 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
My position is that the US is the only one that doesn't "wipe their ass with international law". Now it seems that the special interests of the French is more important than backing resolutions upon which the French agreed! |
The French don't apparently agree that "serious consequences" means "invasion by the United States at a time determined by the United States."
And the US has wiped it's ass with international law so many times it's not even funny. When I worked at Lockheed Missiles & Space Company (now Lockheed-Martin), in one of the departments I supported, there was an old ex-USAF bomber jockey who flew B-36's in the '50's. On his office wall, there was an aerial photo of Red Square in Moscow, viewed from the open bomb bay doors of a B-36, with the silhouette of a nuke visible in the racks, just to let them know we could. That ongoing threat process was why the Russkies accelerated their development of the Mig-15, to the -17, -19 and finally the -21. The SA-2 Gammon SAM system and MiG-25 were developed in response to our overflights of their airspace by U-2's and later SR-71s. You think Gary Francis Powers was shot down over NATO territory,  ?
We've committed technical acts of war, piracy, espionage and sabotage during peacetime against dozens of countries. I don't have a real problem with most of that, but it's a bit laughable to say the US is the only country who doesn't wipe our ass with international law. The truth is more that we're the only one who tries to spin international law to claim there's some legitimacy to our actions.
quote:
So, unless the French interests are to determine international law, then the US and our allies will act without it. "International law", in the form of the UN, is, imo, corrupted. |
Yes, as when the US has used it's veto power in the UNSC to protect Israel?  The French were given veto power to use as they see fit.
What's "corrupted?" - the notion that everyone can vote as they see fit and as they believe is consistent with their policy goals, instead of just rubber stamping the US? Why didn't the US call for disarming Hussein when "he gassed his own people?" (despite the DIA conclusion that it was mostly the Iranian gas that did the killing)
Why not? Because that was in 1988, and Saddam was our boy back then.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
Slowwhand, can you tell me where you got that picture from, and where i can find other simular material??
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Most absurd proposition yet.. no, EVER.
Hope she gets bad press for such a stupid thing. Also, it is interesting that the Germans were the first to oppose war, and in terms of their position, the most staunch..n calls yet to boycott Becks, chnage the names of things like German Chocolate Cake, or a boycott on sauernbraten and Oktoberfest.... well, not that interesting..French bashing is an old thing in the US. |
I think a large part of the reason that people in the U.S. are hating France more than Germany is that the Germans have been pretty damned consistent in their position, and haven't vowed to veto any resolution that brings American troops out of the desert within their current term of enlistment. France is seen as having changed their position significantly, and as having ambushed the U.S. To a large extent these views are fairly accurate. Germany may well wish the U.S. as ill as France does, but they are perceived as doing so much more from a position of principal rather than opportunism.
The French foreign minister (Vile..something) was interviewed here last week. He agreed that if the U.S. hadn't built up its troop strength and seriously threatened Baghdad that there would have been no disarmament at all. He also stated that French policy supported the disarmament of Iraq, and that France would veto any resolution that mentioned force. So the U.N. is hopping around on one leg trying to get Iraq to disarm, and France is insistent on kicking that last leg out while trumpeting its commitment to the U.N. remaining upright. At least he was willing to state (if not admit) that France's policy was a bunch of contradictory sound bites. The worst thing he said was the reason that France was trying to stop the war was that they didn't want any American boys to get killed (to a U.S. audience of course). What an insult! France is purposefully delaying the war, which for many reasons is going to increase the war's cost in lives on both sides. U.S. forces lose readiness, suffer heat casualties, training casualties etc. while Iraq digs in and France drags her feet while mouthing platitudes about its love for Americans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
French didn't need it eh?
The Soviets didn't seek UN approval for Hungary, Czechoslovakia, or Aghanistan.
The Chinese didn't seek UN support for Korea.
In fact, until Desert Storm, NOBODY ever sought UN approval for war. |
wrong, lancer.
the korean war was the first time a war was fought under the UN banner.
after the nkoreans invaded skorea, the united states brought the matter to the UNSC; the USSR, in a fit of pique, did not show up to the SC that day.
the resolution enabling the US to organize a UN-backed resistance army was mainly due to that conspicuous absence.
red china, which invaded korea when it became evident that combined UN might was beating back communist aggression, was not a member of the UN at the time. China's seat on the UNSC belonged not to Mao's China, but to the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-03-2003 06:10
ACK!
Attachment: 
|
