French call for stronger EU to keep America in check

[Merlin1047]

Oh goodie. Another Euroweenie on the premises.

I do love their constant call for unanimity, UN approval and united actions. If you read between the lines you'll discover that all this is nothing more than bullshit. Euroweenies don't want to do anything about terrorism or genocide. They're afraid that diverting government funds into other areas might cut down their socialist benefits. Also they're afraid that their armed forces will be revealed as ineffective and inadequate. So their only contribution to the effort is to bitch whenever we do something without their "permission".

The call for working through the UN or getting approval and cooperation from the EU is simply code for doing nothing. After all, doing nothing, making excuses, ignoring mass murder, kissing the asses of dictators and bitching about Americans are the only things that Euroweenies are really very good at.

 

[j07950]

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.

Like the French and Russian really needed the little money Saddam could bribe them with, come on... You should have read news press outside the US to understand why, France like many other nations are tired of war and wanted to see if it couldn't solve the problems through diplomacy and even said it would be ready for action as a last result. The last result being finding proof of weapons of mass destruction etc...

 

[CSM]

Like the French and Russian really needed the little money Saddam could bribe them with, come on... You should have read news press outside the US to understand why, France like many other nations are tired of war and wanted to see if it couldn't solve the problems through diplomacy and even said it would be ready for action as a last result. The last result being finding proof of weapons of mass destruction etc...

Little money???? I would not consider billions of dollars "little money". Maybe it is a paltry sum for you wealthy Europeans, though.

 

[no1tovote4]

Like the French and Russian really needed the little money Saddam could bribe them with, come on... You should have read news press outside the US to understand why, France like many other nations are tired of war and wanted to see if it couldn't solve the problems through diplomacy and even said it would be ready for action as a last result. The last result being finding proof of weapons of mass destruction etc...

Diplomacy does not mean undermining the UN's Oil for Food program for personal riches of the diplomat. (That is where the bribes were). Thus undermining the very organization you are attempting to support with this thread. Taking the money then voting against it made it clear that France and Russia were willing to directly go against the UN sanctions simply to undermine the US. In order to create a "counterbalance". As I said before, there is no need for enemies when we have "allies" like those.

 

[j07950]

Little money???? I would not consider billions of dollars "little money". Maybe it is a paltry sum for you wealthy Europeans, though.

Get me a link for this I'm interested...
As for the UN I agree it's inefective but until it is decided that they should be disolved they are still in charge of world order, not the US. How can the US be legitimate in the wars it wants to conduct if it doesn't go through the UN (even if it is inefective). Other Nations are still part of the UN and working along with it, like in Kosovo and many other places... That means that not looking for UN approval or guidance is dissing the rest of the world.

 

[no1tovote4]

Get me a link for this I'm interested...
As for the UN I agree it's inefective but until it is decided that they should be disolved they are still in charge of world order, not the US. How can the US be legitimate in the wars it wants to conduct if it doesn't go through the UN (even if it is inefective). Other Nations are still part of the UN and working along with it, like in Kosovo and many other places... That means that not looking for UN approval or guidance is dissing the rest of the world.

We cannot allow the UN to set our foreign policy. Simply they are not part of the US government and only the US government can set the foreign policy of the US. We already know the UN is corrupt and will not even attempt to correct it as the corruption goes all the way to the top (Kofi Anan's son was one of the worst offenders in the Oil for Food scandal.) Not only that but many countries such as France are working directly against the US. Why would we want to have them set policy for us. We cannot be a sovereign nation and beg permission at the same time.

 

[CSM]

Get me a link for this I'm interested...
As for the UN I agree it's inefective but until it is decided that they should be disolved they are still in charge of world order, not the US. How can the US be legitimate in the wars it wants to conduct if it doesn't go through the UN (even if it is inefective). Other Nations are still part of the UN and working along with it, like in Kosovo and many other places... That means that not looking for UN approval or guidance is dissing the rest of the world.

I disagree! The UN is NOT in charge of world order in any way shape or form!
No sovereign nation has subverted it's authority or responsibility to the UN, nor should they. The US, just like any other nation, is responsible for it's own security; it has the right to make treaties as it sees fit, engage in global trade as it see fit, and yes, even wage war as it sees fit. As for dissing the rest of the world...the rest of the world has little or no trouble dissing the US! In some cases, the US does deserve criticism, but then what nation does not? The rest of the world does not have US interests at heart, and, in fact, in many cases, desires to subvert US interests to achieve their own ends.

 

[j07950]

We cannot allow the UN to set our foreign policy. Simply they are not part of the US government and only the US government can set the foreign policy of the US. We already know the UN is corrupt and will not even attempt to correct it as the corruption goes all the way to the top (Kofi Anan's son was one of the worst offenders in the Oil for Food scandal.) Not only that but many countries such as France are working directly against the US. Why would we want to have them set policy for us. We cannot be a sovereign nation and beg permission at the same time.

The UN is not going to tell you how to run your country, that is what sovereignty is...but foreign policies that have an effect on other countries is a world affaire, you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus; even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.

 

[CSM]

Get me a link for this I'm interested...
As for the UN I agree it's inefective but until it is decided that they should be disolved they are still in charge of world order, not the US. How can the US be legitimate in the wars it wants to conduct if it doesn't go through the UN (even if it is inefective). Other Nations are still part of the UN and working along with it, like in Kosovo and many other places... That means that not looking for UN approval or guidance is dissing the rest of the world.

HERE IS A START:

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power
by Carrie Satterlee
WebMemo #217


February 28, 2003 - Updated, April 1, 2003 | |



France
France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2]
In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion.
France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.[5]
In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.[6]
More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations.[7] Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons.
Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.[8]
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.[9]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

 

[no1tovote4]

We are not telling you how to run your country, that is what sovereignty is...but foreign policies that have an effect on other countries is a world affaire, you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus; even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.

