14-03-2003 12:21									#271
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Now you're just not making any sense. They knew what was being discussed. The deliberately didn't attend for a long while because they too didn't believe in the legitimacy of the SC.

And look what happened to them.

	14-03-2003 12:22									#272
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The Yanks won't stop attending though. They have a good example to go by. They'll just ignore the UN for their own initiatives.

	14-03-2003 12:23									#273
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Now, either this will: delegitimise the SC

or

Delegitimise the US

Now, given world reaction to this crisis, what do you think will be the case?

	14-03-2003 12:24									#274
	Suffering from ads?

They may pay attention when half the nations on the planet sent troops to oppose them in some theatre or other, but how likely is that?

	14-03-2003 12:25									#275
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Now, either this will: delegitimise the SC or Delegitimise the US Now, given world reaction to this crisis, what do you think will be the case?

The SC is toast. Without either the US or the Russians backing it, it is a chamber of feebleness.

China could be a wild card, but the Yanks still have a veto.

	14-03-2003 12:25									#276
	Support Apolyton

NYE: you're missing the point.

They might not need the SC to back them up militarily, but up to now they've gained a lot from keeping a veneer of legitimacy to their actions.

The rest of the world seems to trust the UN more than the US. This might not matter overmuch, but it certainly doesn't help the US.

	14-03-2003 12:30									#277
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The USSR boycotted the SC over the row over China's seat.

"They may pay attention when half the nations on the planet sent troops to oppose them in some theatre or other"

There are many other ways to spit in the soup.

"it is a chamber of feebleness."

Law without might is ridiculous, yes. Might without law is tyranny.

I prefer ridicule over tyranny, given no other choice.

	14-03-2003 12:31									#278
	Got spare money?

You mean Europe trusts the UN more than the US. To be honest, the UN is a good place for them without any power to have a say with them that do.

The only nation, or group of nations, to ever gain substantially from the UN was the United States and the other members of the Atlantic Alliance. The Russians sure as hell never did.

Without the US Army to back up its resolutions, the SC is worse than a paper tiger. It is irrelevant.

	14-03-2003 12:34									#279
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: You mean Europe trusts the UN more than the US. To be honest, the UN is a good place for them without any power to have a say with them that do

I mean the rest of the world.

Europe, Africa, SA, Asia.

The US can run roughshod over anybody it wants to. They're welcome to it. But when they stop listening to world opinion, they hurt themselves.

So they can ridicule the SC all they want. They're just digging their own grave. I never thought the fall of the American Empire would come less than a century from now, but the way they're running things has led me to believe I might live to see it.

	14-03-2003 12:38									#280
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Why do you equate the desires of rest of the world with those of Europe?

The end of Pax America is very far off, indeed. I think feelings right now might be a little high-strung.

	14-03-2003 12:53									#281
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Frogger NYE: you're missing the point. The rest of the world seems to trust the UN more than the US. This might not matter overmuch, but it certainly doesn't help the US.

They trust the U.N. more than the U.S. when they want inaction, and conversely they trust the U.S. more than the U.N. when they want action.

	14-03-2003 12:53									#282
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Yup. And those feelings are leading the US to say and do things that will have consequences once the anger's past.

Bush told Mexico a few days ago that he'd "discipline" them if they didn't vote with him.

Gives you some sense of it.

France isn't doing itself any favours either, but bringing France down with it isn't exactly a notable American achievement...

	14-03-2003 12:54									#283
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Sikander They trust the U.N. more than the U.S. when they want inaction, and conversely they trust the U.S. more than the U.N. when they want action.

I think you'll have to provide some examples of this...

	14-03-2003 12:55									#284
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Because I've yet to see a majority world opinion against "UN imperialism"...

	14-03-2003 13:08									#285
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Yup. And those feelings are leading the US to say and do things that will have consequences once the anger's past. Bush told Mexico a few days ago that he'd "discipline" them if they didn't vote with him. Gives you some sense of it.

