the impotence of the U.N. this very moment! Examples: North Korea and Iran, everyday that the U.N. twidells their thumbs, is a day closer to them having nukes or launching them!

I thought it was already proven? Which is it?

[Carol&Marc 0]

So, if the Un is such a failed concept, then why does the US even continue to be a member to this failure and why does the US have an abassador at that organization? Why is the US turning to the UN to deal with North Korea and Iran? It's futile if one was to believe what you guys say. Is the Bush administration engaged and engaging in futile endeavors?

Thanks for asking? The U.S. is proving the impotence of the U.N. this very moment! Examples: North Korea and Iran, everyday that the U.N. twidells their thumbs, is a day closer to them having nukes or launching them!

I thought it was already proven? Which is it?

Pick one! Both conclude at the same place!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

So, if the Un is such a failed concept, then why does the US even continue to be a member to this failure and why does the US have an abassador at that organization? Why is the US turning to the UN to deal with North Korea and Iran? It's futile if one was to believe what you guys say. Is the Bush administration engaged and engaging in futile endeavors?

Thanks for asking? The U.S. is proving the impotence of the U.N. this very moment! Examples: North Korea and Iran, everyday that the U.N. twidells their thumbs, is a day closer to them having nukes or launching them!

I thought it was already proven? Which is it?

Pick one! Both conclude at the same place!

Unfortunately, quite true.

Basically, UN was formed from wreckage of LN WITHOUT fixing the problems that led to LN's failure.

The analogy would be:

Following an earthquake, a highrise building collapsed. Afterwards, the RUBBLE of the fallen building was used as the materiel to erect a new one IN THE SAME SPOT.

While I am not a construction engineer, it is obvious that such an action would be extremely stupid--yet the equivalent was done in forming the UN!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, if the Un is such a failed concept, then why does the US even continue to be a member to this failure and why does the US have an abassador at that organization? Why is the US turning to the UN to deal with North Korea and Iran? It's futile if one was to believe what you guys say. Is the Bush administration engaged and engaging in futile endeavors?

Thanks for asking? The U.S. is proving the impotence of the U.N. this very moment! Examples: North Korea and Iran, everyday that the U.N. twidells their thumbs, is a day closer to them having nukes or launching them!

I thought it was already proven? Which is it?

Pick one! Both conclude at the same place!

How so? If it's already proven, then you're suggesting that the administration is deliberately engaging in a futile exercise. According to you, this puts this nation in danger. Is the administration deliberately putting this nation in danger by entertaining the futile exercise of engaging the UN on Iran and North Korea?