Um, yes you are. You attempt to tell me that we should ask permission before working for our own security.

"you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus"

You cannot go around telling a sovereign nation how to conduct matters of its own security. We listened to advice and chose our own course. You get upset because we do not subject ourselves to the rule of a foreign power, the UN. One which France attempts to use as a controlling factor over the US, brandishing it as if that was not specifically making one subject to another power. Foreign policy is one way that countries have sovereignty, they make treaties, conduct trade, and make war all for their own benefit.

This consensus is not something any sovereign nation should concede to when working for the security of its own borders and citizens.

 

[CSM]

The UN is not going to tell you how to run your country, that is what sovereignty is...but foreign policies that have an effect on other countries is a world affaire, you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus; even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.

Again, I disagree. Legitimate international consensus (as you call it) is not nor has ever been a requirement for any nation engaging in international affairs. Treaties between countries do not need the blessing of the UN or any country not participating in said treaties.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The UN is not going to tell you how to run your country,

They try.

that is what sovereignty is..

Sovereignty? The u.n. doesn't believe in sovereignty. They believe the era of nation states it's just a phase to be moved through on the road to global communism. They will tell you so when they think you're one of them.

.but foreign policies that have an effect on other countries is a world affaire, you can't go around and decide on your own what you want to do to or in other countries which are for that matter suppose to be Soverign states without a legitimate International concessus;

Sure you can. watch us.

even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.

The u.n. makes no distinction between countries with freedom and civil rights and those under strict dictatorship. That's why it's failed. It has no MORAL compass.

 

[no1tovote4]

even if the UN is corrupt, it's the people who govern it which are corrupt, not what the UN is suppose to stand for. Get rid of the people running the UN if that's essential.

Impossible, the corruption goes throughout all levels of the organization. When Kofi Annan is allowed to block investigations into something his son was hired to lead in order to attempt to protect himself and his son it is clear that there is no more hope for this sad organization to ever become the solid world leadership that they wish to be. We cannot trust them, and if we give them any money we should expect it to be embezzled and lost by an inept, corrupt, and ineffectual organization. I would not donate a dime through any UN organization now that I have seen what they do with the money.

If you want to attempt to fix it you would have to begin from the ground up.

 

[j07950]

Um, yes you are. You attempt to tell me that we should ask permission before working for our own security.



You cannot go around telling a sovereign nation how to conduct matters of its own security. We listened to advice and chose our own course. You get upset because we do not subject ourselves to the rule of a foreign power, the UN. One which France attempts to use as a controlling factor over the US, brandishing it as if that was not specifically making one subject to another power. Foreign policy is one way that countries have sovereignty, they make treaties, conduct trade, and make war all for their own benefit.

This consensus is not something any sovereign nation should concede to when working for the security of its own borders and citizens.

Irak was not a threat to you so asking for UN aproval was the least you could do. Irak was a world Issue, not an american, whether UN is corrupt or whether France and other nations for that matter are...they should still have gone through the UN. Irak saddly looks like an attack on another nation even if some fo the thoughts behind it were good. It's the way you go on about these things that are the problem. It really is a shame.

 

[j07950]

Impossible, the corruption goes throughout all levels of the organization. When Kofi Anan is allowed to block investigations into something his son was hired to lead in order to attempt to protect himself and his son it is clear that there is no more hope for this sad organization to ever become the solid world leadership that they wish to be. We cannot trust them, and if we give them any money we should expect it to be embezzled and lost by an inept, corrupt, and ineffectual organization. I would not donate a dime through any UN organization now that I have seen what they do with the money.

If you want to attempt to fix it you would have to begin from the ground up.

I agree, that's why maybee everyone should be fired at the UN and restarted. Everything is corrupt these days, it's such a shame really.

 

[j07950]

Got to go but I'll be back soon, I enjoy these debates, I'm learning a lot. Hope you are too in wome way or another.

 

[no1tovote4]

Irak was not a threat to you so asking for UN aproval was the least you could do. Irak was a world Issue, not an american, whether UN is corrupt or whether France and other nations for that matter are...they should still have gone through the UN. Irak saddly looks like an attack on another nation even if some fo the thoughts behind it were good. It's the way you go on about these things that are the problem. It really is a shame.

As I said before, it is the region that is the threat not specifically Iraq. By working to surround the strongest of those countries that is not Democratic with Democratically elected governments we strengthen our ability to deal with Iran without creating a much larger and more costly war. It is an attempt to deal with the strongest nation by other means than war.

Iraq paid for suicide bombers to blow up our allies in Isreal, Iraq gave money to Hamas. This is a nation that supported international terrorism and is a legitimate target in a War on Terror, regardless of how much you want them not to be so long as they give money to terrorists they are a threat to the US and her allies.

 

[CSM]

Irak was not a threat to you so asking for UN aproval was the least you could do. Irak was a world Issue, not an american, whether UN is corrupt or whether France and other nations for that matter are...they should still have gone through the UN. Irak saddly looks like an attack on another nation even if some fo the thoughts behind it were good. It's the way you go on about these things that are the problem. It really is a shame.

IN YOUR OPINION Iraq was not a threat to the US. Obviously, US leadership thought otherwise. I am glad the US leadership chose not to entrust our national security to what you have already agreed was an ineffective institution.

The way we go about things are a shame, IN YOUR OPINION. I am not shamed by it at all.

 

[no1tovote4]

Got to go but I'll be back soon, I enjoy these debates, I'm learning a lot. Hope you are too in wome way or another.

Oh, I am. I enjoy this as well.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Everything is corrupt these days, it's such a shame really.

Yes. This fact makes the left wing tendency toward building larger and more authoritarian hierarchies especially stupid.