If the U.S. decides that the U.N.S.C. is a waste of time, then that organization will indeed remain useless. This reduces France's influence significantly on the world stage, while U.S. power is more broadly based and diminished less by this eventuality. For this administration one could make an arguement that this outcome isn't completely unwelcome, though I'm sure that they aren't enjoying the thrashing they are getting at the moment in the public eye.

quote: Originally posted by Frogger France isn't doing itself any favours either, but bringing France down with it isn't exactly a notable American achievement...

It seems to be more of a French achievement, as much as the administration would like to take credit for it. Very little of what they've thrown at the French government has stuck, but their (the French Government) own statements and actions have done them quite a bit of harm, Chirac's most of all.

	14-03-2003 13:11									#286
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: It seems to be more of a French achievement, as much as the administration would like to take credit for it. Very little of what they've thrown at the French government has stuck, but their (the French Government) own statements and actions have done them quite a bit of harm, Chirac's most of all.

And vice versa.

My point is that you've gotten into a *****-fight with France. And you're both taking a big damn hit because of it.

The only one who's being hurt more is Blair (I'm not sure if the UK as a whole is taking the same sort of pummelling)

	14-03-2003 13:14									#287
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Sikander: IMO, the US gained a hell of a lot by being able to hide behind the UN and NATO on a lot of big issues. Now they've said they don't need the UN, and have come close to saying that about NATO.

It doesn't mean they can't invade Iraq, but it does make me question the long-term viability of an interventionist foreign policy without somebody else to share the blame with...

	14-03-2003 13:14									#288
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger I think you'll have to provide some examples of this...

Who is expected to bring about a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the situation in Korea, or even to broker an agreement between Pakistan and India? It isn't the U.N., which has had some involvement in each of these situations as more or less a monitor of the status quo. When the status quo isn't good enough for them people look to the U.S. over the U.N.

	14-03-2003 13:15									#289
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The UK is taking no kind of pummelling.

As far as Imperialism is concerned, that is a catch phrase of the left. It means 'we don't like these big meanies so we will label them Imperialists'. btw, no one outside of the left listens to those you use it.

Last edited by notyoueither on 14-03-2003 at 13:20

	14-03-2003 13:24									#290
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Sikander: IMO, the US gained a hell of a lot by being able to hide behind the UN and NATO on a lot of big issues. Now they've said they don't need the UN, and have come close to saying that about NATO. It doesn't mean they can't invade Iraq, but it does make me question the long-term viability of an interventionist foreign policy without somebody else to share the blame with...

IMO the long term viability of an interventionist policy is suspect regardless. I disagree about the U.S. reliance to any significant degree on the U.N. Iraq is one of the few issues of real importance to U.S. policy that has been entered into in partnership with the U.N. The disintegration of Yugoslavia was eventually a NATO affair, but of little importance to the U.S. national interest. I'm at a loss to come up with any other issues where the U.S. has relied on the political cover of the U.N. or NATO in order to pursue its own aims. What sort of things are you thinking of?

	14-03-2003 13:42									#291
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

First and foremost the Cold War's conduct, and the openning of the Eastern Bloc to market-based economics (which was, of course, of vital interest to Europe as well, but that's beside the point). The US relied very heavily on getting a broad base of support from NATO countries. Countries in the rest of the world (i.e. developing nations) which aren't run by out-and-out dictators do care a great deal about this sort of thing (a broad base of support for any action), and these nations' opinions will come to play a greater and greater role in the future.

One of the best things the Euros have done for themselves is regain influence with former colonies who could have ended up being their most bitter enemies. Even France and Algeria have started to speak to each other civilly again. And these countries might not like to see naked unilateralism. When you're a small power, that leaves you feeling vulnerable.

	14-03-2003 13:47									#292
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Frogger First and foremost the Cold War's conduct, and the openning of the Eastern Bloc to market-based economics (which was, of course, of vital interest to Europe as well, but that's beside the point). The US relied very heavily on getting a broad base of support from NATO countries.

You're joking, right?

Europe was number 1 on the Red Army's dance card. The Americans gained what by getting a bunch of countries to defend themselves from whom?

Broad base of support? That was hard to get, I'll bet. Well, in the case of the French it was, actually. Now that you mention it. Hmmmm.

