French call for stronger EU to keep America in check

[CSM]

You've got a point!!!

"The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq.

The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'."
http://www.sundayherald.com/31710

It is all in how you present it, isn't it. Crafty, but you could have posted this from the article as well:

Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991.

The article also does not mention the fact that France and Germany were supplying arms to Iraq even after the first Gulf War....

 

[j07950]

It is all in how you present it, isn't it. Crafty, but you could have posted this from the article as well:

Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991.

The article also does not mention the fact that France and Germany were supplying arms to Iraq even after the first Gulf War....

Was I implying otherwise?

 

[CSM]

I agree that the UN is weak but no one is making a move foward to do something about it ...

So I ask again, where are the European nations and their leadership? why aren't THEY stepping up to the plate?

 

[nosarcasm]

we stepped up in 39. Wasnt welcomed :crutch:

 

[CSM]

Was I implying otherwise?

I do believe you were implying otherwise. The paragraph you chose to quote was an attempt to show that the US was implicit....I suspect you thought that none here would actually go read the article.

If I am wrong, I apologize, but the tactic displayed here is very common and you would not be the first to try it.

 

[j07950]

So I ask again, where are the European nations and their leadership? why aren't THEY stepping up to the plate?

Because the UN is the one suppose to take the decsions, as soon as it says let's go europe will follow, but no one wants to take responsability, I'll agree that maybee they should.
But that would be like the US going to Irak without the UN approaval...

 

[dilloduck]

That's right but where are the weapons? New York and LA have more illegal weapons circulating than in Irak. (That's only being sarcastic but still)

you're sinking into the liberal quagmire of lies and resorting to sacasm ???

learn something---you are a waste off effort

 

[j07950]

I do believe you were implying otherwise. The paragraph you chose to quote was an attempt to show that the US was implicit....I suspect you thought that none here would actually go read the article.

If I am wrong, I apologize, but the tactic displayed here is very common and you would not be the first to try it.

I wasn't, otherwise I would have just pasted:
The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'."

and not named other european nations. I know France and Germany have a lot of faults in this, I'm not backing away from that. Honnestly

 

[CSM]

Because the UN is the one suppose to take the decsions, as soon as it says let's go europe will follow, but no one wants to take responsability, I'll agree that maybee they should.
But that would be like the US going to Irak without the UN approaval...

Now isn't that convenient! Europe can absolve itself of responsibility because the UN has not decided to take action, yet the US is somehow resposnible because it wont take action.

Maybe the US has learned its lesson and is waiting for UN and European leadership regarding Dafur?

 

[j07950]

Now isn't that convenient! Europe can absolve itself of responsibility because the UN has not decided to take action, yet the US is somehow resposnible because it wont take action.

Maybe the US has learned its lesson and is waiting for UN and European leadership regarding Dafur?

LOL
I never said the US is responsible for not taking action, if you read correctly I said everyone is at fault, europe as well... Read what I actually write.

 

[CSM]

LOL
I never said the US is responsible for not taking action, if you read correctly I said everyone is at fault, europe as well... Read what I actually write.

here is what you stated:

If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...

I don't see anywhere in this statement where you mention any other nation except the US. Perhaps you were thinking it, but this American cannot read minds across the internet.

 

[j07950]

here is what you stated:

If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...

I don't see anywhere in this statement where you mention any other nation except the US. Perhaps you were thinking it, but this American cannot read minds across the internet.

Did I not write: I've talked about Darfur before and said it wasn't only the US' problem, that europe wasn't doing it's share, but it's up to the UN, they are the ones not doing what needs to be done.
I never said the US caused somalia's poverty, in no way was I saying this. Only that more should have been done.

I didn't want to imply US were at fault for Darfur, it's an example of countries where things need to be done, where things should have been done, before Irak for example

 

[dilloduck]

Did I not write: I've talked about Darfur before and said it wasn't only the US' problem, that europe wasn't doing it's share, but it's up to the UN, they are the ones not doing what needs to be done.
I never said the US caused somalia's poverty, in no way was I saying this. Only that more should have been done.

I didn't want to imply US were at fault for Darfur, it's an example of countries where things need to be done, where things should have been done, before Irak for example

Why---so all the arms suppliers could get rich?

 

[j07950]

Why---so all the arms suppliers could get rich?

Whether they get rich in Irak or another country they will still get rich no matter what, that's not the important issue here.
I think people dying is more important than arm suppliers getting richer

 

[CSM]

Whether they get rich in Irak or another country they will still get rich no matter what, that's not the important issue here.
I think people dying is more important than arm suppliers getting richer

On this point we can agree.

I take it from your last few postings then that you feel the UN is ineffective since they have not taken matters on Dafur, Somalia, etc under consideration nor asked for action regarding these countries?

 

[no1tovote4]

Because the UN is the one suppose to take the decsions, as soon as it says let's go europe will follow, but no one wants to take responsability, I'll agree that maybee they should.
But that would be like the US going to Irak without the UN approaval...

No, that came down to going without French and Russian approval. Amazingly they were taking bribes from Saddam while they voted for and against it (by threatening drastic measures but never saying what they may be). With allies like those we don't need enemies.

 

[j07950]

On this point we can agree.

I take it from your last few postings then that you feel the UN is ineffective since they have not taken matters on Dafur, Somalia, etc under consideration nor asked for action regarding these countries?

Totally...It's up to the UN or else up to all the important nations to decide for united action in Darfur...

 

[CSM]

Totally...It's up to the UN or else up to all the important nations to decide for united action in Darfur...

Good ... another point we can agree on. The UN is ineffective.

Why, then, should the US (or any other nation, for that matter) even consider the UN as fulfillng a global leadership role?

 

[freeandfun1]

All this UN shit is bunk. When the UN does send troops, who ends up going? The majority of the troops and equipment ends up being American and we end up paying the bulk of the tab. So why the fuck do we need the UN? We don't need them, they need US. I am so sick of hearing "the UN didn't authorize.... blah, blah, blah....." So the US' military should be beholden to the UN? I think not.

 

[CSM]

We have agreed on two points so far:

1) people dying is more important an issue than which corporation gets rich

and

2) The Un is ineffective in dealing with the issues of people dying (specifically inside soveriegn nations such as Dafur)