	14-03-2003 13:51									#293
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

quote: which was, of course, of vital interest to Europe as well, but that's beside the point

I mentioned that the Euros needed the US (a hell of a lot more, when it came to the Red Army than the US needed them).

The point is not that it was hard to get Germany and Italy to agree to troops on their soil but that the US benefitted from having so much of the first world with it when it cam to the hearts and minds of people half a world away from the front lines.

Now those folks have to choose, and a lot of the more democratic ones are choosing Europe.

	14-03-2003 13:57									#294
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

From where? Do you think that people in Korea and Japan are favouring an 'ignore it, it'll go away' policy toward dictators with WMD?

Sure, free people will normally say 'what? Peace? Sure, that's a good thing.' Will they actually give a rat's petutty a year from now that the US removed Saddam? I doubt it.

Right now we are in the heat of the moment in a very heated discussion within the West. I seriously doubt whether this all will register on the average mind in New Delhi or Rio a year from now.

	14-03-2003 14:31									#295
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Frogger First and foremost the Cold War's conduct, and the openning of the Eastern Bloc to market-based economics (which was, of course, of vital interest to Europe as well, but that's beside the point). The US relied very heavily on getting a broad base of support from NATO countries. Countries in the rest of the world (i.e. developing nations) which aren't run by out-and-out dictators do care a great deal about this sort of thing (a broad base of support for any action), and these nations' opinions will come to play a greater and greater role in the future.

While I agree that NATO and to a much lesser extent the U.N. were important tools in U.S. Cold War policy, the end of the Cold War has diminished their importance to a large extent. Even during the Cold War we worked both within and without these organizations depending on the need and the deed. When these organizations seemed likely to be more trouble than they were worth in regard to a particular issue (which is extremely common in a large multilateral organization), then we simply formed a coalition of the willing and went on.

Today there is only one "crusade" with any traction, and that is the War on Terror. Unfortunately for the multilateralists, it doesn't lend itself to these sorts of organizations because:

A) Preventing terrorists from murdering people isn't all that controversial outside the Islamic world

B) This sort of intelligence oriented warfare doesn't lend itself to multilateral operations nearly so well as it does to unilateral or bilateral operations.

Thus it isn't all that hard for the U.S. to convince the world that it really is in Afghanistan because it wants to protect itself, and it isn't necessary to have numerous NATO elements scattered around the globe supporting governments who are cooperating in the war. These governments are happier only sharing their secrets and developing a relationship with one country. It is simpler and more secure.

So while I agree that these organizations were important during the Cold War, I think the importance of NATO is trending down severely, while the importance of the U.N. (the weaker of the two by far) perhaps holding steady somewhere around "Sometimes Relevent".

	14-03-2003 14:42									#296
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Now those folks have to choose, and a lot of the more democratic ones are choosing Europe.

Well we'll see about that. Sure most countries don't give a rat's a$$ about Iraq, so they vote for the status quo. When they need something to be done rather than obstructed, they'll support the U.S. If the world trends more and more toward democracy and tolerance, then the need for a country like the U.S. will be less and less.

	14-03-2003 14:51									#297
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'd given up on this thread (I hate long discussions that grow by pages every time I look away) but that last sentence made my day.

See you in my sig...

	14-03-2003 15:01									#298
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger I'd given up on this thread (I hate long discussions that grow by pages every time I look away) but that last sentence made my day. See you in my sig...

I thought carefully about it before I posted it. Let's hope that it works out that way, rather than the world trending toward more nuclear standoffs, sabre rattling, suicide bombing, crusading and bio-terrorism. It looks like it can go either way, especially in such a short period as the 30-40 years I might live to see.

	14-03-2003 15:13									#299
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Frogger I'd given up on this thread (I hate long discussions that grow by pages every time I look away) but that last sentence made my day. See you in my sig...

Maybe you should think carefully about what he said, and why the need for a democratic tough guy might go away.

	14-03-2003 16:31									#300
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Sikander:

"If the world trends more and more toward democracy and tolerance, then the need for a country like the U.S. will be less and less."

What exactly do you mean by that "need" ?